Category: Communications

Comparing the EU blogging platforms

EUobserver have taken a leaf out of Euractiv‘s book and launched a blogging platform. It looks nice, but I’m not sure they’re going about it the right way. As I’ve written before, Blogactiv is a great resource, but I believe it could be even better if it was an aggregator that took in posts from blogs set up elsewhere rather than forcing bloggers to set up shop on the Blogactiv platform, as this no doubt alienates some bloggers (established ones in particular). EUobserver have actually gone one step further by having a by invitation only policy i.e. not even allowing people to set up a blog (unless it’s really well hidden – in which case, sorry EUobserver). This approach, plus the fact that they’re not doing anything differently from Blogactiv, I think will mean that their effort won’t take off.

Not convinced? Blogginportal.eu is an aggregator that pulls in material from blogs that in some way cover EU related affairs. It was set up in people’s spare time, it’s still in beta, and doesn’t get any traffic via established news portals like EUobserver and Euractiv. Nonetheless, it’s been linkedblogging-platforms to 300+ times although it was launched less than a month ago (see left). EUoberserver has no link:tos yet (guess I may be first with this post – and credit, they’ve just started) and Blogactiv have managed just 1,570 in over a year.

Sure, links referring to a site isn’t a scientific measure of a site’s success, plus the bloggers whose own content is fed to blogginportal.eu (me included) will probably provide the bulk of links in the google search.

Nonetheless, I strongly believe that the aggregator approach will win hands down in the long run.

Retailers setting the standards

I was told today that a German supermarket chain refuses to purchase fruit and vegetables unless they contain 70% fewer pesticides residues than the maximum residue levels recommended by the EU (looked it up and it seems it’s more than one.)

It’s easy to see why they do it as it’s a win-win for them. While their customers appreciate that they are looking out for them, they don’t actually lose out on any count: in the case of massive retailers, as supermarket chains tend to be, the pressure is on the suppliers to provide whatever they want, at their own cost.

Some observations:

  • It seems that retailers are increasingly “showing that they care” by going beyond what regulation requires of them.
  • In doing so they are dictating the pace of regulation, meaning that rather than play catch-up with regulation, they are setting the agenda. Regulators want to show that they care as much as a voter’s local hypermarket and so often step up to ensure that stringent regulation is put in place that matches that which retailers are doing. And the cycle continues.
  • As mentioned above, it’s easy to see why they do it: 1) consumer sensibilities being what they are, retailers need to show that they care about their concerns – health, safety and environment above all; 2) most of the cost of this falls onto suppliers who dream of getting a deal with Tesco or Carrefour etc. and will do whatever it takes to please.

Is this a good thing? Potentially, yes. The highest standards for health, safety, protection of our surroundings and so on is pretty high on most of our wish-lists. However, it’s easy to see this getting a little out of hand i.e. a little too political. I don’t have a dozen case studies at my fingertips, but returning to the example from the opening paragraph, I know that maximum residue levels for pesticides in fruit and veg in Europe are the lowest in the world already, and that lowering them by a further 70%  raises all manner of problems for farmers expected to provide enormous quantities of high-quality produce.

Moral of the story? The big retailers are arguably one of the major players in shaping the current regulatory environment: they can potentially do a lot of good, but they should act responsibly rather than as if they were trying to win a popularity contest.

Obama: not losing the online momentum

white-house-site4 Yet another Obama and the web post. Zzzzzzz. Many apologies, but the subject matter is too good to let go.

Much has been said about the positioning of the blog on the White House website. It’s right there, in first place in the first submenu (see image). It’s nothing more than a symbolic gesture however as the blog only informs and does not do what a “real” blog does (engagement via comments or trackbacks, references to other blogs etc.) And I understand that: their blog is for information purposes only; the White House can’t suddenly start blogging as if they were a political commentator, it’d be ridiculous, inappropriate, totally out of their remit, time-consuming and bound to get out of hand.

No, what really shows that the Obama administration gets the web is what’s still going on on barackobama.com. In addition to an exceptional candidate, the success of the campaign for the Presidency was based on two factors which were both web-enabled: 1) mammoth donations; and 2) mobilisation of supporters.

The latter is still taking place via the site, as people can meet likeminded supporters, organise events, find events near them, all via the site. That’s what makes it special: it’s not the fancy web gimmicks, it’s the grassroots mobilisation on the ground that’s being enabled simply by making the logistics easier. Seems basic, but it’s pretty revolutionary in a sense: everyone had assumed that people were too busy and politically apathetic to engage in participatory politics, but that was plain wrong – all they needed was a leader to rally around and the organisational aspect taken care of somewhat.

What’s more, the Democrats are now being far-sighted enough to build on the momentum from the campaign by keeping it going rather than resting on their laurels. Good for them.

Reputation management in a day

The smart people at We are Social had an interesting post up describing a conversation that took place on Twitter about their client (@stephenfry). It was claimed that he didn’t write his own tweets, which he in fact does, but within a day the whole thing had been cleared up and the person making the claim, none other than Robert Scoble (@scobleizer), had retracted the claim and apologised.

How? We are Social were scanning Twitter for comments about their clients, caught the relevant tweet, responded on Twitter immediately, and Scoble obviously did the right thing and apologised. Case closed.

This incident is a great case-study in how effective monitoring and quick reponse via social media can speed up reputation management. Of course, in this case all people concerned actually work in social media, which helps, but generally, social media monitoring and rapid response is becoming part of the communications mix for a number of organisations and politicians, in an attempt to nip untruths and other damaging stories in the bud. On the political front, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was, as ever, at the forefront with Fight the Smears.

And if we look into our crystal ball?

  • All organisations and politicians will have a social media monitoring set-up as well as a social media presence which will permit them to address issues directly and instantly.
  • Reputation and crisis management will be web-led.
  • PR agencies or even internal comms teams dealing with reputation and crisis management will be given a lot less time to clear up the mess..!

Twitter is an AMAZING learning tool

I’ve blogged about Twitter a few times, but have only really started using it a lot over the last few days (@steffenmoller). Although I’ve banged on about the value of Twitter as a learning tool – i.e. you hook up to the right people who share your interests and they provide you with insights and links that you wouldn’t have found yourself – I’m amazed by the extent to which this is the case.

I use Netvibes a lot, which allows me to view the latest posts and updates from a variety of blogs and news sites (100+). I update it regularly by adding new blogs and love it, but I have to say I’ve read far more interesting material over the last couple of days via links and hints from people I’m following. And I’m only following 28 people so far: what will it be like once I’ve found hundreds if not thousands of people that I want to follow? I think today is the day I really understand what all the fuss is about and think Twitter has raised the bar for how professionals of the future will be expected to interact and the knowledge they’ll be expected to possess.

The might of Greenpeace

Another tale heard this week that’s worth sharing. Greenpeace campaign against overfishing in Europe. Beyond the risk that we’ll actually run out of fish, overfishing is a bad thing as it upsets complex marine ecosystems. However, these same ecosystems actually also rely on fishing to keep numbers of some fish to reasonable levels. If there are too many of a certain species, that also places marine life at risk. So there’s a delicate balance to be maintained.

And that’s where the interesting element of Greenpeace’s policy comes into play. Although they campaign against overfishing in Europe, they deliberately tend not mention any particular species. They’ve gathered that they have so much of an impact on European consumer habits that were they to declare that any particular species were at risk, the demand for it could drop so dramatically that fishermen would stop fishing for it. Result? A swing the other way –  and a marine ecosystem at risk because of too many of a particular species just a few years after an outcry over too few.

An interesting story, which highlights:

  • The might of Greenpeace. What they say and do really does have an impact.
  • How long the aftermath of a scare-story can linger. Once numbers have levelled off again, Greenpeace could easily say “it’s OK, you can start eating it again.” But that story isn’t nearly as interesting and wouldn’t gain any coverage compared to “fish X at risk; stop or else”. As a result, the latter would linger on for far longer than needed.

Lobbying at its most intriguing

A friend told me a story this week which gives some real insight into how sly lobbyists can be. A few years ago in California, Toyota and the US big 3 (GM, Ford and Chrysler) lobbied hard against stricter regulation governing emissions. This seemed odd at first. Toyota have spent years and billions in developing cars that produce fewer emissions – surely they’d want stricter emissions regulations as this would enable them to exercise their competitive edge?

Not quite. As ever, Toyota are a forward-thinking company (see my previous post):

  1. They understood that they have a competitive edge over the big 3 globally because they produce cars that are more environmentally friendly.
  2. They understood that the prospect of losing out on a huge market like California might finally move the big 3 to start investing more in hybrid technology and other less petrol-guzzling alternatives.
  3. Conclusion? They prefer having to compete with the big 3’s SUVs in California than have them invest in R&D which might in a few years make them viable competitors in the global hybrid car sector.

That’s clever. What I’d be curious to know is:  Toyota and the big 3 presumably sat down and co-ordinated their efforts at some point. Did the big 3 know they were being duped? And could the Toyota execs and lobbyists keep the smirks off their faces?

Yes, Twitter is worthwhile

As the Twitter craze finally hits Europe, I’ve come across a few posts such as this one questioning its value. My first response would be that Twitter can perform a really simple function that any web user would appreciate: finding content that interests them. If you invest a bit of time in finding the right people to follow i.e. people who are clever and are interested in the same things as you, they can point you to content you simply wouldn’t have found yourself. That’s enough justification in my book already. However, as Laurent rightly points out, Twitter is not mainstream enough to actually make this viable for anyone who isn’t into social media, marketing, technology or a few other niches: ‘If you want to target doctors, if you need information because you’re a fireman, if you just want to find interesting links if you’re “just” a normal citizen, you don’t find them on Twitter.’

Valid points for personal use of Twitter. As for the professional use of Twitter, I still think there is “hidden” value in using Twitter, even though it isn’t going to allow you to find reams of useful content or reach huge numbers of people immediately:

  • Being proactive rather than reactive i.e. understanding how it works while it’s still relatively unknown, rather than hopping on the bandwagon in two years time. It doesn’t have to be a drain on resources: set up an account now, play around, figure out how to build relationships, not annoy people, and who the smart people worth following are (even if they’re few and far between for now). A few minutes a day on your PC or your iPhone and you’ll be a bonafide Twitter expert in no time.
  • Impress people. Yeah, so it’s shallow, but frankly showing your boss, client, stakeholder etc. that you’re an early adopter of new technologies that can, in time, help you reach and engage with relevant people is valuable, even though you might not prove its worth immediately (but do spend 99% of your time on things that have a slightly higher proven ROI though.)
  • Quality over quantity. So your target audiences may not all be on Twitter, but maybe some of the brightest people in your sector are. Why not build relationships with them now rather than than when they have 3,000 followers?
  • Added value on key activities. The nature of the format (short, quick, updates from anywhere) can make it ideal for certain types of interaction, such as live-updating from an event or a Q & A  on breaking news.

And a last point: it’s not all in the numbers! You can add a feed from Twitter to a blog or a site, where people will be able to read your updates. You may only have 10 followers, but if the webpage your tweets appear on have 10,000 visits a day with people spending half an hour on that page, you can be pretty sure they’re seeing them.

Digital PR/PA: it's not all different

A running theme of this blog is that online communications need not be something entirely removed from that which PR and PA professionals have been doing for years. Although social media et al has changed the communications landscape and a new approach is required to make the most of it, the web can also help strengthen, but not necessarily change, age-old activities, such as basic content production.

In this post (including video interview), Sally Falkow explains this concept a little better than I’ve done i.e. that PR practitioners should still be producing content, because that’s where their expertise lies, but that what’s different is that they now need to be thinking of more formats and different distribution channels.

How a blog is better than a newsletter

I spoke to someone recently who was busy writing the latest issue of their company’s newsletter.

Me: Why don’t you blog instead?
Them: We work in a really traditional industry, nobody would read a blog.
Me: Why would they read a newsletter but not a blog? If it’s because you think they’d only read something they can find in their inbox, that’s OK, you can subscribe to posts by email.
Them: Maybe, but my boss wouldn’t want us to blog, we work in a traditional industry.

First, I understand the implication. It’s that blogging is somehow not cerebral enough for a traditional or “serious” industry. That’s plain wrong: it’s a medium just like a newspaper is, but no one would say newspapers aren’t serious because of the drivel that tabloids publish. It’s the quality of what you publish that matters.

Beyond that, I think there are a few reasons why a blog may actually be plain better than a newsletter.

  • For a “traditional” industry like my friend’s, if blogging really is that unusual, then being the first to do so is a fantastic opportunity. Blogging is so common now; but imagine the chance to be viewed as ground-breaking and innovative simply by publishing one? An opportunity not to be missed I’d say.
  • I think the blog format is a lot more appealing. It’s less daunting for readers who don’t have much time, enabling them to focus on one article at a time rather than have a whole load thrust at them at once. Plus I’d argue that the momentum you build up with a stream of posts is worth more than a one-off monthly bang when your recipients receive your newsletter.
  • With a blog, all your content is in one place. Sure you can have a newsletter archive, but it’s a lot harder to browse through material by clicking on Edition 74: January 2006, looking through it, closing it, then opening Edition 75 and so on, than it is to scroll down ablog in search for titles that catch your attention.
  • On accessibility, again, a blog makes it a lot easier for people to access specific content, using categories and tags (you could have a complex search function for newsletters, but it’d cost a fortune and probably not work; tags and categories are standard and always work).
  • Interactivity. It’s a lot easier for people to leave comments on a blog than it is to give feedback on a newsletter, even though newsletters can have feedback functions. Plus in a blog, with comments published underneath posts and your responses in the same place, you’re in practice having an online conversation. So what? 1) You have the opportunity to explain yourself to doubters/naysayers and to showcase your expertise further; and 2) you become the company/person that’s hosting an informed conversation on the issue, and that’s valuable.
  • There’s an online community for everything, even the most traditional of industries. Engaging with it may not be your priority from the off – your focus may rightly be on making sure you publish good content. However, having a good blog will make it easier to fit into that community if you choose to do so, and will give you more leverage when engaging with the other experts in your field (or even prospects) that are part of it. If you think your industry/sector isn’t representedonline, check on Technorati or Google Blog Search. You’ll be surprised.
  • Marketing a blog is easier than marketing your newsletter, but I’ll save that for another post.

Just to be clear, I think newsletters are an excellent medium for showcasing your expertise, keeping people informed, and even attracting new business. I’d ordinarily make them part of the communications toolkit, but if I had to choose, it’d be blogging every time.