Author: Rich

Helping you communicate with the written word, the spoken word and body language.
Posted on by

The press release – dead or alive?

Ten years ago ACM Training regularly ran writing press release courses the length and breadth of Britain. Filling a room with trainees in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle wasn’t a hard sell. Why, we even paid the occasional visit to Norwich! But then something happened and within a year bookings dropped almost to zero. That “something” was the social web. Suddenly organisations didn’t have to rely on the media to get their messages across. Facebook and everything that followed meant they could get in touch with their target audiences directly. Cut out the middleman was the mantra. Made sense. Sort of. Cue dozens of articles proclaiming “the press release is dead.”

And that’s pretty much the way it stayed. Or at least it was until about six months ago when, almost as suddenly as it dropped off, demand started building up again. Cue dozens more articles proclaiming, with a startling lack of originality and misappropriating Mark Twain, that “reports of it’s death had been greatly exaggerated.”

So which is it – DEAD or ALIVE?

Both, in my view. Dead in it’s original form. Alive in it’s new form. Or to sum it up in one word: different. Different because the media landscape has shifted dramatically in the past decade. A decade where the dizzying rise in the fortunes of another Mark (Zuckerberg not Twain) has been matched by a precipitous fall in the fortunes of the print media, particularly local newspapers.

But those that are left still need copy. In fact, with very few staff running them, they are so desperate for copy they’re likely to print your press release almost verbatim. Which is good. Unless your press release is bad. In which case it’ll still be bad. Because the chance of a reporter or sub-editor rewriting your copy and ironing out any wrinkles are zip.

So without this journalistic back stop in place there’s a good case to be made for ensuring your press releases leave you in the very best shape. Which is perhaps part of the reason why there’s been an upturn in business for training companies like ACM. But there’s an additional reason to give your press releases a polish – because once written they can easily be re-versioned for all of the other distribution channels now available such as online newsrooms and, of course, the likes of Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

Think of the press release as content with a newsy nose. That kind of content is likely to go much further on the social web as well as getting you noticed by journalists working in print, online, on television and radio.

In my next article on this subject I’ll take you through the key elements of a press release fit for the digital world. If, in the meantime, you’d like to book a course and join the renaissance movement then click on the image below.

writing-press-releases

Richard Uridge has been a journalist for more than 30 years, though he claims it feels like only yesterday that he started as a cub reporter on the Reading Chronicle. Heʼs worked in all three major media – television, radio and print – and for ten years presented Open County on BBC Radio Four. His journalistic work has taken him all over the world. Less exciting, though perhaps more relevant, is that over the years he reckons heʼs read several thousand press releases and as a result knows what makes good, bad and downright ugly reading.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

First, second or third person: which is best for blogging?

First Person

For me writing is a largely instinctive activity and I don’t often ruminate over which personal pronoun I should use when blogging.

Second Person

Want to know which perspective to use when writing a blog? Then keep reading. This post will explore the various options and help you decide which is best.

Third Person

Bloggers often struggle to know which perspective to apply to their posts. Should they use the first person of paragraph one? The second in paragraph two? Or, like this paragraph, the third?

And I know what you’re thinking, maybe you could use all three in the same paragraph because some writers do just that and seem to get away with it!

The first person (me) puts the writer centre stage. The second puts the reader (you) in the spotlight. And the third views things from an audience’s point of view (he, she, they) – way up in the cheap seats at the back of the auditorium if you like.

So which is the best? Sadly there’s no simple answer. All three have their place. It depends on a number of variables: who you are; why you’re blogging (your purpose); who’s reading (your target audience) and so on.  But what follows is some basic guidance drawn together after I delivered  ACM Training’s blogging workshop to a group of enthusiastic but reflective academics at Queen Margaret University in Edinburgh.

Like most academics they are used to writing in the third person because of the commonly and firmly held view that this way is somehow more objective. (I say somehow because I’m not sure that it genuinely is only that it gives the impression of being so, but that’s a discussion for another day). So changing their perspective from third to second seemed, for them, like a huge step. From third to first a giant leap. And one that, because they’re academics, they needed plenty of empirical evidence to take.

When to use first person

The person you know best is you. So writing about yourself ought to be easy. And for some people it is. Too easy in fact. And they end up over-disclosing. Telling us all sorts of things that, frankly, are of no interest to us at all.

But some of you will find writing about yourself really difficult. Perhaps you’re naturally shy. Or, like my academics, so used to writing about other people that writing about number one seems uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t though. As a blogger the most important thing is that you engage your readers – hook them in the first place and then keep them reading, ideally to the end. And if writing about your own experience is the stuff that is most likely to engage your audience then do so. Get out of your comfort zone.

Let me give you an example. An academic had written a blog post about the Notting Hill Carnival and a controversial proposal to change it from processional to a fixed location. It was, by her own admission, a little dry and read more like a press release or the abstract of a learned paper. All because it was written in the third person. Talking through her own experience of the carnival it turns out that she attended her first as an unborn child. Write about that I implored her. Let rip with your imagination. Take us there. Have us listen to the beat of your mother’s heart in utero overlaid with the pulsating rhythm of steel drums.

When your experience is relevant and interesting it can lift your copy from the ordinary to the extraordinary. Try it.

The first person approach is also good when readers are coming to your blog principally because of you (and not only for what you’re offering them). As a keen cyclist I might, for example, follow Chris Froome’s thoughts on Twitter (a micro blog) not to read his detached and aloof views on cycling but to get first person insight into his life in the saddle.

When to use second person

But if people are visiting your blog mainly because of what you’re offering them (and who you are is largely irrelevant) then focusing on their needs via the second person perspective is probably the best approach. I find myself using the second person most often for instructional blogs and think of it this way: what does the reader really want? Me or the advice I’m offering them? If the answer is them then that’s what I’ll concentrate on. That’s where the value is. And my stock rises (hopefully) not because of who I am but because of how I’ve helped.

As Brian Clarke of Copyblogger put it “…if you’re blogging for marketing or public relations purposes, your every post should be purposefully aimed at the needs and wants of others. You only benefit when readers benefit first.”

When to use third person

Writing in the third person puts some “distance” between you as the writer and the events or people you’re writing about. It’s the preferred position in academic writing because, as already touched on, is or appears to be more objective. So if that’s what you’re after in your blog use the third person. But that sense of detachment can also appear aloof. The reader may be frustrated by this and wish you’d come off the proverbial fence. Again the guiding question should be this: is my detachment helping me achieve my purpose? If the answer is yes then stay detached. But if your aloofness is hindering then don’t.

In all forms of writing engaging readers and keeping them engaged is crucial. Whilst the words engaged and detached aren’t exact antonyms (engaged and disengaged would be) being engaging in a detached way is a hard trick to execute. Good academic writers are frequently pulling this particular white rabbit out of the hat. Bad ones send us to sleep.

When to mix and match

In reality very few posts are written strictly from only one perspective. We (first person plural) tend to use them in combination. You (second person singular) might even find them all together in the same paragraph. But never in the same sentence. That’s a recipe for confusion:

“I signed up for Richard’s blogging course and by the end of the day you have to write at least one blog but they didn’t insist in it being written from one particular perspective.”

Let me know what you think. Comments welcome. And if you author or read a great blog written from the first, second or third person link to it below. This person would love to see it!

Posted on by

Better letter writing – handling complaints

READ RIGHT TO RESPOND RIGHT – THE FOUR Rs

It’s impossible to properly answer a complaint letter unless you understand the complaint in the first place. Sounds obvious doesn’t it? But you’d be surprised at how many responses I’ve seen in my work with the NHS and elsewhere that are incomplete, make too little of big issues or, conversely, make too much of little issues and consequently end up exacerbating the situation rather than resolving it, antagonising the complainant instead of calming them.

Reading right takes time. You might, for example, have to read a letter through several times. Or show it to a colleague for a second opinion. Even email or telephone the complainant for clarification. But it’s time well spent. Think of it as an investment. Rush this bit and you’ll probably end up having to write a second or third letter to deal with the bits you’d missed.

SEEING RED (AND GREEN)

Most people don’t write their complaint letters in a logical way. The angrier they are when they sit down to compose them, the more like streams of consciousness they become. Some (although thankfully very few) are really rather nasty, are full of invective and can make us feel threatened. Try not to take it personally. Easier said than done, I appreciate, but if you get cross too it can descend into the written equivalent of a slanging match. So take a deep breath and….

…however badly (or well) the letter’s written read it through once again from top to bottom to get the gist of it and then a third, fourth or even a fifth time line by line and list the substantive points they’ve made – that is what’s caused them to complain in the first place and, if they’ve mentioned it, what they’d like done about it – their ideal resolution. Sometimes, with really complicated complaints or angry complainants, it can help using a couple of different colour highlighting pens – say red and green – to differentiate between what actually happened (green) and what they’d like done about it (red). Green for the gremlins and red for the resolution, if you like!

WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT

Another tip that’s particularly useful if lots of colleagues are going to be involved in the investigation is to turn the list you’ve just made into a précis so that others can read this, rather than ploughing through the original document which, in complex cases, can run to many pages. The précis should include the name of the complainant and the patient, customer, client or service user (where it’s not one in the same). Be meticulous. Get people’s names right. There’s nothing more infuriating than being called by the wrong name and I speak as a Uridge. I once received a letter addressed to Mr Uridog. Annoyed the hell out of me and amused me in equal measure. I’d also add to the précis a word or two about the complainant’s emotional state so that you can pitch your reply accordingly. And finally I’d add the names of those in your organisation who need to see the précis in order to carry out their part of the investigation and/or add their comments before you write the actual response.

GET A GRIP

When lots of people are involved in a complaint there’s a danger nobody takes responsibility and it can languish in the system for weeks or even months. I know of one organisation which was taking so long to respond that it was receiving complaints about it’s complaints department. Don’t let this happen to you by making sure a nominated person takes ownership of the complaint and expedites it through your system. It’s usually makes sense to nominate the person who will be writing the reply.

So that’s you huh?! Okay, let’s assume you’ve chased everybody for their input and you’ve got a pile of material in your intray or inbox in return. All that plus your précis and the original letter. Pen to paper time surely? Not so fast! It’s actually time for a bit of role play.

Put yourself in the shoes of the complainant and try to work out the order of importance of the one or two lists you drew up earlier. What is their biggest beef? Redraw the list with this at the top. What action do they most want you to take? Put this at the top of a redrawn resolution list. The reason for doing it (and some people prefer to incorporate this into the initial read/précis stage) is so you can write your reply in the same order of importance.

KEEP IT CONVERSATIONAL

Keep your role playing hat on for a while longer. I’d now like you to have an imaginary conversation with the complainant. Unless you’ve got a colleague to work with you’re going to have to play both you and them. Make a mental or, better still, written note of what you hear yourself (that’s as you not as them) saying in this conversation. You can then use this as the basis for your written response. If we go straight to the written word we tend to use overly complicated and flowery language. I prefer to receive letters that are conversational in tone. There’s something soothing about them which is the very opposite of the formal language many were (and, sadly, still are) written in that I, for one, find rub me up the wrong way.

Dear Mr Uridge
We are in receipt of your letter of complaint dated the 15th instant and wish to inform you that…

Avoid jargon. Use plain English. Short sentences are usually better than long ones. But not always. Write as you would speak. Remember the old saying speak as you would like to be spoken to. Or rather write as you’d like to be written to. Don’t be condescending. Or pompous. Be humble. And helpful. Avoid cliches like the plague. And avoid cut and paste like cliches. Readers can spot copying. You might have a template but personalise it. People like personal.

Dear Mr Uridge
My name’s Richard and I’ve been asked to look into your complaint. I have to say your letter made pretty depressing reading and I can understand why you’re angry so I’m going to do my best to sort things out. And the very first thing to say is sorry…

SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD

There’s been plenty of debate about the s word. And it shows no sign of abating, with one camp saying you should only apologise if you’ve genuinely got something to apologise for and the other saying you should always say sorry irrespective of blame. I’m sorry but they’re both wrong.

Thomas Cook was patently wrong for failing to apologise (until this summer) over the well-publicised deaths of brother and sister, Christianne and Robert Shepherd, in Corfu in 2006. A swift, genuine and unqualified apology can go a long way to defusing an otherwise awful situation as the holiday company has found to its cost (putting aside, for one moment, the terrible human cost). So if you’re going to say sorry say sorry as soon as you can. Better late than never but best sooner rather than later.

However, if you genuinely think there’s nothing to apologise for then don’t. I’ve written elsewhere on this blog about what I call the customer isn’t always right approach and you may find that instructive.
Once you’ve written your letter put it to one side. Ideally sleep on it. Not literally of course. It’d be uncomfortable and crumple the paper. Come back to it the next day when you’re much more likely to put the proverbial red pen through bits you don’t like.

Editing is a vital part of writing well and the last thing you feel like immediately after giving birth to an idea (or in this case a letter) is to kill the child of your invention (as somebody much cleverer than me once put it). Time gives us the perspective required to be disciplined self editors. If you haven’t got the time to leave it until tomorrow at least go and get yourself a coffee before reading the letter with a view to revisions. But don’t, I repeat don’t, read it as yourself.

MY SHOUT

Read it OUT LOUD (yes!) as if you are the recipient/complainant. Listen to your voice. How does it sound to you in role? You’ll only notice clunky constructions and poor word choice this way (the silent voice in your head is a whole lot less critical for some reason). If you’re struggling for breath before the end of a sentence maybe that sentence is too long. And you need to break it into two sentences. Or three. And tonally how does it sound? Antagonistic? Conciliatory?

Read it one more time, on this occasion with the précis list of points/resolutions you drew up from the original complaint. Does your response tick them all off? If not why not? In reality you may not be able to answer every point or resolve every issue in exactly the way the complainant wished but perhaps you need to explain your reasons. Otherwise there’s a danger that a partially unresolved complaint just keeps on going. Speaking of which…

SHUT THAT DOOR

Don’t leave the door open at the end. They’ll only come back through it. I know of one hospital trust that was in the habit of signing off every single reply with the words (and I paraphrase): “We hope that we have dealt satisfactorily with your complaint but if you’d like to take matters further please get back in touch…” No surprise lots of people did get back in touch and their complaints went round and round and round tying up valuable NHS resources that would be far better spent fixing sick people or mending broken ones. On my advice they removed the offending sentence. It was an easy, quick and painless operation and the health of the complaints department immediately improved with the number of open complaints falling sharply. If your letter has dealt properly with someone’s complaint they’ll have no reason to get back in touch and if they do put the onus on them. A closed door is going to stop them. For long. So why make it easy?!

Which reminds me, where’s my turquoise fountain pen? Ah yes, here it is. “Dear BT, I am writing to complain about your so-called super fast broadband….

Richard Uridge and his company ACM Training offer a range of writing media, communication and organisational development workshops that are delivered either publicly at venues across the UK from just £99 per person or in-house from £750. His most recent project was to deliver a series of better letter writing workshops for the complaints department in a busy hospital trust.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Tripping over TripAdvisor

How should restaurateurs and hoteliers respond to negative reviews on TripAdvisor?

It’s a question I’ve pondered many times as a social media trainer who, because of the job, eats out more than in and the answer is always the same: only after careful consideration. Doesn’t matter if we cook for a living or not, our instinct, when attacked, is to lash out. Attack being the best form of defence, or so the saying would have us believe. But it rarely is, whether we’re being bashed over the head with a real stick or it’s our online reputation that’s taking a digital beating. Why? Because in the heat of the moment we might end up doing, saying or writing something that makes matters worse.

So here’s my recipe (forgive the pun) for avoiding disaster on TripAdvisor, or elsewhere on the social web for that matter.

Ingredients

Everyone has their own favourite version of this dish. And even the name varies. The most common is revenge which, according to aficionados, is best enjoyed cold. Others prefer it served at boiling point or, ideally, above. Whatever your taste, all have certain ingredients in common:

At least 1 disgruntled customer (2 or more can make the dish hotter);

1 angry chef, restaurateur or hotelier (some recipes call for all three);

A liberal dash of sarcasm;

More than a pinch or two of salt;

A heaped tablespoon of opprobrium;

and 1 litre of bile.

Method

Mix all the ingredients together. Bring to the bile – I mean boil. Simmer, stew, roast… it really doesn’t matter which. The most important part is to serve the dish as publicly as possible.  Most people use TripAdvisor for this purpose. Others swear by Facebook or Twitter. The really rancorous often serve up a slice on each.

Here’s one somebody made earlier…

So how best to respond to something like this? Before I share with you what the owner of the restaurant castigated above actually said, here’s the decision-making process I encourage those in the hospitality business to follow.

It requires honest reflection, which is made easier by the passage of time. The social web creates a feeling of immediacy and it’s all too easy to get caught up in the moment. Don’t! Pause. Take a deep breath. Take several more deep breaths. Finish service. Pour yourself a hard drink. Or a soft one. Sleep on it. And only then ask yourself these questions:

Have they got a point? And can you do something about it? If the answer to both is yes then thank them for bringing the matter to your attention and tell them (and the wider world) you’ve done something about it. If they’ve got a point but you can’t do anything to rectify the situation then gently explain why. Perhaps their complaint was about an argumentative couple at the table next to them. Not within your control, although you might point out that if they’d raised it at the time you’d have done your best to move them to a quieter table. In both cases saying sorry doesn’t hurt and plays well with the increasing number of would-be customers who use TripAdvisor to help them make their minds up where to stay or eat. (By the way, nobody’s really sure exactly how many people rely on TripAdvisor and you’d want to take the network’s own figures with a pinch of salt for obvious reasons but that the number is increasing is certainly the case).

If you genuinely believe your critics haven’t got a point you’ve got three choices: ignore them (the least said soonest mended approach); thank them for their comments and leave it at that (the turn the other cheek method); or tell them they’re wrong and explain why (the customer isn’t always right technique). I’ve nothing against any of these approaches providing – and it’s an important proviso – in doing so you don’t compound the situation by inadvertently drawing more attention to it than is warranted.

It’s also worth considering the gearing between positive and negative comments on the TripAdvisor visitor rating bar chart (see below).  I don’t know about you, but I tend not to believe establishments that have nothing other than positive comments and avoid them. What I’m looking for is a nice smooth downward curve from top right to bottom left. Lots of excellents and very goods, some averages, a few poors and even fewer terribles.

TripAdvisor's visitor rating bar chart.
Uphill good. Downhill bad.

Generally speaking the higher the number of reviews of any kind the more accurate the reflection of the establishment. That’s the beauty of crowd sourcing. One or two people might be mischievous, malicious or  just plain wrong. But hundreds? Unlikely. It’s a warning sign. And not only for potential customers but also for the management. A warning they ignore at their peril.

There is an alternative method. I call it the Basil Fawlty way. Done well it’s hugely entertaining and actually makes you want to visit the place being so rigorously defended. Done badly it can leave a poor taste. Just like food. And there’s the rub. Taste is such a subjective thing. One man’s meat is another man’s poison and all that. Perhaps we should be thankful that the range of replies on TripAdvisor is as wide as the range of food on offer. Something for everyone.

Here’s the French Pantry’s response to the complaint above. For the record I’ve eaten there many times and always enjoyed it. I like the owners Simon and Helen. Simon’s a colourful character. An accomplished musician as well as a restaurateur. Whether he’s too colourful at times with his use of language…well I’ll let you be the judge. Comments, as always, welcome. Even negatives ones!

The restaurateur's response.
A Fawlty-esque defence. Right or wrong?

Posted on by

What do Facebook’s new emojis mean for business?

facebook new emojisThose of us who use Facebook for business may soon find our target audiences have six new ways of interacting with us online – and not all of them good.

We’re familiar with the concept of liking a post or a page by giving it the big thumbs up. But now Facebook is testing a series of emojis that will enable users to react more broadly to content. And if the experiment in Spain and Ireland goes well they could well be rolled out to users everywhere soon.

There are seven emojis in total. The first is a reworked and animated version of the ubiquitous thumbs up like. The others are love, haha, yay, wow, sad and angry. Noticeable for its absence is an eighth thumbs down dislike emoji which Facebook apparently resisted despite widespread calls for it because of concerns over cyber bullying (and because it might dampen the overwhelming sense of optimism and well being they at least like to think the network promotes).

So what will the emojis mean for social media managers? I’d say the biggest area for potential concern is around the sad and, in particular, the angry face. Good quality content will still garner likes. The very best content will perhaps get loves. The funniest a haha. And the most profound a wow. We might even, if we’ve got exciting news to share, get a yay. But what if we’ve failed in someway and the person or people we’ve let down express their sorrow for all to see with a sad face or their anger with a red face? Then we better react fast, first to acknowledge their upset and then to engage them in conversation (possibly offline and away from prying eyes) to resolve the situation. Handled well it might be possible to get a blue thumbs up for our customer service despite a failure elsewhere in our organisation – a kind of emotional red shift.

Imagine that the new emojis had already been rolled out globally when the VW emissions scandal broke. Irate motorists would have posted angry red faces to Facebook in their thousands. But there’s no doubting VW’s sure-footed handling of the situation and for that one might give them the blue thumbs up.

So take a leaf out of the German motor manufacturers crisis communications handbook and think about how your customers might use the new emojis and how you’d handle a load of red faces. Better not to have them in the first place, of course. But all organisations err in some way or other at some time or other. None of us is perfect after all. And the measure of the very best organisations is how they react in adversity.

Posted on by

Out with the old in with the new

A preview of some of the images that’ll be on our new website.

Managing meetings
Managing meetings

Broadcast skills builder
Broadcast skills builder

Mediation and negotiation skills
Mediation and negotiation skills

Event management
Event management

Lone worker training
Lone worker training

Complaint handling techniques
Complaint handling techniques

Building, leading and maintaining effective teams
Building, leading and maintaining effective teams

Writing for the web
Writing for the web

Dealing with workplace stress
Dealing with workplace stress

Dealing with difficult people
Dealing with difficult people

Assertiveness training
Assertiveness training

Managing difficult teams
Managing difficult teams

Presentation and pubic speaking skills
Presentation and pubic speaking skills

Social media training
Social media training

What we do at ACM Training - help you solve your problems!
What we do at ACM Training – help you solve your problems!

Media training - stay in control of the message
Media training – stay in control of the message

Train the trainer - even trainers need training!
Train the trainer – even trainers need training!

Time management techniques
Time management techniques

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Herding sheep (or cats)!

Bah, ram ewe…

A new-look website for acmtraining.co.uk has been long overdue. But now Rob’s beavering away under the bonnet making sure our databases are in tip top condition and that the e-commerce part of our operation is ready to take your card details in a millisecond!

And Matt’s burning the midnight oil on the bits that everybody sees – the graphics. Here’s a preview of the image that will go with our team-building training. Am I alone in thinking the dog is cute? He needs a name. So too the owl in the redesigned logo. Suggestions on a postcard. Or rather in the comments box below.

Woof, woof. (Or should that be t’wit t’woo)?

Difficult-team

Posted on by

DIGITAL FOOTPRINTS

Don't make the wrong kind of impression

CONFESSION TIME…

  1. I got drunk as a teenager;
  2. Inhaled (unlike Bill Clinton) and;
  3. Ran naked along the seafront in Bracklesham Bay (actually it may have been Selsey Bill, it’s just that I can’t remember – see points 1 & 2).

Thing is you’ll have to take my word for it. Because no evidence exists. No fuzzy photos. No shaky home movies. Only memories dulled by the passage of time. Unlike the teenagers and twenty-somethings of today, whose every move is captured on mobile phone cameras and posted for posterity to Facebook et al where the images will remain as pin sharp as the day they were taken for ever more (or certainly for a very long time).

Now naturally I didn’t mention points 1, 2 and 3 when I applied for a job as a cub reporter on the Reading Chronicle. Nor did I bring up my murky past when, a few years later, I started working for the BBC. But that’s not the way it works these days. Our reputations precede us like never before.

I was reminded of this by a friend of my son who works in the City. Discussing the potential for blotting our proverbial copybooks by what we post to the social web, he told me that the very first thing he does when presented with a long list of wannabe high-flyers applying for a job at his bank is to search for them on Facebook. If there’s even a hint of excess on their timeline – boozy weekends, recreational drug use, a potentially bone-breaking passion for adventure sports –  they don’t make the short list. “Too much trouble on a Monday morning,” as he put it and added: “Too keen to leave on a Friday night.” And my son’s friend isn’t the only one using the social web as a crude filter. Recruitment agencies do the same thing. A don’t kid yourself they only look at the highly-polished versions of us we post to LinkedIn. Let’s face it we all do something similar with new contacts and old acquaintances. Call it due diligence or stalking. Amounts to the same thing.

So where does all this leave today’s jobseekers? Well, potentially in the mire. I’ve just delivered a series of social media workshops at Lancaster University designed to get students thinking about their online presence and how it could impact – both positively and negatively – on their chances of entering the big, wide world of work. Delegates were a mix of domestic and overseas undergraduates and, whilst the numbers were too small a chunk of the total student population to be representative, I was struck by the difference between the two groups. A social media “audit” revealed that the overseas students were much more careful about what they posted and the privacy settings they used when they posted. And the overseas students remarked at how surprised they’d been as freshers at the relatively laissez faire attitude UK students had to posting. I’m not yet sure whether the “let it all hang out” approach of my fellow Brits is cultural (I suspect it might be) or whether social media awareness is better taught in schools in Europe, the Far East and elsewhere. Or perhaps it has something to do with the bigger investment (and, therefore, greater risk aversion) overseas students have with their even higher student fees.

Whatever the reason we all have something to learn: why weigh ourselves down with unnecessary baggage?  Or as I might have said back in the day but didn’t “what happens in Bracklesham stays in Bracklesham.” I used a clunky visual metaphor to make my point. Loaded two identical rucksacks – one with bouquets, the other with the brickbats below

Social media brickbats - don't weigh yourself down

and asked two equally-qualified students to put them on and make a dash for the “finishing line” (employment, I said it was clunky!). You don’t need me to tell you who won.

I’m not saying avoid doing 1, 2 and 3. After all I didn’t. And people in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones. As I did once in a state of undress whilst vaulting the back garden fences of De Beauvoir Road, Reading. But then that’s another story… I’m just saying think about the consequences of posting the evidence.

Posted on by

UP PERISCOPE

A quick look at PERISCOPE – one of the new(ish) kids on the social media block

In a sentence or two…
“The closest thing to teleportation,” according to one of its founders. Stream live video from your smartphone or tablet. Followers can watch in real time or (thanks to the app’s automatic recording facility) up to 24 hours later “as live” (e.g. as it happened with no editing).

Good for…
Organisations with a strong  and, ideally, dynamic (that is, moving) visual element likely to capture an audience. So, for example, the Zoological Society of London uses Periscope to stream videos of scary spiders and cute creatures at London Zoo. And  BBC Radio’s Test Match Special has used it to go behind the scenes at Lords during the second Ashes test (about which the less said the better from an English perspective)!

Bad for…
Lifting the veil on things that really should stay covered like naked flesh and cocaine snorting (or so I’m reliably informed)!

Five ways to use Periscope…
  1. Take viewers behind the scenes and show them a bit of your organisation they haven’t seen before.
  2. Identify in-house experts and get them to do a series of short (5′ maximum) how to sessions.
  3. Harness the power of story-telling by asking your colleagues, customers or service users to tell their own personal stories of your organisation and how it’s helped/affected them.
  4. Do a series of interviews with people in your organisation making sure it’s not just with the usual suspects such as the chief executive or senior managers.
  5. Stream live events that your hosting so that those who can’t make it to the actual venue can share in what’s going on.
Dos and don’ts…
  • Don’t push your brand, product or service too hard.
  • Don’t be too formal.
  • Do be guided by your audience. Let them ask questions – they pop up on your screen as text during your broadcast – and respond accordingly. Make them feel it’s there show not yours.
  • Don’t give up too soon. It takes a while to build an audience.
  • Do invest in a tripod if you’re doing lots of talking head stuff. But don’t leave the camera/phone static for too long. And buy a microphone with a fluffy cover to reduce distracting wind noise if you’re streaming outdoors.
  • Do keep your streams short, sharp and to the point.  Your “shows” should be episodic and each one leave the audience wanting more.
  • Do share a link to your stream on Twitter to maximise your potential audience.
  • Do bear in mind that, even more than other social media, timing is going to be of the essence. Schedule a live stream while your target audience is fast asleep or hard at work and you’re not going to get much from it.
  • Don’t forget that Periscope deletes your video automatically after 24 hours and that if you want to keep it for posterity you must choose the option to save it to your camera roll.
  • Don’t worry if you stuff up your live broadcast (I made a career of it at the BBC). To err is human. And in any case Periscope allows you to delete the recording of your stream straight away if you’re really embarrassed by it.
  • Do bear in mind it is live and that while you might get away with swearing or other inappropriate behaviour in a way you wouldn’t on prime time television, your audience, however small, may not be impressed.
  • Do analyse the keys stats ((provided by Perisocope – number of live views number of record views etc) and be guided by them.
Demographics…
Like almost all newly-launched social media networks the early adopters tend to be young, tech-savvy Americans. Accurate user numbers are hard to establish but owners, Twitter (who were so impressed with Periscope’s potential they bought it before it launched in February 2015), claim a million people signed up in the first 10 days. But I wouldn’t be overly concerned about these demographic issues. What’s exciting is that you’ve got the chance to use Periscope to the benefit of your organisation now and help shape its and your future.

Alternatives…
  • Meerkat – same principle but despite a head start on Periscope likely to fall behind without the clout of Twitter behind it.
  • Instagram and Vine – both allow users to record short videos to share with their followers but only after the event.
  • Skype – limits 25 people to group calls so more of a narrowcast than a broadcast.
Posted on by

Know thine audience

In any kind of communication the more we know about our audience the better. Whether we’re writing for the web or for a flyer tucked under a windscreen wiper, this knowledge gives us clues about how to engage our readers, viewers and listeners. Engagement is a necessary precursor to understanding. Without engagement what we’re saying may only register as a sound tapping on the audience’s ear drums. We need to engage to get the message beyond the level of mere noise and up the neural pathways into the brain where it can be processed and understood and, all being well, acted upon.

But knowing the audience doesn’t just give us clues about content that might engage. It also helps us structure that content – put it in the most compelling order. It helps us determine the best style to apply to that content – serious or silly or somewhere in between. And it gives us useful information about the length of that content, the media we use to convey it, the places we put it and the time we put it there.

If we don’t think enough about the end users of the content we’re creating we risk ending up writing for the person we know best (ourselves) and getting it spectacularly wrong for everyone else. What I find funny may offend you and vice versa.

Grab a blank sheet of paper (very old school I realise but quicker, more flexible, and cheaper than using a sketching app like iDraw). In the middle draw the outline of a face, give the face a name and make this person representative of one of your target audiences. Let’s call him Bob. Around Bob’s face, spider diagram-style, jot down all the characteristics you think might be relevant. You’ll be scribbling obvious things like gender, age and race, and less obvious things like which social groups he belongs to, his hobbies and interests, his tastes in everything from music to food, his media habits – which papers he buys, which tv and radio programmes he likes, which websites he visits and yes, of course, which social media platforms he uses.

You also need to consider things like how much your version of Bob or Nadia knows already, how motivated they are to behave as you wish, and what mood they’re in. Knowing these things will help you understand where they are intellectually. Where they are physically in terms of time and space will also be informative. Are they on the bus, at their desk or in their armchair? Is it morning, noon or night? And are they in a hurry or on the slow train?

Let me give you a real rather than virtual world example. One January day I was filling my van with diesel and, as the display raced towards £100, feeling the metaphorical chill wind of fuel price inflation as well as the literal wind of winter. So time: in a hurry. Place: garage forecourt. Weather conditions: cold. Mood: bad. Armed with this broad brushstroke portrait of Richard, Worcester Bosch was able to target an advert for its energy efficient central heating boilers on the pump trigger. It couldn’t say much – because both time and space were in short supply – but it said enough to get me to Google the company name when I got home. And now what’s sitting in the corner of my kitchen? Yes, you’ve guessed, an energy efficient boiler! The same ad placed, say, on the locker door in my local gym would be less effective. I’d likely be hot and in a much better mood and consequently much less receptive to the implicit key message: buy our boiler.

Drawing a series of detailed pen portraits – one for each distinct target audience – takes some time. But it’s time well spent because like Worcester Bosch (the company’s not paying me, honest) it informs all the subsequent steps we take in the social media and ultimately leads to a much better return on investment.

This demographic information as marketeers call it can be gleaned from a range of sources. Some of it frankly is instinctive because we are like the people we’re targeting and knowing ourselves is knowing our audience. Or perhaps we know people – family or friends – who are like our target audiences. If I’m targeting children specifically then I’d do well to look at my own children to guide my approach.

Young people are particularly challenging to engage through the social media. Not least because as children of the Internet age they are more adept at the technology than older people but also because behaviourally they’re still developing and this means their vocabulary, idiom, interests and even choice of social networks can change faster than you can say Pinterest.

If like me you’re no longer a card carrying member of the hip cool generation then a brilliant way of keeping up with your target audience is simply to observe them. Become a social media anthropologist. A latter day Desmond Morris if you will sitting by the Facebook watering hole watching the young lion cubs at play. It sounds a bit creepy I know. And when the cubs you’re observing are your own it’s called Facebook stalking. I’ve heard grown ups describe Facebook as a third parent, going to places that real flesh and blood parents couldn’t possibly go to keep an eye on their children. I’ll let you decide whether going this far is too far. But there’s no doubt watching the online behaviour of our customers and prospective customers (and competitors for that matter) is a legitimate business practice. It’s called market research and it predates the social web by a long, long time.

Now it’s way beyond the brief of this article (or the workshop manual it originally appeared in) to explore market research except insofar as it touches upon social media strategy. And to that extent all we really need to know is that market research is, at its most basic, asking questions and listening to the answers and then using those answers to inform marketing decisions.

So we need to ask questions of our social media targets, listen to the answers and let those answers inform our social media decisions.

Asking questions of our target audiences helps us to get to know them so well they can, metaphorically speaking, sit on our shoulders as we create our online content and act as our critical friends. We should be asking these imaginary individuals what they think of what we’re about to post. Do they like it? If the answer’s no then why don’t they like it, what don’t they like about it, how could it be improved? Have an imaginary conversation with the imaginary Bob before you start the real conversation with the real Bob.

One other point on market research. You need to ask what questions people are asking. Questions about questions in other words. These question questions are important to ask because of the way people use the social web. In essence we type questions into search engines (even if we don’t actually hit the ? key) and then rely on those search engines to find us the answers – the more relevant the better. If I’m thinking about buying a camera I might type “digital SLR vs rangefinder” or “Canon vs Nikon.” If I’m worried about that pain in the pit of my tummy I might type “stomach cancer symptoms.” (Don’t worry about me by the way, turned out I was just hungry)!

It’s not just the questions they’re typing into Google we should be interested in. What questions are they asking and what comments are they posting across the social web, on blogs, on Twitter, on Facebook? Maybe we’re in a good position to answer those questions for them, to add our own comments to theirs. What happens then is that our reputational stock rises – perhaps in one spurt so that they buy that slinky new Nikon camera there and then or perhaps by only a dribble but enough for them to return to us as a trusted source of information, refer others our way and maybe one day make that purchase, donate to our charity or get that lump checked out. And even if they don’t ever buy anything themselves they’re nonetheless leaving behind something valuable – a link, direct or indirect, back to you. Fantastic if they had something nice to say about you or your products and services. Not so fantastic if they had something nasty to say.

The fear of opening ourselves up to brickbats as well as bouquets is what stops many organisations from getting involved with the social web. But like conversation itself the social web is here to stay and is highly likely to integrate itself more and more with our everyday transactions – both social and commercial – so staying away will become less and less realistic. In any case organisations that open themselves up to criticism in such a public way find paradoxically, that managed well, they gain even from the brickbats. Dell Computers provides a fascinating and evergreen case study of this very point. First they feared the social web. Then they got a good kicking. Next they immersed themselves in it. And now they benefit from it hugely generating more than $1 million in sales directly from social media. The fashion retailer H&M is similarly instructive.

http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/why-dell-is-a-great-case-study/