Hill+Knowlton Strategies

Nearly a month, 100,000+ page views, approx. 37,500 unique visitors, and numerous media and blog hits later, HKDP’s Quebec election predictor appears to have (just about) nailed it… that is, if you had correctly predicted last night’s outcome. (click on the image for a larger size)

With the final voting percentages tossed into the mix, the end result showed the predictor giving the Liberals (PLQ) slightly fewer seats (45) from their actual (48), the separatist PQ scoring slightly higher (39) than their actual (36), and bang on for the ADQ at 41.

Not bad, I think, when it’s a system based purely on playing the numbers. Next up (sooner or later being the question), the next version of the Federal Election Predictor.

For a brief moment, I too believed (tip: turn your speakers to 11)… and not even that harsh mistress reality could deter me from completing my most mighty tasks… timesheets, ppt decks, scratching the itch behind my mighty ear…

A nifty little viral, nonetheless. Hat tip to you, sis, and thanks for the recognition (if only my fellow employees thought equally highly of me – he says with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

 Now back to regular programming.

As I posted earlier, it’s not often that one has the opportunity to pose a few questions to the executive editor of the Economist. So when the chance presents itself, you jump. I did. And the ”best of” excerpts from my 12 minutes with Daniel Franklin is the result: (Note:  grammatical errors should be attributed to my rushed transcription of the interview tape)

On the success of the print publication in the digital age:

“New media is important to any company, but what we’ve seen, or come to understand in recent times, is that there is still plenty of life for us in print. It seems that we are in a bit of a fortunate place in the print spectrum where people still read magazines,  and… that’s not even a function of generational age – young people read magazines as well.  Our circulation is rising healthily around the world, indicating that there is still an appetite for the sort of read where you sit back and make time to read something that matters to you. As opposed to the sort of consumption that happen on the internet which can be very important because it is a different kind of consumption.  It tends to be typically a quicker experience; snacking around the web, if you like.  We seem to be benefiting from the fact that people will still make time to read the Economist.”  

On the positioning and direction of the Economist.com:

“For us, new media and what we are doing on the web is tremendously important but it’s not, for the moment, a substitute to the experience of the print newspaper, as we call it, which is actually where the particular mix of things that we do at the Economist is probably done best… So that means we have an opportunity online to do something over and above that, and that’s what we’re building on.  I’ve been looking after the dot com for about 7 months now and we’ve been trying to expand the content there so that it becomes not just a manifestation of the print paper online, but also a very lively daily experience.”

On Project Redstripe:

“Project Red Stripe is, I think, a very, very interesting experiment for the Economist.  And while it’s not the only way that we are relying on getting new ideas – The Economist dot com has a whole program of new developments that I am implementing and starting to look at – Project Red Stripe is… a creative way of saying: well, we may not, in our normal processes, be capturing everything that we really should, and it would be interesting to look at other ways of innovation and to capture the creative talent that may not have their outlet in other ways. So it was an open competition to say “who would like to be involved in this from around the Economist group?”… and we’ll see what comes of that. But I think that the near fact of having such a project is quite galvanizing for an organization.  It sends a strong message that we’re interested in ideas and creative momentum wherever it can come together and a lot of people are very interested to step out from 6 months from their regular jobs and work on an exciting, different project. ”

On his vision of the Economist 5 years from now: 

“Well, the curious thing about the Economist is that it both stays the same and changes… and in many ways it’s the same creature it was when it was set up 160 years ago.  The guiding principle of the Economist is very much still the one that continue to be the one in our DNA.  At the same time, it’s surprising how much it evolves while remaining true to itself, so if you pick up an Economist of 5 years ago it already feels different. Small changes that have happened that collectively make a difference. I don’t know whether we’d yet introduced colour even 5 years ago. Most recently, we introduced the international section, and when I joined there were only two sections apart from a US and UK one covering international affairs; now there are five.  So these things evolve over time and you’re sort of surprised to see when you look back that we’ve changed. But I expect the same thing to happen over next 5 years; that there will be a period of changes which you barely notice at the time but which amount up to, if you like, an upgrade experience of the magazine. And I also imagine that part of that will involve referring increasingly to what we are doing online so that you, at least, have within the magazine more reference to the widened universe that we’re creating at the Economist dot com.”

On building community with Economist readers:

“We now have a very successful blog on economics, on American policy, and we just launched one on Europe… and I’m sure that that will grow. We’ve also done something interesting with our letters. In the physical magazine we only have space to publish half a dozen or so letters each week, and they are obviously highly selected and edited. But we get several hundred letters or emails every week from our readers.  So we created the ‘Inbox’ where we publish most of what people send us. Obviously we weed out the defamatory or offensive letters, but I think that in those ways and others laid out in the future, we are involving our readers much more in a sort of community. And I think for the Economist, that is an enormous strength in that our readers around the world are an extraordinary reservoir of knowledge and insight and we would be crazy to lose this technology that can help both tap into that… and also potentially help that world of readers engage with one another as well.”

On Social Media:

“Social media is very important, in the sense that it’s the conversation that is happening out there… So I think that, first of all, it’s important to listen to what’s being said about you. For example, there are number of forums on Facebook… communities that have spontaneously arisen of people that are ‘friends of the Economist’, if you like, which is a fascinating phenomenon… But you have to be a little bit careful about how you interact with these groups – that you don’t barge into other people’s private clubs or conversations. It’s a fascinating, rather early days phenomenon which I think will be important for any organization but which you have to treat with respect for fear of misbehaviour. You can create your own blogs and try and get your own message out so that people will be aware exactly of what you are doing – but you have to do something that is real and genuine.”

Thank you, Mr. Franklin.

So, the Globe & Mail wants to give me a chance to win $10,000 if I comment on an article. Kind of like a “rrrrroll up the rim to win” campaign but you don’t actually have to buy anything.

My guess, however, is that, during the life of the campaign, the quality of the comments (pardon me, the “conversations”) will likely decline immeasurably as readers jump in solely for a chance to win.  I expect we’ll see quite a few more ”right on’s“, “what he said’s“,  ”kudos“, “I disagree’s“, and “Nuh huh’s” with little attempt to actually contribute to the discussion.

Sad, but then again, it’s $10,000. Right on! 

Love it or hate it, the internet is considered by some a slithery beast with few real laws in place to govern how it’s used or to protect the rights of content creators, distributors and consumers. Or is it?  

If you care to wrestle this python of an issue (and, of course, you should), why not tag along to the next Third Monday and hear Dr. Michael Geist’s thoughts on the topic. As always, it should prove an enlightening, if not raucous, debate.

68 words about Michael Geist

Dr. Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He is a prolific and thought provoking blogger and a columnist on technology law issues in the Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, and BBC. He is a must-read for opinion leaders, policy makers and others interested in evolving our copyright and legal regimes to promote innovation in the use of the Web. 

Jet lag be damned… For who would miss an opportunity to pose a few questions to Daniel Franklin, Executive Editor of the Economist?

Not me.

This coming Friday (March 23), H&K Canada has the privilege of hosting Mr. Franklin who will be providing a select group of clients and guests with his views on various global issues and their impacts on key Canadian economic sectors. Mr. Franklin is in Ottawa to  participate in the inaugural Executive Business Roundtable with the Government of Canada, hosted by the Economist Conferences division.

Where do I fit in, you ask? Well, after much arm-twisting and cajoling of those in H&K who are organizing the event, I was fortunate enough to win a few minutes with Mr. Franklin to pick his brain on the changing communications and media landscape, all of which I intend to blog shortly afterwards.

But I thought I’d put out feelers to find out what kind of questions you might like me to ask. I have a few ideas, but figured you might have some suggestions on topics that you’d like covered. So send them through, either via the comments or by email, and I’ll try to get them asked (and I’ll apologize in advance if I don’t)…

141 words about Daniel Franklin

Daniel Franklin has been Executive Editor of The Economist since June 2006, when he also became Editor-in-Chief of Economist.com.

Since 2003 he has been Editor of The Economist’s annual publication, “The World in…”; The World in 2008 will be published in November 2007.

Mr. Franklin joined The Economist in 1983 to write about Soviet and East European affairs. As the newspaper’s Europe Editor from 1986 to 1992 he covered the great European upheavals, from the collapse of communism to the signing of the Maastricht treaty.

After a stint as Britain Editor he moved to the United States as Washington Bureau Chief, covering the first Clinton term. In 1997 he moved back to London as Editorial Director of the Economist Intelligence Unit, where he helped to transform a traditional print publisher into an online business providing continuously updated country analysis and forecasts.

As I watched this very cool video (thanks sis), I couldn’t help thinking that there’s something to be said for capturing and communicating the processes and people behind the end result; and not just the end result itself.

Why? It helps us to better understand the (sometimes extraordinary) levels of effort and complexity required to achieve a certain goal in any field of endeavour - whether it’s training for a competition, creating great art, developing a unique product, or delivering a high quality service.

It also demonstrates the passion of those tasked with delivering on those goals.

When translated into a more corporate or organizational setting, these glimpses behind the scenes are valuable and tangible demonstrations of the passion and skills that truly define that organization (be it an organization of one, or of many thousands) and that organization’s brand, despite whatever shade we, the media, or others try to colour it. 

I’ll be signing off now for about a week and a half as I haul myself and my family to the UK to connect with family and friends. Until then…

“Moderately messy systems outperform extremely orderly systems.”

I think that if I’m ever fortunate enough to meet Eric Abrahamson or David Freedman, authors of “A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder“, I will buy them a drink (or more than one).

Why? Because, according to the authors, and as reported in Time, I can now take comfort in the lawlessness and general dishevelment that is my desk. No longer must I suffer the indignant glances of my colleagues, or feel a sense of inadequacy at the sight of their grotesquely sterile and well-manicured work spaces. In fact, and to my somewhat perverted delight, trying to maintain an immaculate and clutter-free zone was found by the esteemed authors to be, against all popular wisdom, counterproductive. (input smug chortle here).

“There’s a reason people tend to stack stuff on their desks,” reports Time’s Jeremy Caplan in summarizing the book, “Such intuitive organization can be effective. Not only are things often hard to find once secluded in a complex filing system, but they’re also out of sight and therefore out of mind. Those with mesy desks often stumble upon serendipitous connections between disparate documents.”

To quote H. Simpson, it’s funny because it’s true. Very often, and as I plow through stacks of paper seeking the elusive memo, strategy, or earlier draft of a messaging document, I regularly fall upon old white papers I’ve yet to read, bits and pieces of old RFP’s, draft presentations and other such caboodle. And much like Dirk Gently, the Douglas Adams character who seems always to get to where he needs simply by following a car which looks like it knows where it’s going, it often seems fortuitous that I happen to pick that particular stack (as there are many) at that particular time, as whatever I fall upon tends to offer up something useful to what it was I was working on. Perhaps it’s my own little taste of Chaos theory.

I find this interesting, given that we had considered doing something similar. But it’s kind of cool to have someone do it for us.

Here’s Philippe Schnobb of Radio-Canada, the French language arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) providing a detailed video description (in French) of the functionality of the Hill & Knowlton Ducharme Perron (HKDP) prediction tool.