Hill+Knowlton Strategies

(cue tumbleweed visual and appropriate Sergio Leone background score)

I should caveat this by saying that, while I’d rather be hob-nobbing with my fellow flacks, I’m not avoiding this gig out of choice, as I was called out to Calgary for work…

So there’d better be some serious live blogging happening!

can be pretty darned exhausting… (that is, if it’s the job you’re looking for)

1. Arrive at the office at 7:30 am (yeah, that one’s for the boss)… quickly scan Facebook and RSS feeds… save any interesting tidbits to Delicious.
2. Tidy up a couple of slides articulating a digital strategy for an upcoming pitch next week…
3. Craft a summary email outlining a social media approach for one of our larger clients… finger’s crossed they integrate it into their 2nd half 2007 planning
4. Write a blog post for a blogging campaign we’re managing on behalf of another client (though still have to hit send on that one)
5. Join a client meeting that includes an issues-based micro-site as part of an advocacy campaign to push an important policy issue. Start considering the information architecture requirements based on some fairly complex key messages
6. Review some environmental analysis of a growing segment of the blogosphere and best practices of certain industry segments provided by colleagues on behalf of a client (all good stuff, thx)
7. Respond to an email from a US counterpart on crisis and digital
8. Scarf down a sandwich as I consider how best to structure (and then sell to our bigwigs) a potential role in our Toronto office
9. participate in a brainstorm for a prospective client in the financial services space
10. Attempt to bring some sense of order to the magnet of miscellany that is my desk

What does all this tell me? I need a break, the opportunities are starting to present themselves fast and furious, and we need bodies…

This post is born from a situation I’ve found myself facing increasingly often, particularly as colleagues and clients reach what I would describe as the ‘consideration’ phase of the social media adoption continuum (or the SMAC if you prefer acronyms… and I know you do).

Essentially, I’d describe it as the point at which people have been exposed to social media: they know what it is (for the most part), they use it, and they realize that it’s an increasingly important and strategic element for many communications programs. At the same time, these same individuals have not yet fully grasped the potential that Web 2.0 technology offers to create entirely different forms of outreach and engagement with their audiences. What it means is that many are fundamentally ’stuck’ in first gear,  recommending basic strategies that tend to be restricted to what might now be considered table stakes. As a result, it’s becoming apparent that getting out of first gear requires a different kind of education, understanding and perspective beyond simply articulating what social media is and why it’s important.

It requires, rather, constant exposure, immersion, ongoing education, and a belief that in this day and age, if you think it, we can probably do it. And it means providing colleagues and clients with the creative capacity to look beyond the the blogs, flickrs, Diggs and Youtubes, and consider other potential forms of engagement that, while sharing the same social media ethos, deliver more uniquely relevant experiences that are also (when done right) more closely tied to an organization’s brand attributes or strategic objectives. Current example: The Members Project (hat tip to B.L.)

So what does SMAC look like to me? (and it’s really only something I’ve been noodling in recent weeks, so thoughts are welcome) Well, from this practitioners perspective, I would suggest that there are four phases that characterize the level of social media adoption or sophistication within an organization or agency setting, at least as it relates to PR…

So how am I describing these terms? well, in a nutshell: 

Awareness: Gaining a basic understanding of what “it” (meaning social media) is

Consideration: Developing the capacity to identify opportunities to use “it”, yet finding oneself limited in identifying what the opportunities might be.

Integration: Connecting the dots between traditional PR and social media… and realizing the value inherent in strategically integrating the two.

Optimization: Identifying new opportunities to create ‘breakthrough’ campaigns that further extend the value of social media within a PR/marketing context.

Too simplistic? Perhaps. But however you describe it, and for those of us who sit on panels and speak at conferences, I’d suggest that it’s time to put away the social media 101’s and start thinking about the next level and beyond… our colleagues and clients are asking for it.

I was chatting with a cab driver in New York City yesterday on my way from the hotel (on 9th) to H&K’s offices (on 3rd), which, given the state of NYC traffic during morning rush hour, allowed for considerable debate on issues ranging from the most likely candidates for the US presidential race, the prospects for newly-annointed French President Nicolas Sarkozy to truly affect economic change, the perils of colonialism (the driver was an Algerian who grew up under French rule), Quebec separatism, and Jean Chretien.

The driver was animated, extremely intelligent, and put forth his opinions (and he had a lot of them) with a sense of humour and (dangerously) a desire to maintain constant eye contact.

Which left me questioning how the discussion might have unfolded had it taken place online or by email. In this case, the driver’s broken English required considerable effort on my part to translate the real intent of what he was communicating. I had to focus my attention not only on his words, but on his expressions and tone. Without those qualifiers, without his expressiveness and dynamism, I might not have truly understood the passion behind what he was seeking to impart and left the discussion with a completely different perspective.

Likewise, and as we become increasingly dependent upon purely text-based tools such as email, I’ve noticed, and been both catalyst and victim to, increasing levels of misinterpretation based on having only the words themselves to guide my understanding of what the person is “really” trying to communicate. Irony and sarcasm do not translate well on email (I should know… I’ve failed miserably in this regard). Lack of vocabulary can also hobble emphasis and clarity. Messages that could be communicated in 30 seconds over the phone or in person rarely get communicated effectively in our efforts to send written responses instead (recognizing that to write out a 30 second diatribe could take 5-10 minutes or more – and who has that kind of time).

In the proliferating world of web 2.0 and the resulting “conversation” that these tools enable, I find myself witness to increasing instances where “conversations” degenerate as a result of the same issues that hobble effective email communication. Poor use of vocabulary, lack of any additional contextualizers (for want of a better word – and beyond such trite efforts as emoticons and LOL-style acronyms), the desire for brevity at the expense of accuracy or clarity. Each of these elements – and others – are, I believe – creating a new challenge for communicators that won’t easily be overcome, and which will demand a greater level of effort to capture the real intent of those to whom we are communicating or who are communicating to us.

Conversation cannot just be about text. Too few people in the world have the combined time, conviction and vocabularly to effectively articulate the appropriate combination of information and emotive intent in a way that accurately captures their true character and motive. Communication must be viewed as a three dimensional exercise, and be approached as such, which means elevating the need for additional media – audio and video – and the need to continue to engage beyond digital and extend the conversation into the real world.

Clearly, there is value in each of the media we use to help our clients communicate. However, more so than ever, we must understand both the opportunities and the limitations each provide.

Not only do I like the platform and premise on which the Telegraph’s new blogging community has been created (and which appears to have already drawn a fair number of folk into the My Telegraph fold), I really like the notion of the Agreement Index as a means to visually capture the general sentiment of readers around a specific blog post.

I wish every blog had one, as I believe it would add an entirely new level of qualitative analysis to the rather sludgy state of social media measurement that we currently reside in today.

Good job.

Hat tip to Martin via Simon (who likes the site to)

From Canadian Journalist comes some interesting tidbits on the current health, and state of mind, of the traditional media:

According to Dick Parsons, Time Warner’s chief executive, during a panel session at the 56th annual National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference: “The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation.” (click here for the full article)

Rowr! Feisty indeed.

And perhaps there’s good reason to feel a tad punchy – not all news appears bad:

At the World Association of Newspaper’s recent Capital Markets Day in London, for example, a glowing report was released indicating that global newspaper circulation had risen by 2 percent while the number of new paid-for daily titles had risen to 11,000 for the first time ever.

Other highlights: 

• Free daily newspaper circulation more than doubled over five years, to 40.8 million copies a day.
• More than 1.4 billion people now read a newspaper daily.
• Print is the biggest advertising medium in the world, with a 42 percent share. Newspapers alone are the second largest, with 29.4 percent of global advertising spend. “Hidden in those figures is the fact that newspapers — as the second largest advertising medium to TV — actually represent more than the combined advertising value of radio, cinema, magazines and the internet,” Mr O’Reilly said.
• Advertising revenues rose 4 percent in 12 months and 15.6 percent over the past five years.
• In the last 24 months, more new, innovative newspaper products have been launched than over the prior 30 years.

More interesting in my mind, however, are some of the assumptions that emerge from the data:

• Of the established media, newspapers are far better at managing the economic cycle than their competitors.
• Newspapers represent the only true mass media market channel – being essentially “fragmentation-proof”.
• Newspapers are competing far more effectively against the onslaught of digital media than broadcast.
• Broadband penetration is not adversely impacting underlying volumes of advertising.

Compelling stuff (even if one refrains from considering such issues as geography, internet penetration, and other factors that may skew this data) and, regardless of the self-congratulatory tone, a potent indicator that media is still a powerful force in the PR space.

The April 28th edition of the Economist included a brief yet fascinating article on sensory branding, entitled ‘Sound Effects: Companies tune in to the potential of sound’.

The article considers how ’sonic logos’ such as Intel’s highly-identifiable five-note jingle, are potentially the thin edge of the wedge for companies exploring how sound can help them sell product and boost employee productivity.

So what is the implication for PR? Does sound (beyond the spoken word) even have an effective role to play in the PR space in the same way that it does in advertising? (Anybody else still remember the Speedy Muffler song…?) To that same question, is it even appropriate or ethical from a PR perspective to apply sounds in such a way as to generate a specific response, much like some restaurants do to speed up the flow of diners, or to encourage consumers to remain longer in a specific store, and yet do it in such a way that it impacts such intangibles as reputation? Would that be construed – rightly or wrongly – as shameless manipulation or tugging on heartstrings?

The entertainment industry clearly understands the importance of sound to intensify our emotional response to certain scenes or experiences, proving that specific sounds can generate a shared reaction among large audiences. That BAA, through its testing of certain ambient sounds, was able to increase revenue in its Glasgow terminal by up to 10% clearly indicates the potential in a business context. But to what extent can that same experience be applied beyond a controlled setting such as a theatre, terminal or shop, or outside the context of a television advertisement? In a world where we are bombarded by thousands of sounds every day or, alternatively, using devices such as MP3 players to shut out any and all ambient noise, is it even possible or worthwhile to make your ’sonic logo’ stand apart?

Moreover, in the same way that companies link themselves to visual brands that may be construed as the antithesis of what they represent, could a company in a heavily industrial sector realistically link its brand to a sound – or collection of sounds - that represents its newfound commitment to the environment, for example?

A lot of questions. It’ll be interesting to see – and hear – what the answers are.

hat tip to Kevin for pointing us to this.

(For those not familiar with term, click here)

Wired Magazine and now AdAge have piled into the rather amorphous issue of corporate ‘transparency’, along with a slew of bloggers and pundits. Both are important articles that should be read by communicators and marketers alike.

So what’s left to say then?… well, being an opinionated sonofagun, I felt that both Creamer and Thompson glossed over a couple of important issues, the most important being around the issue of what the corporation has to ‘give up’ in order to be more transparent.

Without question, and per Dan Gillmore’s assertion cited in Creamer’s article, the move by companies to being more transparent (as ‘hackneyed’ a metaphor as it may be) is definitely trending upward.

That said, transparency – for all the good it does – does not, in my view, contradict the need for an organization to be able to ‘manage’ or ‘control’ the message it seeks to deliver to its audiences, regardless from where that message is coming from (be it the CEO, corporate spokespersons, or employees). That shouldn’t however be equated with spin nor be misconstrued as an attempt to conceal. Consider that we individually ‘manage’ our messages every day: in job interviews, in sales pitches, on first dates etc… by strategically considering what we want to say, based on who we’re saying it to, and we do so with no malicious intent (though some may question that as it relates to the first date). This I would deem to be no different.

Of course, the moment our message is unleashed on the world, our ability to manage or control that message is largely lost or, at best, heavily limited. Not only do organizations need to accept that, they need to view it as a positive in that that it creates a living litmus test to the quality and relevance of those messages. From that perspective, I agree with the article writers: organizations will have to become even more forthcoming (read transparent) in order to validate their points of view. But again, the desire to be transparent does not imply that an organization must toss out its right to manage the messages it delivers. Although it does mean changing how those messages are delivered and by whom. And it does mean acknowledging the fact that what you say will face significantly greater scrutiny, so you better get it right first time.   

Moreover, and contrary to where I believe Creamer is going, I would not suggest that transparency is an either-or proposition (get naked or don’t). Many organizations – even the Southwest’s, the Sun’s, the GM’s and other corporations who have actively embraced social media – still rely heavily on traditional ‘one-way’ or ‘locked down’ PR and marketing to communicate their message. Should that be seen as a repudiation to their desire to be more ‘transparent’ and to engage in a more open and ‘transparent’ dialog with their audiences? I don’t believe so. Rather, I would suggest it acknowledges the very different expectations, and behaviours, of an organization’s audiences, and the strategies or processes required to address those expectations.

So yeah, I will continue to counel clients to get ‘naked’. Legitimate efforts to increase transparency do build trust, and will continue to have an increasing impact on reputation. At the same time, many of these organizations still have businesses to run – businesses that rely on reaching sizable audiences via the channels through which they still receive the bulk of their information. And that will still require more traditional strategic thinking. How well we bridge the traditional to the new in this age of increasing transparency will be a key factor in our, and our clients, success.