Hill+Knowlton Strategies

Work took me to Toronto this past weekend for the World Series of Video Gaming. It was a wild event, and introduced me to a culture and community I had not been exposed to previously. The intensity and passion of gamers both amateur and professional was clearly evident. Of the event itself, there was nothing amateur about it. Professional gaming in Canada has certainly come of age – although nothing (yet) like their counterparts in South Korea or Japan.

Watching teams battling it out in the World of WarCraft 3v3 arena battle, or observing individual gamers going head-to-head (both virtually and literally) in the the Quake IV and Guitar Hero II competitions, was something else entirely. Teams strategized in the stands as they watched the competition in action. Boisterous audiences cheered on players known only by their handles. Competitions were broadcast on big screens throughout the venue. And, of course, no professional tournament (in any sport) would be complete without it’s share of controversy, be it around illegal game settings, or confusion around the rules in place to ensure a level playing field.

Ultimately, my fascination with the whole event was grounded by the re-affirmation of the importance of knowing your audience – intimately – and of filtering and channeling your messages (be they corporate, tech or otherwise) so that they speak the language your target audiences speak. It’s about understanding what motivates them and the touch points that connect them to your brand. And it’s this which reinforces the value of the web as a mechanism to build that bridge. Part of our campaign was to foster a more meaningful link (online) between our client and the gaming community, one that spoke their language, encouraged engagement on their terms, and provided valuable content. This event (we hope) was only the beginning of what will be a sustained campaign on the part of our client to interact with audiences in ways that naturally extend the traditional relationship between the two.

I was quoted this morning in an article related to an issue pitting Dalhousie University against a Facebook group protesting the school’s use of animals for research. You can read the story here (and find additional context here). It’s an interesting piece, although I feel the need to clarify my rather “sensationalist” quote.

Without question, this imbroglio is a clear example of the changing face of crisis communications and issues management in today’s networked world. It speaks not only to the speed and efficiency by which an issue can erupt and spread – both in the media and the blogosphere – but also to the issue of what organizations can or should do to respond. My colleague, Boyd Neil, a senior crisis practitioner, has also posted his thoughts on this issue.

In a growing number of instances, issues move through the blogosphere and social networking sites so quickly that trying to respond on a one-to-one basis would be virtually impossible, and a massive drain on resources. It would be akin to playing “whack-a-mole” versus strategically targeting your communications to those audiences and influencers that really matter, be they employees, loyal customers, communities, regulators etc. Likewise, the speed by which communities spring up around such issues, as was the case with Facebook, only adds to the complexity of this new landscape that we, as communicators, face. And that was, to some degree, a key point of my quote.

Further to that point is the question of when to respond and, if a response is deemed necessary (depending on the impact of the action being taken), how. In times of crisis, timeliness is still an essential component to any communications. Increasingly, however, timeliness must also be matched by an even greater focus on credibility, transparency and authority. As the social web grows, so too will the level of misinformation and speculation, either intentional or inadvertent. And that has clear implications around how an organization should consider the response they take. 

Ultimately, an organization must first decide if the issue (if left unchecked) might ultimately impact their “business” – be it a negative impact on sales, a substantive hit to an organization’s reputation, or reduced enrollment (as in the case of Dal). Or might it, as Boyd suggest, fade into obscurity?

Secondly, it must consider the environment in which this issue is unfolding. Per my comment on Boyd’s blog earlier today, and as I noted to the reporter yesterday, the social web can often be, to a degree, self-policing. In reading the comments on the Facebook group, you see a lot of folks supporting Dal’s arguments and taking a highly critical stance against the creator of the group. Which begs the question, should the school itself should seek to participate on this forum or let the masses fight the battle for them?

Additionally, it could be argued that when the “author” or “instigator” of an issue hides behind anonymity (or a name only), or is in no real position to comment with authority (meaning, is either a spectator or does not have the appropriate perspective or knowledge to truly decipher what that person has either seen or heard), does responding lend credibility to the “instigator” where none previously existed?

Furthermore, an organization must also explore how it might, if necessary, use its own online footprint to correct misinformation, address inaccuracies, and provide clarity on the issue in question. This might include posting links to third-party accreditations of its practices, and other endorsements from credible parties. It might include photos or video tours of specific facilities accompanied by neutral observers. And, as Boyd mentioned, it might include offering doubters the opportunity to see for themselves. In doing so, you are also arming your supporters with information and content that they are then able to use in other forums.

For the most part, legal action should, as Boyd infers, be considered a last resort. At the same time, organizations need to better understand the implications of social media, particularly in times of crisis, so as not to over-react to every negative comment, but also to know when to respond to prevent an issue from having a lasting impact on their reputation or business.

So last week I posted on the social media initiatives of some of Canada’s bigger/est banks… A day or so later, Michael Seaton, the catalyst behind Scotiabank’s own Web2.0 campaigns, reminded me – in an excellent contextual post - of Van City’s Change Everything initiative which I had somehow forgotten to include, particularly as it was one of the first foray’s into the social web by a sizable Canadian corporation.

And good thing he did. As that illicited a response from William Azaroff, Interactive Marketing & Channel Manager at Vancity, whose blog I then happened to visit.

And good thing I did. Because he has just recently concluded a three-part series (published on Netbanker) on his experience in launching, measuring and managing the Change Everything campaign. It’s a compelling case study, chock-a-block with useful insights.

I’m guessing I should be forgetful more often… I’m almost hoping I’ve missed something else?

The problem I sometimes have with social media is that it’s so, well, social. In fact, it’s quite likely that were I not blogging, I would not have met many of H&K’s direct (and indirect) competitors – who are generally quite nice people. But damn if that doesn’t take away from the thrill of the fight. Even panels at conferences on social media – where people really want to see some blood – have largely become love-fests. It’s a shame. In the context of corporate Canada rarely do we enjoy true face-to-face confrontations, other than perhaps a few stares and glares as one pitch team walks into a boardroom as another walks out.

And that’s disappointing. Which is why I sometimes wish we might all one day gather up our respective teams, meet in the middle of a field, and (if nothing else), lay down some heavy aggro on one another… much like this:

or this (itself a fine piece of marketing a la Braveheart)…

Quite the trend appears to be unfolding in the Great White North as TD Canada Trust and RBC join Scotiabank, representing three of Canada’s five biggest banks, in embracing social media to engage with existing and potential customers.

Today, RBC announced that they are looking for a crew of student bloggers to “speak openly and honestly about their financial struggles and successes”, as part of a peer-to-peer site that is expected to go live at the end of this month. This adds to the bank’s existing investment in its just-launched Campus Connection sponsored Facebook Group.

Alongside RBC, TD Canada Trust has also unveiled its own sponsored Facebook Group – The Money Lounge - with an accompanying Facebook app – “Split it” (thanks to Kate for the heads-up) – which, like RBC, is targeted exclusively at the university and college student population.

All of this, however, falls on the heels of Scotiabank’s earlier forays into this space with the Money Clip podcast and My Vault community. Unlike RBC and TD Canada Trust, however, Scotiabank’s efforts have focused less exclusively on students and more on the broader retail banking customer (although it will be interesting to see if that changes).

Given the skyrocketing cost of Facebook sponsorships, I’ll be curious to discover if the results justify TD’s and RBC’s investment. I’ll be watching with interest.

I am constantly blown away (no pun intended, and you’ll see why) by the online creativity of non-profits who, for the most part, cannot afford the large-scale ad spends of their corporate counterparts.

This is perhaps one of the better examples of an emerging viral campaign I have seen in a long while: one that combines a highly compelling website built around a fictitous summer camp and outrageous (and not in the funny sense) viral video that puts AK-47’s in the hands of children. The organization behind it: War Child Canada. The campaign: the use/abuse of children as combat soldiers in conflicts around the world.

The humour of the video is grotesquely powerful (particularly being a father of young kids myself). and the site tells a real story that leads directly to the call to action. Kudos to the team behind it.

Update: well, it seems the site has also angered many in the Toronto area where posters also accompanied the campaign (clearly this is bigger than even I anticipated).  

Having only just re-emerged from the wilds of western Quebec after nearly 12 days of non-stop swimming, sun, insulation installation, wood cutting, frog catching, and re-connecting with family (and my own sanity), I’m glad to see the world hasn’t much changed - other than the workload that now lies before me and the Canadian digital team.

So in commemoration of my safe return, I offer you 12 things that haven’t changed in those 12 days…

1. My fascination that social media is still so new to so many…
2. My irritation that social media is still an “or” proposition…
3. Facebook is still growing…
4. My favorite bloggers are still writing…
5. Tiger is still winning…
6. My appreciation of cold beer on a dock by a lake…
7. My enjoyment of Morcheeba, Pink Floyd, Carla Bruni, and Radiohead…(along with a cold beer on a dock by a lake)
8. My passion for the printed word… (and cold beer enjoyed on a dock by a lake)
9. My trepidation for things that go bump in the night (particularly when you’re in the company of wolves)…
10. My disbelief that some corporations elect to ignore the negative potential of social media… to their peril…
11. My appreciation for colleagues who share my passion for ”digital” 
12. My capacity to use the “Turn Off” button… and be disciplined about it. 

Back to the grindstone, so stay tuned… there’s some cool stuff happening in the halls of H&K Canada… and, of course, what would be an impending election without a predictor?