Posts Tagged ‘social media’

Are you really using Twitter for crisis management? Really?

Here’s a really interesting post on the Marketing Pilgrim blog, looking at a recent eMarketer report on the uses that companies are putting social media to.

Of immediate interest was the finding that more than forty percent (40% ?!?) of respondents claim to “Monitor Twitter for PR problems in real time”.

While it’s encouraging to see so many organisations recognising the benefit a platform like Twitter can provide from a monitoring and issues management perspective, I’m not sure I believe the 300-odd respondents who said they’re actually doing it. It’s always easy to answer a survey question in the affirmative if you think that’s what you should really be doing – case in point, *of course* I get my five-a-day every day.

I think what I find more believable is that only around half of the respondents that claim to monitor Twitter as an issues management tool actually respond to the tweets they’re picking up on. This is a worry in itself.

If you’re not going to do something about the problems your stakeholders have with you, then all monitoring does is take away the element of surprise when one of those niggles becomes an actual issue or crisis. And it gives you some time to start updating your CV.

As our Digital team constantly reminds us, monitoring and listening are great places to start, but the important bit is actually doing something to fix the underlying problem.

This is one of the topics that Gaylene Ravenscroft and Candace Kuss cover in our Social Media Workshops, which we’ve been running with numerous clients to great effect (having sat through one of these myself I can vouch for the quality of the content – it’s actually part of the reason we started this blog).

And for those readers who are on Twitter, you can follow Hill & Knowlton London. Relevant crisis-related posts have a #HK_crisisUK hashtag for easy reference.

Social media: friend or foe?

As I mentioned earlier this week, last night I attended the Social Media: Friend or Foe? event hosted by our Change & Internal Communications team here at Hill & Knowlton. This event represented a bit of a break in format for our recent events. Rather than the traditional expert presentation followed by a Q&A, our host and Head of Internal Communication, Scott McKenzie, challenged the audience to field two debate teams from amongst their number.

This was a great approach for a number of reasons, not least because it highlighted that there’s not really such a thing as a “social media expert” (one of the problems of a medium that changes exponentially while you’re asleep). In this context then, the challenge for our guests and attending H&K-ers was to coordinate either a Friend or Foe argument, and the results were particularly interesting given our debate teams.

From a crisis management perspective the outcome of the debate isn’t nearly as important as some of the observations the debate itself triggered. Some of the more poignant among these were:

  • As social media becomes more pervasive it also becomes less social. (this is similar to the old “alternative” music debate – if everyone’s playing “alternative”, doesn’t that just make it mainstream?)
  • As mobile technology continues its upward evolution it becomes a social media lifeline. How then does a company possibly enforce a social media ban amongst its workforce if they have their own mobile phones in the workplace?
  • When it comes to engaging with audiences via social media, you have to be brave because you cannot be selective. This was from our very own global Director of Marketing Technology, Niall Cook (or follow him on Twitter here).

For crisis managers then, the key take-away from the night was this: social media is here to stay. So deal with it.

This cold, hard truth has several important ramifications, which are not exactly new, but are definitely more pronounced with the rise of online networks. Here are three of the more confronting ones:

  • The “how” of a story supercedes the “what”. Relatively simple issues, the kind that used to be classed as “just the cost of doing business”, now take on a life of their own. All it takes is one connected individual to decide they don’t like the way your organisation has behaved, and it’s enough to start a landslide. Snowflakes and skiers have known this for years.
  • The relevance of social media to your primary target audience is irrelevant to your actual crisis. It used to be that if a special interest group took offence, you could rationalise your level of engagement on the basis of whether or not that special interest group had any bearing on your ability to continue doing business. Now, though, if that otherwise irrelevant interest group can stimulate significant attention in their own right, then to the world’s media that actually is a story. It may still have no bearing on what your original problem was…but by now, that no longer matters.
  • Yes, engaging with a social media-based crisis does reinforce a positive feedback loop. So, think carefully before you do it. This is a real sticking point in the crisis vs. digital communication debate because the pro-social media camp is very much singing the “two-way communication promotes transparency” hymn. Fact: that statement was just as true before the internet was invented. It was just harder to tell if you weren’t holding up your side of the deal.

The point then is that you don’t have to get on facebook/Twitter/foursquare/insert-your-preferred-platform-here in order to engage with your audience. So have a good, hard think about whether you even should. Absolutely, the odds are you should engage with your audience. But if they’ve created a space on a social network that’s akin to an old-fashioned lynch mob, why on Earth would you do it there? Be creative and find a better solution (do something completely out of the box – actually meet the leaders of the mob one-on-one, for a coffee and a chat).

It’s all pretty daunting stuff, and depending on which school of thought you subscribe to it will make the lives of crisis managers either infinitely more difficult, or somewhat less painful. And the reason for that is a simple one: how people respond to your corporate behaviour is well and truly beyond your control. So instead, we need to take a leaf out of our Internal Communications colleagues’ handbook, and focus our efforts instead on what our corporate behaviour actually is in the first instance.

In other words, do the right thing by people and chances are, they’ll do the right thing by you.

(For any readers who haven’t yet, you can also check out Scott’s Collective Conversation blog here)

Social media and internal communication, two things crisis managers need to get

An alternative title for this post was going to be “Do you know what your employees are doing while the world’s falling apart around you?”, but we were a bit concerned that it came across all Big Brother-esque.

However, it’s always worth remembering that effective internal communication is integral to the successful management of many crises – whether that’s by engaging your biggest, most readily available army of ambassadors, or alternatively, ensuring that the right people know the right information to get a problem sorted with a minimum of fuss.

It becomes doubly important when you through the issue of employees’ access to social media into the mix.

Because of this natural affinity, the Issues & Crisis team works closely with our Change & Internal Communications team here at Hill & Knowlton. Fellow H&K Collective Conversation blogger and head of our C&IC team, Scott McKenzie, is hosting the Social Media: Friend or Foe? event next week. Click here for further details and to register – some of the Issues & Crisis team will be there as well, reminding people that not all communication happens on the internet.

One of the issues we’ll be looking for an answer on is that of effective social media monitoring. Knowing what your employees are saying about you in the midst of a scandal-driven media storm is a very good thing, but there are some obvious problems with monitoring them (ethics and privacy come to mind immediately, shortly followed by practicality). Check back next week for an update.

What a teenage vampire love story can teach crisis managers about Twitter

At a recent event I was challenged over my views on Twitter – specifically as to whether or not it’s really all that big of an issue in the context of your average crisis manager’s day in the office.

Before we get too carried away with this (perceived) blasphemy, in principle I agree with the challenge on the following points:

  • Not everyone’s on Twitter
  • If you’re not following a particular Twitterer (e.g. Ashton Kutcher) then you’re not really all that likely to see their tweets (leaving aside for the minute the phenomenon of re-tweeting)
  • The “push” mentality of most Twitterers (yours truly included) means many tweets are practically spam, although working this out for yourself means the quality of your tweets should improve over time
  • With some notable exceptions such as the Iranian elections (or here for The Washington Post’s coverage of the Twitter phenomenon), most trending topics lack apparent relevance for big corporations (the number of companies selling tickets to see New Moon, for example, is far lower than the audience interest in buying them)

However, on reflection, the phenomenon that is Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga actually makes the opposite point. Like Harry Potter and The Davinci Code before it, copies of Twilight and its sequels can be seen on trains, planes and around the Hill & Knowlton offices, on our colleagues’ desks. And that’s largely the point.

As the Current Twitter trends column from independent.co.uk highlights, the topics that trend on Twitter are in fact the things that a critical mass of people actually care about. In real life.

And this is where I think many of us have, until recently, missed the point with Twitter and other social media.

There’s something of a bias towards believing that if something’s covered in the news media then it’s objectively important. It must be, because it’s “the news”, as opposed to a published stream of consciousness, right? So it then begs the question as to why a respected newspaper would go to the trouble of republishing a list of things that people are tweeting about.

It’s all about dealing with real people, whose actual lives exist offline. No-one lives on the internet. You can’t eat it, you can’t breathe it, it doesn’t keep you warm. Social media is populated by real people, with concerns that are as real to them as the need to eat and breathe.

The role then for crisis managers, is to recognise that grievances, complaints, valid concerns and, dare I say it, helpful tip-offs, are all getting aired in pubic, around the clock, around the world, and on the internet. Good crisis management requires us to be alert to that scenario, and do something about it (which is why the Issues & Crisis team here at Hill & Knowlton works closely with our counterparts in the Digital team to make sure we’re continually learning about how to do this better).

As I’ve said in a previous post, social media should be considered on its merits for every individual case. However, understanding the premise of the beast is no longer optional for any crisis manager.

As an aside (although somewhat related from the perspective of corporations using social media as a communication channel), check out this post from the Brand Twist blog on why you don’t need a social media strategy…

Also, follow Hill & Knowlton UK’s Twitter feed here.

Disclosure: this is an edited version of a post I made last week. While some of the examples have been updated, the basic thrust of the post hasn’t.

How social do you want your crisis management to be?

Nearly every article written on the role of social media in crisis management overlooks the hundreds of crises managed by organisations every year that no-one outside of a very small management team ever hears about. However, that’s a topic for another day because we’ve found a very good article by Euan Semple, on the Internal Comms Hub, on the importance of incorporating social media into your crisis management plans.

Euan makes a good point when he says: “When you have an unpredictable situation the distributed nature and inherent spontaneity of social media is just what you need.” That’s absolutely true when you need to get a message out to as broad a population as possible, as quickly as possible.

But good crisis management planning should increase the predictability of most situations facing organisations today, and the likelihood that you need to alert a whole country to a problem is very, very small. There aren’t really that many people in the world who will ever have to deal with a tsunami, earthquake, flood or terrorist attack.

So while it’s important to understand how social media works, and how that can help or hinder you in your crisis management efforts, it’s probably more important at the planning stage to understand how it fits with your organisation’s overall identity, and your existing relationships with your audiences both on- and off-line. At the end of the day, we’re still talking about real people (you and your colleagues) talking to other real people (the rest of the world). Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t change that.

If you’re using a facebook fan page as a one-way channel to push information out to a customer base, a sudden switch to two-way crisis communication is going to create more problems than it solves because that’s not what your audience is coming there for.

Social media is the great communication equaliser in that it levels the information playing-field for both organisations and their stakeholders. This also means that cranks, charlatans, hackers and general trouble-makers get to enjoy the power shift as well. In the midst of a crisis do you have the physical resources available to tackle these head-on? Probably not. Can you rely on any social media platform to self-regulate itself into a rational state of mind? Probably, eventually. In the timeframe you need it to? Probably not.