‘Tools’ or ‘mechanisms’ used to communicate with

Does business exploit employees’ social media real estate?

Using personal social media profiles to promote content for businesses potentially means compromising, and diminishing, who you are as an individual human being – it can be dehumanising. This issue is likely to become an increasingly vexed one for not just professional marketers and public relations professionals, but for any employee of, and/or consultant to, an organisation.

Business pressuring employees for social media sharing

Is there anything wrong with a business asking its employees to use their personal social media real estate to promote a product, service or business? The easy answer is no, because it’s just asking. There is no need to actually undertake the social media sharing/commenting requested.

If you find value in this post, please share it through LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or Google+.

But that ignores three factors:

  • Merely by asking, some people will feel pressured to undertake the social media sharing
  • Many people on social media tend to be fairly non-disciplined when it comes to sharing/liking/RTing etc, so the business is on to a ‘winner’ by asking its employees to undertake this activity at all
  • What if the organisation monitors what employees/consultants actually share and then use non-cooperation against the individual? Big brother stuff.

You think the Big Brother approach doesn’t happen? Seriously? If so, I think you’re being hopelessly romantic and/or naive. Even if it doesn’t happen very often, it remains an approach which a business can take if it wishes.

The moral dimension of Craig Pearce (me) asking for social media shares

I ask in my blog posts and on social media platforms like Twitter and LinkedIn for people to share my posts, hoping it increases readership and the perceived credibility of my blog and, by extension, myself. I do this for a number of reasons:

  • It’s a bit of sport/fun to see subscriber numbers to my blog increase and for social media shares to go up
  • It might lead to increased and better quality work opportunities
  • It helps raise awareness of what I like to think are interesting and valuable thoughts on PR, corporate communication and marketing
  • It will hopefully lead to greater engagement on the blog and get people adding value to thought leadership I have written.

So if I can ask for social media sharing to take place, why shouldn’t businesses?

It’s a good question. And I’m not sure if I have a good answer!

The morality of business asking for social media sharing

I tend to think of facebook as a purely personal platform. LinkedIn I think of as being purely professional. And Twitter is a bit of a mixed bag, but mainly professional.

The upshot of this being I think it fine for business to ask for shares on an employee’s LinkedIn platform, and also on Twitter, but not on facebook. This is a purely personal perspective and millions will probably disagree.

And a good reason for disagreeing is that we have, really, become promiscuous sharers on social media. For many people the line between keeping information personal on social media is about as non-existent as the line which exists regarding shouting out personal information on mobile phones in public places (but don’t get me started on that one…).

There are three approaches I think businesses should apply as a default when seeking employee shares on their social media real estate:

  • Make it a hard and fast written policy that no monitoring of employees sharing of business news/imperatives on social media platforms will be held against them, unless the sharing contains comment which compromises the organisation in some way or is unlawful
  • It should also be policy that a lack of social media sharing about the business will never be held against the employee
  • Be non-pushy in the asking of shares on employees’ social media platforms. I would be putting it something like this: ‘Please consider sharing news of XYZ on one of your social media platforms such as LinkedIn….etc’

And I would certainly be prioritising the asking of shares on business-oriented social media platforms, not personal/social-oriented ones, the reason for which seems self-evident.

Not least of which there is less risk of employees thinking the business is infringing in their personal space – which will impact on employee perceptions towards the business, how much they admire the business and, crucially, their productivity and how long they work at the business. Increased employee turnover is, in particular, a massive cost which a business does not want to increase.

Advantages for employees in business-driven social media sharing

In the context of a platform such as LinkedIn, I think there are a number of common sense advantages to employees agreeing to share news of their business on LinkedIn:

  • As LinkedIn is a very visible window into the history, attitude and ‘soul’ of you as a professional, sharing – and commenting positively – on an employer’s news indicates you are a supporter of the company you work for – this is, patently, going to be perceived as being a good thing
  • If the news is relevant to the employee’s actual professional line of work, it could help them learn something about the topic being discussed through other people’s comments and/or information sharing, thereby potentially becoming more adept at their profession.
  • By promoting an employer on LinkedIn, it will probably help in some way to the business increasing its brand equity and enhancing its reputation. This will contribute in some way to the longevity and potentially even income of the business, making it a more secure long term employer of the individual.

Personal choice and personal credibility on social media

At the end of the day, of course people have the right to choose what they do and don’t share on social media. What they share and how they comment on the shares tells us a lot about the sort of person they are.

Personally, I am mystified why people would want to share something related to fast food products, FMCG products or anything with an obvious and in-your-face commercial focus.

On the other hand, I totally get social media shares on activity related to the arts, culture, politics, social issues and sport. Yes, there are plenty of cultural and sport ‘products’ out there, so my delineation between these and FMCG, for instance, is a personal and, perhaps, spurious one!

What do you think about this discussion? Do you share news of your employer on social media? if so, which platforms do you think are appropriate to do this on? Where do you draw the line in platforms to use for business purposes and the kind of news you will share on your employer or other businesses on social media? Have you ever been offended or felt compromised by being asked by your employer to share news of it on social media?

If you found value in this post, please share it through LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or Google+.

Who should be spokesperson in a crisis?

The best person to be an organisation’s spokesperson in a crisis is its leader. Unless, of course, it’s not. Expertise, empathy and credibility are key factors a spokesperson needs to possess if they are to be effective. And if the big kahuna lacks these qualities – aren’t you setting yourself up for failure by using her?

You can lead a horse to water...but CEOS?

Expertise is needed to be able to discuss all relevant crisis issues. Without this expertise, the leader will come across as unprofessional and insincere. The lack of sincerity perception stems from them being seen as not caring enough about the situation and the impact it is having through his lack of knowledge, especially if human lives or the environment are involved.

If you find value in this post, please share it through LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or Google+.

It has been observed time and time again that unless an organisation’s spokesperson in a crisis is perceived as empathising with those being impacted on,s then she will be failing in her role. Empathy will manifest itself in a number of ways:

  • The way in which language is being used. Are people, for instance, being referred to in a caring enough manner? Are their families being referred to?
  • Actual physical presence. A leader who is able to locate herself physically at the actual site of the crisis, or within close geographical proximity, will be perceived as having more empathy with the situation and those involved than a leader who is on another continent or who is, for instance, in a capital city miles away from a mine disaster in a distant rural area
  • Clothing. Would you agree that a leader who is in high vis workwear, at the site of a mining crisis, is more likely to be perceived as having empathy to the situation than a leader who is in a corporate office set up for a media conference office wearing corporate suit and tie?

Or, on the flipside, is a corporate leader normally seen in a suit and tie going to be perceived as ‘try-hard’ and insincere by, all of a sudden, donning the gear of the ‘common man’?

The credibility factor in crisis spokespersons

The issue of credibility is relevant to both expertise and empathy. Credibility is rarely won overnight. Like reputation, it’s built up over years. And a challenge with this is that different groups of stakeholders may perceive totally different levels of credibility within people.

The CEO of a mining company, for instance, may be credible to employees and business media, but may not be credible to environmentalists, politicians and environmental media.

It would seem patently obvious to me a public relations/corporate communication etc employee should not be the spokesperson for an organisation in a crisis.

Despite PR professionals being adept at proactively communicating key messages, responding elegantly to difficult questions and effectively positioning the organisation, I would argue there is no way known stakeholders will perceive this as positively as the organisational leader putting himself out there.

What were we saying about sincerity? If an organisation doesn’t care enough for one of its leaders (if not the leader) to take the time to lead from the front in difficult times then, really, does it care at all? And if it doesn’t care – then why should I?

Being practical, however, there are subtleties to this situation. It may simply be that there is so much media wanting information, an organisation’s corporate communication leader may well need to respond to media with a smaller, and/or less geographically relevant, readership etc as the organisational leader simply can’t tick all the boxes. That would seem an appropriate use of resources to me.

Desire – impacting on the credibility of crisis spokespersons

One challenge it is not unusual for anyone leading corporate communication for an organisation to face is having a CEO who does not like being interviewed by the media. Escalate this to a crisis situation and, um, it’s only human nature that this dislike turns just a little bit more passionate.

At the end of the day, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

If the CEO is someone who isn’t normally the organisational spokesperson as a matter of course (e.g. for good times), then there is a strong argument for her not to be the spokesperson in a time of crisis:

  • She won’t have done the hard yards of consistently dealing with the media, so will probably come across as clumsy and lacking in expertise and empathy – not to mention she may well not have done the requisite media training, so won’t have the technical skills to adroitly manoeuvre her way through difficult lines of questions
  • Stakeholders may not attach credibility and relevance to the CEO as she isn’t normally seen in the media. Whereas they may attach relevance and credibility to the spokesperson who does normally represent the organisation.

Whilst without any doubt whatsoever there is a very strong argument for any CEO or CEO-equivalent to be adept at dealing with the media, there is a difference between what should be occurring and what the reality is.

And, yes, whilst having the desire or passion for communicating to important organisational stakeholders should be a default, considering the profound importance stakeholder relationships and organisational reputation are, sometimes it’s just not a happening thing.

So if this passion and desire does not exist, I think there is a strong case for using a senior organisational employee who does have this passion and, just as importantly, possesses the expertise, empathy and credibility to do the job well.

Multiple media spokespeople for organisations

In a crisis, to help with consistency of messaging and positioning, by default it is best to have a single spokesperson as much as possible. An assumption in this observation being that the spokesperson is doing a pretty good job!

Outside of the crisis situation, however, I am an advocate of there being multiple organisational spokespeople. As long as the organisation’s brand and positioning has been clearly defined, which includes the tone it should use in its spoken, written and visual communication, then multiple spokespeople achieves multiple organisational benefits.

Having multiple spokespeople achieves a number of outcomes:

  • It helps external stakeholders and employees understand talent is recognised and the organisational leader, for instance, is humble enough to recognise this and not want all employees to operate in his shadow
  • In enriches and humanises the brand
  • Employees operating in a specific area of the organisation will have a deeper degree of expertise on topics than employees from outside this area. By allowing them to speak on behalf of the organisation, it builds awareness of the depth of capability of an organisation
  • The ownership the various spokespeople have of certain areas of the business and the frequency with which they deal with the media, for instance, will make them more attuned to issues in the media and amongst stakeholders. This gives them enhanced capability to be an early warning issues management detector for an organisation
  • It provides ‘insurance’ for the brand if the leader or other spokespeople leave the organisation. If all media commentary is centred in one person, if she walks out the door so does a great deal of brand equity.

So, one spokesperson for one crisis. But business as usual? Multiple spokespeople is the way to go

What war stories can you share of working within a crisis and facilitating organisational spokespeople? Do you think there should be one organisational spokesperson or a number of them – in both the crisis situation and a business as usual setting?

If you found value in this post, please share it through LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or Google+.

Social media: freedom or fiefdom for public relations?

Social media is an antidote to the nanny state, for young people in particular, offering them a freedom that they are increasingly being deprived of. With its virtually (sic) non-existent rules, ever-evolving ‘etiquettes’, yet-to-be-determined legal precedents and myriad of platforms – which offer opportunities for expression and showboating never known before – social media frontiers are being extended each passing moment.

Social media playground for PR

This is a view recently touched upon on by John Roskam of the Institute of Public Affairs in The Australian. No doubt it’s not the first time this observation has been made, but it’s one I found quite striking and worth exploring.

If you find value in this post, please share it through LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or Google +.

The nanny state which Roskam bemoans has been extensively discussed. It is a state of being which is seeing freedoms curtailed for the sake of occupational health & safety. It is having its most extreme manifestation in Australia’s economy, where safety is a major factor in the rising cost of doing business in Australia (e.g. mining, oil & gas), frightening off investment dollars (and jobs) elsewhere.

For Roskam, the freedoms lost to Australian youth are frustrating, too. Examples include children not being allowed to play physical games at school, no matter how seemingly benign, or playgrounds only being permitted to be constructed using certain equipment and after extensive and expensive risk analysis has been undertaken.

An extension of this is the political correctness applied to situations such as children’s sport, whereby coaches of young children are chastised if they answer questions about a match’s score, rather than answering in an obfuscating way along the lines of, “The score doesn’t matter, it’s about participating and having fun.” (Of course this is true, but if the kid asks the question, as a kids’ sporting coach myself I think there is a safe middle ground here which is not condescending to the children.)

Social media as freedom

It’s hard not to agree with Roskam’s assertion that social media offers freedom, though perhaps there is worth in the observation, too, that “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”.

And this is not just a throwaway line, not in the context of social media, anyway. Because freedom means being able to act like an idiot, a bully and a saboteur, just as it means being able to behave in a manner useful to society and/or simply to have some harmless fun.

We could talk at length about the cloak of invisibility social media offers those who choose to go down this path. How many times have we heard of cyberbullies and/or those who make comments whilst not choosing to make their identity known, potentially causing all sorts of unhappiness, yet running from taking responsibility for what they have contributed to?

Is this the sort of freedom we want?

Yes, the same sort of thing can and does happen offline, too.  But offline doesn’t have the same viral, audience multiplication characteristics:

  • More people can learn of an opinion, accusation, rumour etc online than they can offline
  • Social proof – the credibility of numbers. An implication of this is that if a piece of information is shared often enough online, then by its sheer proliferation it is assumed it must be true, when clearly this isn’t necessarily the case.

It is true, also, that many online environments can have a moderating effect on information, calming the waters of outrageous pieces of supposed information (more like a piece of data, really).

And it is similarly true, and here we have a wonderful example of social media freedom, that the information posted online can be curated by those choosing to share it. This can mean adding further (perhaps qualifying) insights and opinion, scrutinising what is being shared and, ultimately, accelerating a dialogue on the topic in a much more expansive (if not necessarily in a more intelligent) manner than could have occurred offline.

So yes, social media does offer a unique sort of freedom to all of us. How society ends up using the freedom, well, only time will tell. But it will be interesting to see how it evolves!

Freedom at last: implications for communication/relationship management

For communicators, social media offers wonderful opportunities to share information, enhance reputations and build relationships. And it can help mitigate the impact of crises, through issue identification, conversation monitoring, information sharing and having 3rd party advocates assist in the application of social proof.

Of course, when it comes to crises, social media has made worse many an organisational crisis, too, due to the number of people who can very quickly pick up on a piece of information (or disinformation, as the case may be) and share it.

Another major challenge for communicators are the proliferation of social media platforms which can be utilised. And it’s not one size fits all. One piece of information articulated in the same way cannot simply be replicated across all platforms.

All this interaction requires not just strategic insights, technical skills and creativity, but increased budget.

The many opportunities for expression social media and digital offers creates further new challenges. Video, photos, illustrations, software which makes and distorts all of this, with text being either bastardised into new forms or iterations of language or being superseded completely by digital’s current darling, video .

It’s tempting to accuse still images of dumbing down communication, with infographics being one manifestation. But that would be to deny a powerfully large thing we call the visual arts. Still, you have to wonder that whilst, yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, sometimes those ‘words’ may not make much sense.

Or, and here’s the killer, words may not be connected in a manner which the viewer is able to ‘decipher’ to give the words meaning.

Furthermore, the meaning audiences gain may not be the meaning intended. It is my belief words can be much more specific than images, both to capture the meaning and to customise the meaning in a manner more attuned to the individual’s ability and desire to decipher it.

Really, even at the best of times it’s hard to know to know whether social is a bane or a boost to professional communication. It’s certainly complicated it! And, as well all know, it ain’t going nowhere, so best we figure out excellent solutions and be ever open to a rapid evolution to the approaches we choose to take.

Where have you seen, or experienced, the impact which social media’s freedom characteristic has had on public relations or marketing? Where do you feel the freedom dimension is helpful or a hindrance to professional communication? Have you observed where the nanny state mindset is being applied to social media (apart from China!)?

If you find value in this post, please share it through LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or Google +.