New Brand Tribalism

Kudos to the gang down at New Brand Tribalism (NBT from now on) for doing something startlingly different this week. In this age of instant e-access, 140-bit brevity and virtual buddies, how excited was I to receive an unsolicited package at work the other day. Remember them? Not quite brown paper held together by a piece of hairy string, but a none-the-less equally nostalgia inducing Jiffy bag. I wasn’t expecting anything from Amazon or eBay, so it was with a mounting sense of excitement that I ripped open the package to reveal “Live Long and Prosper: The 55 Minute Guide to Building Sustainable Brands”.

Written by Dan Gray, who as it happens I know through his regular contributions to Commscrum, (one of my favourite ‘serious’ blogs), the blurb promised a quick and deceptively simple guide to why CSR is dead and ‘design for sustainability’ is the next competitive advantage.

To be frank it could have been about bee keeping or beard trimming and I’d still have read it.

Not because it was a freebie – but because I have to return it as soon as I’ve read it. And because it had a library card pocket on the inside front cover complete with library card. It really has been years since I’ve seen one of them! And because the Jiffy Bag contained an SAJ (stamped, addressed Jiffy) so that I could return to sender at zero cost to me and that I would return to sender because it’s not easy to chuck a handful of unused postage stamps in the bin.

But the main reason I was going to read this book come what may was because it was accompanied by a note from my mate Eb at NBT reminding me of one of their core values: Knowledge is Energy. Knowledge Shared – is Energy Shared. What a great way to bring your core values to life. I want to read the book. I want to send it back. I want to share the experience with others.

NBT have invested a not inconsequential sum in sending this (and other books I’d wager) to a number of their friends, clients and countrymen to demonstrate not just a desire to build their own tribe of fans and doting admirers, but an expertise at doing just that.

Brown’s big toed blunder

The world’s gone barking mad again.

When I woke up this morning, Labour were at odds of 30 to 1 to achieve an overall majority on 6 May. I know this because I work for the world’s biggest and best betting exchange, and our customers are getting more active by the day in the run up to the General Election on our UK election markets.

I spent the morning at a Social Media in a Corporate Context conference and being a good boy had declined the rather sensible invitation of my hosts to cast aside traditional conference etiquette and keep my mobile phone switched on throughout the event.

So imagine my surprise when during the lunch break I reconnected with the outside world to discover that the odds on a Labour majority had drifted out to 46 to 1.

Blimey I thought – something big must have happened to cause a swing of this size. The Labour party had fallen to its lowest level of support in the betting since the market opened two years ago.

The newswires were fizzing and Twitter was full of it. Gordon Brown had insulted a lifelong Labour supporter in a private conversation in the back of his car.

It strikes me that what he says in the privacy of his own car is his matter. The fact that his comments were picked up by the media because the microphone on his tie had not been switched off was unfortunate. But hey – hands up anyone who has never said a bad word about someone moments after smiling sweetly in an effort to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Have you never maintained an air of conviviality with someone you may not see eye to eye with and once you’ve put the phone down said a few choice words to relieve your frustration?

I see absolutely no crime here. What I see is a gleeful over-reaction from an over intrusive and mischievous media, on a mission to make something out of nothing.

That’s my first point.

My second is why the sensitivity over someone’s big toes? I just don’t get it!

Professional Development in Internal Communication

Not so long ago I completed an online survey at the invitation of Internal Communications (IC) recruiters extraordinaire VMA Group. Designed to gather independent information on salary benchmarks, skills requirements and key career development trends within the UK IC industry, the survey was completed by 250 senior IC practitioners.

This evening I popped along to RIBA to see the survey results presented back to a posse of grim faced IC ninjas eager to find out how the industry has fared since the last survey in 2008. So what if anything has changed?

Salaries have remained pretty static, with modest uplift at all levels broadly in line with inflation. Given the economic backdrop over the last 2 years I’d say this is a good sign for the industry.

One of the most interesting changes was around reporting lines. Since 2008 the three notable changes are:

The number of Heads of IC reporting directly to the CEO has doubled, from 4% to 8%
A 10% increase in Heads of IC reporting to the Head of Marketing
A significant reduction (11%) in the amount of Heads of IC reporting to Corporate Communications

Team size was interesting, in particular the fact that 25% of IC teams comprise just one person operating alone. There was no figure for 2008 to compare this figure against. I’ll ask VMA tomorrow if they have this.

Another interesting finding was the difference between the top 5 skills deficits as perceived by IC practitioners versus those of their employers:

IC practitioners	Employers
Coaching senior leadership	Strategy setting
Social media development	Coaching senior leadership
Change management	Influencing
Influencing	Writing
Strategy Setting	IC theory

Interesting to see that Social media development does not feature in the employers’ wish list. Personally I think that this is a reflection on the relatively slow recognition of the game changing nature of social media channels and actually IC practitioners are ahead of the curve here. I’d expect to see it higher up this list in the next survey.

To finish off this whistle stop tour of the survey findings, what do you make of this one? In 2008, 19% of respondents felt that their senior executive team were key IC advocates. In 2010 that figure rises to 30%.

Could this be an indication that employee engagement and the role IC plays in increasing it has become progressively more recognised by senior executive teams as an important and relatively low cost differentiator of corporate performance during harsh economic times?

I’d like to think so, but then I would wouldn’t I!

Feeding frenzy on Twitter

Perceived wisdom is that Twitter offers companies exciting new ways to reach out to their customers and build authentic relationships with them. Quite right too – I follow many of my favourite brands on Twitter and certainly feel closer to some of them as a result.

One particular area that attracts a lot of attention is Customer Services. Some companies have received very good press through the extension of their customer services offering onto Twitter, and off the top of my head I can think of a few that seem to do this very well: @virginmedia @easyJetCare @starbucks @SouthwestAir for starters.

The company I work for has been experimenting in this area and has had some very positive reactions to real time monitoring and intervention when one of our customers has cried out for help on Twitter.

The recent Vodafone ‘twincident’ was an interesting lesson to all of us exploring the value of using Twitter in this way. However, on that occasion it appears to represent poor judgement and a non-malicious error by one individual. What happened to a friend of mine last week is very different and just as scary. His company name has been changed to Feeding Frenzy to protect confidentiality.

He noticed a tweet from a customer who was clearly finding the experience of using his company’s core product frustrating. He contacted his customer services team who rolled into action in the hope of helping the guy out and potentially turning a poor first time experience into a much more positive one.

They quickly identified the customer from his profile information on Twitter and put in a call to him to see if there was anything they could do to help. Within seconds of making the call, this was his reaction, live on Twitter:

“Extraordinary. Feeding Frenzy just called me on my mobile, after I tweeted earlier about how fucking hard it was..unbelievable.. Still in shock” 4:57pm

“Not kidding, the bloke says “We see you’re having issues with Feeding Frenzy and mentioned on Twitter” fuck that. Madness madness madness” 4:58pm

“yeah, now I’m over the shock I feel all terroristy, like fuck them.” 5:09pm

What followed resembled a pride of lions feeding on a freshly butchered zebra. A small number of his followers started biting chunks out of the company at the suggestion that the comments were hilarious and they should try and get them trending.

Eight individuals with a combined total of 3,700 followers created sufficient noise to represent over 20,000 ‘negative reads’ within an hour. The story did not trend because it never spread beyond the small group.

I guess Feeding Frenzy were lucky.

I was quite taken aback by this tale. I could not understand how this kind of reaction could have resulted from a genuine attempt to help someone out.

And then it twigged. Feeding Frenzy had intruded on his personal space when they looked up his phone number and rang him. And like a lion feeding on a zebra’s carcass, he reacted violently when an intruder tried to get in on his feast.

So here is my question. Was this an isolated incident representing wholly untypical behaviour which we can all afford to dismiss, or should the lesson from this tale be that Customer Service interventions based on Twitter comments should be restricted to offers of support via direct interaction only on Twitter?

What do you think?

Internal Communications on Linkedin?

I recently started a discussion on my company’s group on Linkedin about using the site as an Internal Communications channel. The main strands of the feedback were:

We don’t need yet another channel to have to keep an eye on
Fear that ex-staff are also part of the group
Fear over security features on the site
The lawyers said no!

I was somewhat surprised at the push back until I realised that it was my fault for not positioning the idea quite as I had intended.

My own considered definition of Internal Communication is likely to be very different from everyone else around here – after all, I’m the only one who thinks about it all day every day, and occasionally wakes up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night thinking about it too…

Most people not immersed in the dark art would naturally assume that Internal Communication is communication exclusively within an organisation. The fact is, these days with the speed, ease and penetration of digital and mobile communication, there is growing convergence between internal and external communications. There has to be.

One reason for this is simply because staff are participating in social media channels like Facebook and Twitter in ever increasing numbers. And just as we can’t and shouldn’t attempt to regulate what they say to their friends in the pub or their family across the dinner table about what it’s like to work here, we should not attempt to do so online either.

Most staff are natural and willing advocates of the company they work for, and rather than trying to script them with carefully crafted words, or banning them from contributing to certain online communities, or threatening them with disciplinary action if they cross some digital line, surely companies are far better off working hard to constantly improve their experience at work.

The growth of social media channels is making even email look very slow and cumbersome these days, and communications professionals have to assume that anything broadcast internally has the potential to reach the outside world within seconds – and spread across the globe just as quickly. At best, IT security measures can only ever hope to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted and provide the necessary evidence to invoke disciplinary procedures.

Of course there have to be some rules and there certainly has to be some advice and guidance. But demonstrating trust in people and creating a climate of authentic advocacy through increased transparency, openness, humility, honesty, integrity, personal growth, professional development, meaningful work and fun looks to me a lot more effective and rewarding.

I agree that we should not be in the business of creating more places where people are expected to have to visit to find information or provide give feedback. That was never in my mind. I know how hard it is to drive traffic to a single very accessible source already, let alone encourage them to contribute to discussions and leave feedback.

My thinking here was simply that where you have an existing pervasive channel it feels like a lost opportunity to ignore it just because it is external. It would only ever be a complementary alternative place for people to find out what is going on and have their say in case they were finding it hard to find their way to the single source of corporate truth that is the intranet.

The presence of ex-staff is a complete bonus! I’d like to think that most people that have moved on from the company still love the place. Academic institutions and many large companies make an effort to keep in touch with their Alumni and so should we. Plus their perspective on issues has real value. They are just as likely as current staff to be customers and investors.

Oh yes – nearly forgot. It came as no surprise that Legal would be so dismissive. I think it’s time to go and talk to them!

A word in your Shell-like

The Times today carries a story of the names and telephone numbers of up to 170,000 of Shell employees and contractors being sent by email to human rights groups and environmental activists, supposedly by a group of disaffected staff who were pressing for changes within the company.

I’d say the truth around this story has yet to be established, however regardless of whether this represents, as reported, the actions of a group of disaffected staff seeking change (which feels very unlikely!), or the actions of a single rogue ex-employee it will probably be a while before we know.

The story interests me primarily because it is a timely reminder to those who argue that social media should not be allowed in the workplace because of the increased risk of intentional or accidental reputational damage. The same arguments were widely articulated in the early days of email – and who could seriously suggest these days that email has no place in business and commerce?

This is not a technology issue. Today’s story illustrates how the means of spraying information around the globe in minutes has been with us for donkey’s years. Social media technologies may speed up the spray from minutes to seconds, but this makes no real difference to the outcome. And security measures merely provide a way of mopping up after the damage has been done. They will never prevent such occurrences from taking place.

No – this has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with human behaviour. Last Friday’s Twitter storm involving Vodafone UK was very interesting. The storm turned very quickly into a storm in a tea cup and went on to illustrate to me the enormous potential that social media has in enhancing and protecting corporate reputations.

Had the employee sent his homophobic comments in an email to 8,000 people the story would have gone viral over a period of days and weeks and it would have attracted far more mainstream press coverage. Because this took place on Twitter the whole world knew about it in minutes – but they got over it in hours.

In my opinion Vodafone handled the incident magnificently. They could have gone quiet and said nothing (the route favoured by far too many corporate media relations departments) or maybe spun the story by blaming hackers or technology failure.

But no – they swiftly identified the issue as one of human behaviour and apologised openly and elegantly and as a result the story no longer has legs. In my opinion Vodafone controlled the incident beautifully by demonstrating agility, openness and a touch of humility.

I think there are lessons for us all in there somewhere.

Bad manners or the acceptable face of multi tasking?

Twenty seconds into my train journey to London this morning I broke out into a cold sweat. I realised I had left my iPhone and my Blackberry at home. Ironically I was on route to Melcrum’s Social Media conference. What a day to be without the means to communicate!

I managed to find the venue despite having no access to Google maps, which was a relief. It didn’t take long before I found myself glancing enviously around the packed room at my peers as some brandished their mobiles quite brazenly and others glanced furtively between their legs where they engaged with the outside world with a little more discretion.

Two things struck me. First, it cost a fair few quid to be in the room. £625 to be precise. I’m guessing that most delegates were there by virtue of company money. Surely they owed it to their paymaster to pay a bit more attention to the distinguished speakers?

Secondly, how did the speakers feel about giving it their all up on stage to an audience that clearly wasn’t 100% focussed on their efforts? I know how irritated I get when people whip out a Blackberry and begin tap tap tapping during a meeting. Surely it is a simple question of good manners. If someone is presenting to us should we not all afford the presenter the basic courtesy of paying attention?

There is a senior executive at my place who thunders through the office regularly to and from his desk, focussed on nothing other than his Blackberry. I can’t help feeling he is missing a trick. His personal equity would increase significantly if he trousered his mobile, raised his eyes and engaged with the people around him.

Am I clinging on to old world values here? Could it be that etiquette has moved on? Are the new forms of communication changing acceptable norms? I don’t know the answer yet – although interestingly Wharton management professor Sigal Barsade suggests they probably are.

Perhaps it is a question of my inability to multi task? Maybe it is possible to write an email, an SMS message or Tweet whilst listening intently to someone else speaking to you. I had to marvel at the manual dexterity and multi tasking skills of a colleague of mine the other day who was tapping away on his Blackberry with one hand while his other hand was ensuring Percy was properly pointing at the porcelain….