Who cares what you say on social media?

Many people accuse users of social media of posting uninteresting trivia about their lives. In some cases, that's a fair criticism. If all you ever hear is the regular daily goings-on of an uneventful existence, it's hard to maintain your interest. On the other hand, a constant stream of "inspirational " quotes is not going to win you many followers, or even keep the ones you have. The answer is not full-on marketing either, since that will turn people away even more quickly than trivia. Worst of all, in my opinion, is the automatic broadcasting of news-related links in a never-ending stream of headlines. It's obvious that it comes from a machine, not from you.

So what is the answer? In my opinion, it's to communicate something useful - a piece of advice, a recommended restaurant, a place to buy great-value products. Think about the conversations you have with your friends. Sometimes you chat about music or sport, sometimes you offer advice, sometimes you may ask for help. That's why people like you. But if your conversation is dull, they will turn away, or look at their watch as they remember an urgent appointment.

Social media is about conversations. It's not about being dull, nor is it one-way. If you join the conversation, you will find that people do care what you say. You may do business with them you may not, but you'll be doing something interesting and useful. People will recommend you too, and business will come your way when you aren't even asking for it.

Will England win? Let me cast the Rooneys.

Will England win?

Let me cast the Rooneys.

Take Hart, we're not Green. Every England player is a King. We will not Crouch, we will defeat Defoe, and cause an Upson. Don't Warnock the team, we're well Gerrard, us. Like Coles to Newcastle, we're gonna Lampard the Germans. Like Lennon, we imagine the best. We will not Terry, but our Milner-pound players will deliver a Wright-Phillips. They will Carragher us to victory.

How to have stage presence

Having a good script is one thing. Having presence on stage is another. Some people seem to have natural confidence on stage, others want to hide behind the lectern. Here are a few tips to enhance your presence on the platform:

* Ask for a wireless microphone, so you can move around
* Visit the stage before anyone arrives, to rehearse and become comfortable
* Plan the areas you can move in so as not to throw a shadow on the screen. Mark your boundaries with small pieces of tape
* Learn sections of your speech, especially the open and close
* Look at the audience, not your notes, when speaking
* Use bold gestures from the shoulder
* Don't move all the time. Stand still to speak
* Stay near the front of the stage
* Show your passion

Above all, keep at it. There's an old adage among speakers; "The only way to get good on the platform is to get good on the platform"

Prepare to win, like the Germans

There's a small football tournament going on in South Africa right now. I'm writing this the day after the German team thrashed 10-man Australia 4-0 in probably the best performance from any team so far. In many other games, shots, particularly from free kicks, have been flying high and wide, with players struggling to control the "Jabulani" ball. How did the Germans manage to hit the target so often? Maybe it's because their team, all of whom play in the German Bundesliga, have been using the Jabulani ball for months in matches. Co-incidence? Perhaps.

Now consider a completely different competition - the Eurovision Song Contest. Remember who won? That quirky Lily Allen soundalike, Lena from Germany,with "Satellite". The song entered the competition as a certified platinum single, having been at number one in the German charts for five weeks and charting in the top ten in other European countries. Lena won by a huge margin of 76 points.

What's the connection? Preparation. If you prepare to win, you stand a better chance of winning. Whether or not the German team win the World Cup, they can't say they weren't prepared properly. I bet they've practised penalties too.

Think about how you can prepare to win, and give yourself a better chance in business.

Social Media is just a con trick

Social media is a con trick. In fact it's at least three cons; Conversation, Content and Consistency.

Conversation - You need to get involved. It's no use simply posting messages saying how wonderful your company is, or what an interesting blog you have just written. You need to respond to questions, add to debates, and offer a point of view on issues. That's what engages people. Don't be scared of getting into a debate and then leaving it again, since it may run for days or weeks. Simply add to the debate while you are there.

Content - You need to offer something useful and of interest. This may seem contrary to what I said above (I'm even debating with myself here), but if you post an interesting and valuable article, other people will publicise it for you. Your comments on other people's blogs may also offer useful content, so don't simply say "I agree" or "This is rubbish".

Consistency - you need to make regular appearances. That does not mean every day, and certainly not every hour. However, if you only appear once or twice a month, post a ton of material and then disappear again, you won't attract many friends. Small, regular postings seem to be much more effective than rare long ones. Little and often - that's the way.

Of course, there is also Connecting, Confidence, Consideration, Congratulating, etc.

Calm down Dear, it's only social media

I've been at a number of event in the past year when that Socialnomics video was shown. Almost without exception, people were astonished and impressed by the statistics, with many worrying that they are already way behind all their competitors in social media usage. The combination of a pulsing Fatboy Slim beat, dazzling graphics and amazing numbers is a heady cocktail.

But hang on a minute. The old maxim about statistics (you know the one I mean) still has some validity. Many of the numbers in the video are somewhat misleading. For example, use of email is included as "use of social media". US statistics for certain age groups are presented without saying so, inferring they apply globally to all ages.

It would be perfectly possible to supply ststistics that show quite a different picture. Such as:

- 74% of the world's population have never used the Internet (Source: Internetworldstats.com)
- Twitter has reached 75 million users, but growth is now less than 8% a month (source (computerworld.com)
- Only 20% of Twitter users are "active" - defined as sending more than 5 tweets ever (source: Computerworld.com)
- If all active Twitter users in the entire world formed a city, it would be smaller than New York (source:Worldatlas.com)
- Only 10.6% of online time is spent on social media sites (source:Experian hitwise)

See what I mean? Depending on the statistics you choose, the perception can be very different.

OK, I can hear you thinking "Come on Alan, you're just an old hack who doesn't get social media". Actually, that's far from the truth. I've written a book about it, I use social media heavily, and I regularly give talks and seminars on the topic. I'm delivering a keynote speech at tthe Social Media in Business conference in London this Friday, for example.

My point is that social media is very important, and hugely significant. However, it can be over-hyped. I see that as a danger. If predictions fail to materialise, people lose interest and become cynical. I'm merely seeking a realistic approach.

When you're in a wood, everything is a tree. We can get so caught up in the world of social media that we think everyone else is, or soon will be. That may not be so, despite neat videos. A sense of proportion may be a handy thing to hang on to.

From X Factor to Deal or No Deal?: The General Election and TV

There's been a lot of chat about the impact of television on the outcome of the UK general election. In the event, the four-week campaign seems to have had little impact on each party's share of the vote.

The initial leadership debate appeared to have turned the tide in Nick Clegg's favour, like a Susan Boyle audition. Sadly for him and his party, there was no immediate text vote, and his opponents consulted their media advisers to outflank him in subsequent debates.

Then there was the election coverage itself, with various pundits leaping around in front of green screens, conjuring graphics to illustrate swings, both real and imagined. I felt sorry for Jeremy Vine, who by the end of the marathon coverage, was clearly suffering from ascending and descending the virtual staircase of number 10.

Now we have the TV appeals from the party leaders. Timed to avoid clashes, and delivered to potential partners in power, as well as to the country as a whole, they are fascinating vignettes of tactical byplay. It's interesting to note that the phrase "in the best interests of the country" is used often, though a cynic might note that the phrase really means "in my party's best interests".

Some argue that future elections may be fought online. That may be so. There is bound to be more emphasis on using a medium as ubiquitous as the web. In my opinion, video, whether viewed online or on HDTV (the distinction is disappearing rapidly) will remain an important way of delivering a message. There's a popular mythology that Barack Obama won the US presidency by making heavy use of social media. To my way of thinking, it was a small but important element of his overall campaign, which relied more heavily on TV appearances and text messaging.

For a 75-year-old medium, TV still plays a huge role in politics, and I suspect it will continue to do so for a long time to come.

Winston and Sylvia - why voting is important

A ten-minute walk from where I live in East London, there are two monuments. One is large and impressive, and a well-known local landmark. The other is small and hidden, known only to a few locals, historians and researchers.

The large monument is a statue of the former local MP, Winston Churchill. He was the head of a wartime coalition government which turned the course of the second world war. He is rightly celebrated, and once stated "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."



A short distance down the hill is a small triangular wooded patch of land opposite the tube station. This morning, a few straggly bluebells are blooming there in the watery sun. A small brass plaque shows that the copse was named Pankhurst Green in 1990, in honour of the sufragette Sylvia Pankhurst, who lived in a house nearby from 1932 to 1956. In fighting for the deocratic rights of women, she was imprisoned and force-fed many times before eventually achieving her objective in 1928, when all women, regardless of income or status, were finally allowed to vote.



Winston and Sylvia clashed many times in the village local village halls and the columns of the local paper. Winston was elected as both a Liberal and a Conservative MP, whereas Sylvia was at various times, a member of the Labour, Conservative and Communist parties. They disagreed on many things. However, there was one issue on which they were in full agreement; the importance of every citizen having a vote.

I know that many people are disillusioned with politics and politicians. 'Twas ever thus. Democracy is not a perfect system, and the likelihood is that this is the last general election without any element of proportional representation. However, voting is a right that we should cherish. I will be voting, as always, on election day. I remember Sylvia Pankhurst, who fought to give everyone that right, and Winston Churchill, who fought to let us keep it.

Please take just a few minutes on May 6th to use your vote.

Gordon Brown and the MediaCoach Law of Microphones

The MediaCoach Law of MIcrophones states "Any microphone, at any time, is live, and will pick up an unguarded remark".

Alas, Gordon Brown forgot The Law today in Rochdale. After a five-minute discussion with a local resident, Gillian Duffy, he turned to get into his car, saying "It was nice to meet you".

However, once he thought he was out of earshot of all but his closest aides, he was recorded as saying "That was a disaster. You should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?"

An aide responded "What did she say?"

Mr Brown replied: "Oh, everything, she's just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to vote Labour."

The conversation was recorded and reported by Sky News. It's probably the biggest gaffe of the campaign so far. The Prime Minister has since apologised, when interviewed by Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2, after listening to a recording of his remarks.

The Tories have siezed on the issue to make political capital. Nick Clegg, the LibDem leader has declined to comment - wisely in my view.

The incident is an embarrassment. However, it's hardly surprising, given the stress of the campaign. I know that in their suppsed "private" moments, members of all parties express frustration with people. I've heard many of them say things (as we all do at times) that we wouldn't want recorded and broadcast. Unfortunately for Labour, it adds to the perception of an out-of-touch Government past its sell-by date.

John Major had a moment in a TV studio when he referred to three cabinet colleagues as "b**tards". During his 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush called New York Times reporter Adam Clymer a "major league a**hole" just before a speech, but not far enough away from a mike.

So remember, the mike is always on. The camera is always rolling, and there's always someone in earshot

Advice to Gordon, David and Nick - How to perform well in a debate.

Debates are obviously in the news because of the UK election, and the novelty of having three party leaders live on stage. It may be the impact of the X Factor generation, but nevertheless, I believe that it has some merit. In the US elections, the head-to-head debates produced some fascinating tussles between Barack Obama and John McCain (and some dreadfully dull moments too). If you find yourself in a debate, here are some tips that may help you to come out on top.

* When you are speaking, you are in control. Make sure that you finish your point strongly.
* Keep your points brief, with rehearsed phrases emphasised
* Know in advance of the debate what impression you wish to create
* Never lose your temper. If your opponents do, stay even calmer
* Ask for the right to reply to false accusations
* Allow yourself to be interrupted only on your strongest points
* Short, concise points can be deadly. Use them well
* Stand tall, and look at the audience
* Have a short, strong, well-prepared closing statement

It's all about calmness, confidence and getting a clear message across. That's what wins debates.

Bird Flu, Swine Flu and Nobody Flew

It's a relief that planes are flying in the UK skies again, unless of course, you live under a flight path. But was it really necessary to institute a six-day blanket ban on airlines, causing massive disruption and financial loss? I imagine there will be an enquiry in due course (post-election, of course). I'm no vulcanologist, nor am I an aviation expert, so I rely on others to make the right decisions regarding air safety. Only yesterday, I was listening to a "Professor of Geoclimatology" (try saying that when you're eating a cream cracker) on BBC Radio 5 Live. He was explaining that any plane flying through the ash cloud would have its windscreen "etched black" and the "engines would fill with molten glass in seconds". He argued that the ban would need to be in place for "weeks at least". Less than 24 hours later, the ban was lifted, with Dame Deirdre Hutton, of the Civil Aviation Authority saying "Manufacturers have now agreed increased tolerance levels in low ash density areas." In other words, it wasn't as big a problem as people thought.

Now, I'm all in favour of keeping people safe. A few years ago, we heard dire warnings that Avian Flu (or Bird Flu, as the tabloids called it) was about to sweep across the world, killing millions of people. Although millions of birds have become infected with the virus since its discovery, 262 humans have died from the H5N1 virus in twelve countries according to World Health Organisation (WHO) data as of August 31, 2009. Maybe we were lucky, or have been so far.

But hang on a minute. Swine Flu was the next pandemic (a word that we've learned is like an epidemic, only much much worse - at least in theory). Countries around the world stockpiled millions of pounds worth of vaccines, making a tidy sum for pharmaceutical companies in the process. A recent report by the Council of Europe's health committee has criticised the WHO for its reaction to swine flu. Labour MP Paul Flynn, vice chair of the council's health committee, said "In the United Kingdom, the Department of Health initially announced that around 65,000 deaths were to be expected. In the meantime, by the start of 2010, this estimate was downgraded to only 1,000 fatalities. By January 2010, fewer than 5,000 persons had been registered as having caught the disease and about 360 deaths had been noted"

Of course, no-one wants to be caught unawares by disease or natural disaster. But the problem now seems to be that the scare tactics are making people more suspicious of the predictions. The next time a pandemic is predicted, some people will regard it as simply a "scare", and not bother to get vaccinated or take precautions. The next time there's a dire weather warning, people may think "it wasn't that bad last time, and ignore advice to stay indoors or avoid travel.

It's always going to be a tough call, but would it be too much to ask for a realistic assessment of risk, rather than a vision of doom and disaster that turns out to be a damp squib?

(By the way, thanks to Andy Headworth for the inspiration for this headline)

The Power of Speech

I've refrained from blogging on the UK Party Leaders' debate (until now). There was so much post-debate discussion it seemed churlish to add to the chatter. However, now that I've had some time to reflect, I would like to offer a perspective that I haven't seen discussed a great deal.

While we live in a digital age, with social media burgeoning, the debate was judged largely on what the leaders said, and how they performed live on stage. It was similar, though clearly not the same, as the two-handed US presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain. A three-way debate operates differently, but there is still no teleprompter, no editing, and no hiding place.

Great speeches have always been part of politics and both global and national events. For a while, it seemed that rhetoric was being outshone by digital noise. Maybe the tide has turned a little.

It remains to be seen how much impact the debates will have on the real ballot on May 6th. In the US, it seems that the effect of the debates was minimal, and they were more about damage limitation than establishing leadership. Here in the UK, the initial debate has boosted the ratings of the LibDems, and given Nick Clegg more airtime as a result.

Personally, as President-Elect of the Global Speakers Federation (the 7,000-strong global body of qualified professional speakers), I'm delighted that the spoken word is having an impact on political debate. Long may it continue.

Frankie Boyle: Comedy Hero or Villain?

For the third time in recent months, Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle has provoked a storm of protest. His comments in a stage show, to a mother of a child with Downs syndrome, have been widely condemned as "going too far".

But how far is "too far" in comedy? We already have laws that ban racist and (to some extent) religious jokes. Jokes against women, or mothers-in-law, have become unpopular, unfashionable and unliked.

Back in 1978, stand-up comedian George Carlin (one of my all-time comedy heroes) performed a monologue called "The seven words you can't say on TV". I won't repeat them here, obviously. You can google them if you wish. For my money, it remains an act of sheer genius, even though it offended many, and led to arrest and a court appearance for George. The Supreme Court eventually cleared him, citing the "right to free speech".

Recently, Jimmy Carr and Billy Connolly have both suffered protests and public anger about gags in their acts. The late Bill Hicks (another hero of mine) often had police in his audience making notes, after public complaints about his material.

In my opinion, the point of comedy is to rattle the cage, occasionally shock and question the status quo. Sometimes people will be offended. However, unlike the racist or the bigot, the comedian is not motivated by hate, but by the need to challenge and question everything - a kind of ultimate cynicism.

Personally, I'm not a great fan of Frankie Boyle, and I wouldn't pay to go and see his show. But if he stays within the law, and people know what to expect, I believe he has a right to make jokes about anything. I realise may be in the minority in that view. I wonder what others make of it?

May I make my point!

When you are being interviewed, you need to get your point across. You need to do it with politeness and clarity. You should never lose your temper, complain or raise your voice. If you do, you have already lost the argument. Sometimes you may be in a panel debate, or with another interviewee who dominates the discussion, leaving you unable to deliver your message.

If you find yourself in a debate, here are some tips that should help you to get attention.

* Always have a pen and paper handy to jot down points you wish to respond to
* Treat each answer as a "mini-speech" with an opening, closing and one strong point
* Develop an "informal conversational" style
* If there is an audience, feel free to play to them and react to them
* Never interrupt. If you are interrupted, pause and then say "If I may continue"
* Never insult another panel member, but argue with their stance if you wish
* Have a prepared final statement ready

Maybe I should send this to Clegg, Cameron and Brown