How to make a news item - by the Daily Mail

On a long plane journey from the US to the UK a couple of days ago, I was presented with copies of two newspapers - The Daily Mail and The Independent. I browsed through them, and noticed the same story in each, about the most popular girls and boys names in the UK in the past year.

In the Independent, the story ran under the headline: "Oliver, meet Olivia: poll shows favourite names". The top five boys names were:

1. Oliver
2. Jack
3. Harry
4. Alfie
5. Joshua

In the Daily Mail, there was a different slant, under the headline "Now Mohammed topples Jack as No. 1 boy's name". Their list was:

1. Mohammed
2. Oliver
3. Jack
4. Harry
5. Alfie

Hang on a minute. The list is produced by the Office of National Statistics. How come they sent different lists to The Mail and The Independent? The answer of course, is that they didn't. The official list is the one printed in The Independent. The Daily Mail decided to add several variants of Mohammed together, including Mahamed and Mohmmed. For some reason, they didn't combine variants of John, such as Jon, Johnny and Jonny. They also fail to mention that it's long been a popular custom to give male Muslim children the name of their prophet.

Obviously, the Mail is creating a story by playing around with the figures (Mohammed was actually ranked 16th in the official list). But why? Could it be to feed the prejudices of their readers? I hope not. However, I wonder how many pub conversations are now beginning with the phrase "Do you realise that Mohammed is now the most popular UK name....?"

George Orwell's five rules of blogging

OK, George Orwell was never a blogger. One of the greatest ever writers died just over sixty years ago. However, his rules still hold good today. In his essay, "Politics and the English Language", he defined five rules of writing. Here's my take on them for bloggers everywhere:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Although these phrases are in common usage - "It's not rocket science", "Out of the box thinking" etc, etc., they have lost their impact. Try to be original to make the reader sit up and think, or don't use metaphors at all.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. This is embedded in the brain of all newspaper sub-editors. It's just as easy (in fact easier) to convey a message in simple words as in complex language.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. People use "filler words" in speech all the time - "Actually", "To be perfectly honest". These words and phrases have no meaning, and no place in your writing.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. Make your blog as easy to read as possible by helping the reader with simple grammar.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. I see this rule broken most often. English is such a rich language, there is no need to resort to another.

However, George also added a sixth rule:

Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I agree, and think that the bonus rule is most important of all. As the song goes "If you can't say anything real nice, please don't talk at all, that's my advice". That doesn't mean you have to be nicey-nicey all the time, but name-calling and abuse is a poor approach.

Now, having set out the rules, I'm sure I'll break a few of them from time to time. So will you (and so did George). But as guidance for good blogging, I'm signed up to them.

Is digital culture killing live events?

Er - no. At least that's my opinion. Of course, I would say that, since I'm currently head of a profession that thrives on speaking to live audiences. But even within the world of professional speaking, the advent of video conferencing, holographic presentations and TED videos have suggested that the era of the live event is drawing to a close.

But consider other trends. There are more large concert venues in the UK than there were 20 years ago. Every band that ever existed seems to have reformed for sell-out tours (driven by the fact that digital downloads have made it difficult to make money from products). Many of the most popular TV shows (X Factor, Britain's got Talent, Michael Macintyre's Comedy Roadshow) feature live audiences. Summer festivals are thriving. West End theatres are full.

That's not to say that the web hasn't had an astonishing impact. What I find fascinating is the way in which the web has created opportunities for performers to generate a following, and drive audiences to live events.

Personally, I think there's nothing to beat the emotion of "being there", whether it's a Take That concert at the 02, a rugby international at the Millennium stadium, or a late-night gig in a comedy club. Long may it continue.

What say you? See it live, or see it digitally?

MediaMaster, MediaMug 24th Sept

Rock legend Sir Paul McCartney is embracing the digital era, having signed a deal with Hewlett Packard (HP) to digitise his lifetime artistic output, including music, artwork, photographs, paintings and videos. The work will be stored in a private "cloud" created by HP and controlled by Sir Paul and his company. Lynn Anderson, vice president of HP's influencer marketing group told BBC News "Sir Paul is a perfect example of how cloud, social media and mobile computing can come together to deliver a unique fan experience". (Now there's a quote that needs work). Anyway, Sir Paul takes the MediaMaster trophy this week. There's a rumour that Mick Jagger may also be planning a private cloud (insert your own song title joke here).

Sometimes broadcasters forget that they are there to serve their audience. It happened to Chris Evans in his last days at Radio 1 some years ago, and it happened to Dave Lee Travis on the same station some time earlier. Maybe it's a Radio 1 syndrome, since the latest culprit is breakfast show host, Chris Moyles. On Wednesday's show, he went into a 30-minute rant about how he hadn't been paid by the BBC since July. OK, that's bad, but it's not something his listeners particularly care about, or want to hear. He's played it down since, but the damage has been done. Apart from being MediaMug of the week, I wonder how long before a replacement is sought by his employers?

Heroes and Villains - a tale of broadband and running shoes

Your reputation is very important. It can make or break your business. Like me, I'm sure you notice good and bad examples, and tell stories of both to your friends. I'm lucky enough to be able to get a message to lots of people, so I hope these two companies are listening - Virgin Media and Runners World. Let's take Virgin Media first. I noticed that my internet access had disappeared, so did all the usual checks, turning everything off and on. No joy. So I phoned the Virgin Media helpline. I won't bore you with the whole 20-minute conversation, but I was told these three things: I have an incompatible router, the fault was undoubtedly in my house (probably with the wiring), and their local infrastructure was fault-free. After 20 minutes of feeling that I was being told off, I put the phone down. As if by magic, 10 minutes later, everything worked. The wireless router was bought from Virgin (and is definitely compatible), my wiring is fine, and on the Virgin website later in the day was an apology for a fault in my area. Hmmm.

Now for a much happier outcome. I visited Runners World in Canary Wharf, London, to buy some new running shoes. I was simply looking to replace a pair, but the assistant asked if I'd like to have my running style checked. I tried several pairs of shoes on the treadmill, and my running was filmed and analysed. The recommendation was for shoes with a little more ankle support, which felt great when I tried them out. They were a make I hadn't worn before, and were described as "specialist running shoes". Price had never been mentioned at any point, and I suspected I would have to pay more for better shoes. In the event, they were ten pounds less than my normal choice. In short, the shop had persuaded me to buy something cheaper, but better suited to my running style. That's great service.

The truth will out - even if you're a rich footballer

There have been more than a few instances recently of premiership footballers trying to prevent information from entering the public domain. Injunctions have been sought and granted, and rumour and speculation about the identity and alleged transgression of the players concerned. Eventually, in almost every case, the player is identified, the injunction is lifted, and the story is written.

So who benefits from this game of cat and mouse? Obviously, the legal team employed to apply for the injunction charge handsomely for their services. The player "enjoys" a brief period of anonymity. We, the public, get to have conversations in pubs and coffee bars about who might have done what to whom.

However, at some point, the "truth" will out. and the player concerned becomes either a figure of fun or sympathy, depending on your moral stance.

But is there a wider point here? In my view, absolutely. In business, if there is something damaging that you think you can keep away from the media, consider confessing immediately. That way, you become the prime source of information, and prevent any speculation, which could be damaging in itself. You get to choose the time and method of release. You have the chance to apologise and explain your position. The sooner the news is out, the sooner it will be forgotten.

So, footballers and business people alike, rather than employing an expensive legal team, why not look at a way to manage the information by releasing it yourself?

Of course, the other option is not to do anything daft in the first place.....

Talking with Technology

Most speakers these days use technology to enhance their presentations. There's an important word in that sentence - enhance..The reason for using technology is to add something to your message, not to overwhelm it. Alas, some people use technology as a life-support (or actually a speech-support) system, fearing that their words alone will not be enough to enlighten and entertain their audience.

You should never allow technology to become the focus of your presentation, unless you are actually speaking about technology. I advise developing the speech first, then looking for places where technology, whether images, videos, audios or props, can add something to your words. Don't forget that you still should be able to deliver your speech if the technology fails.

The most powerful speeches are simply words, delivered with skill and passion, directly to an enraptured audience. As soon as you introduce technology, there is a danger that it will become the "takeaway". For example, I remember a brilliant speech from a fellow professional which concluded with a video from a rock band. The video could easily have been what the audience remembered, but due to the skill of the speaker, the message of the speech came through. You can only get away with that when you are very skilled indeed. (OK, it was Graeme Codrington).

"Out of office" messages - are they useful?

I've just been away for a couple of weeks on holiday, with no internet access (from choice). It's been bliss. I haven't set an autoresponder message on my email, nor did I put an "I'm away" message on my voicemail. That's partly because I have other people to check them for me, and send a holding response if necessary. However, even when I was a sole trader, I never set up auto-replies.

There are several reasons why I didn't:

1) The remote possibility of alerting people that my home and office are unattended.
2) The fact that it alerted potential clients that I was a one-person company. That could be off-putting for large corporate clients.
3) I can't see the value of it anyway. If people need a quick response, it doesn't help, and if they can wait a week or two, you can respond on your return.

I've never been aware of any business that I've lost as a result of responding on return from holiday. Normally, our response (usually from my business manager) is very fast. However, it seems to me that clients are perfectly prepared to wait.

Finally, some people are either on holiday for months (lucky them), or forget to turn their autoresponder off. All in all, I can't see the value of "Out of the office".

Is it fair to have your speaking fee donated to charity?

I've been in conversation with many professional speakers in both the UK and the US over the past two weeks. One topic of conversation has been the increasing number of requests we receive to speak in return for a donation to charity.

The speaking profession, and the members thereof, are the most generous and giving people I've ever come across. Each of us has our own charities and causes that we support, in our own private ways. In addition, many of us offer greatly reduced fees for charity events. Now and again, we speak for free.

For many years, I, along with many other speakers, have received requests to speak for free, from organisations who have limited funds. I don't mind them asking, and I have a policy of accepting a maximum of one such request each month. Many other speakers have similar policies.

Of late, the requests often come in this form. "We'd like you to speak at our event. We recognise that you are a professional, so we are offering a reasonable fee. Would you be free on this date?" Sometimes the fee is specified, sometimes not. If the date is free, I make a provisional booking and pass the details on to my business manager. A couple of days later comes another call. "Alan, all of the other speakers have agreed to donate their fees to charity (always a good cause, such as a hospice, or cancer charity).Would you agree to do that same?". Now I have a problem. I've confirmed that I'm free on the date. I've expressed interest, maybe even agreed a fee. I now have to either appear uncharitable, by insisting on receiving a fee, or decline to speak, citing some excuse. It's an insidious form of blackmail, in my opinion. On one occasion when I did appear under these conditions, I asked to see evidence of the charity donation. The organisers told me it wasn't possible, and that I should show more trust in them.

I know many professional speakers who have received similar approaches. There's often a rider attached, such as "Of course, we'll be promoting you to our database, and you may meet people who want to purchase your services". The unstated irony is that I am delivering my services effectively for nothing at the event itself. Since I receive most of my income from speaking fees, I am effectively under-valuing my professional expertise by appearing.

I've never met a caterer, a venue hire manager, or a security team, who were asked to donate their event fees to charity. My advice to professional speakers is to be careful of "fee to charity" events. They may be genuine, and you may decide to take them. If you do, be sure that there really is a fee to charity. If you decide to decline the request don't feel guilty about it.

The web for knowing, A handshake for closing

There are many, many individuals who, in my opinion, are wasting time, money and effort trying to sell their services online. They include coaches, trainers, consultants and other providers of "soft" services which include a major element of person-to-person contact.

We all know the mantra of find, know, like and trust that is part of the sales cycle. It's true, and has been for thousands of years, that we buy from people we trust. But trust, as we also know, is hard to establish online. It stems most strongly, and most easily, from personal recommendation from another person we trust. In the absence of direct recommendation, trust can be enhanced by testimonials, case studies, and reputation.

So here's my take. I'm happy to buy a commodity online - a music download, a flight, a hotel. I'm more wary of buying a more "risky" product, such as a financial service, but I'm prepared to go with a well-known brand, probably one that I know in the physical world (First Direct being a prime exception to that rule). However, would I buy a service such as business coaching or marketing services from a company I had only encountered on the web? Absolutely not.

I had this discussion with a group of fellow speakers at a convention in Orlando earlier this week. All agreed that they would only buy high-cost person-to-person services from someone who was not only recommended by a friend, but that they had met face-to-face.

So here's my advice. We all need websites and a social media presence. But for many of us, that's not enough. We need to get out there and meet people in the real world. We need to speak and offer help and advice in person. It may sound old-fashioned, but that's still how high-value relationships are created. Fair enough, the initial contact may be online, but the deal will normally be closed in person.

In the past 20 years, I've met a lot of people who are trying to sell person-to-person services solely via websites, SEO, email marketing campaigns and the like. A few are successful, but a lot aren't. The most successful people I know have built a network of strong, real-world relationships with people who trust them and recommend them constantly.

Golfers say "I drive for flash an putt for cash". I say "The web for knowing, A handshake for closing"

Message first, social media second

Some people are so beguiled by a new piece of social media technology that they overlook the message they are using it to deliver. Of course, finding more efficient ways to deliver our points is always a sensible quest, but we must never forget that social media, and social networks, are tools, not an end in themselves.

Permit me to take this a stage further. If you have a powerful, timely message, it will be heard regardless of the methods you employ initially. You may decide to run a YouTube campaign to promote your latest book. People may start talking about it on Facebook, which attracts the attention of broadcast media, such as TV and radio. Before you know it, you have a wider audience using channels you hadn't planned to use that in the media that you had carefully planned for.

That's why, in my opinion, all campaigns should start with the core message, and then seek the best way of delivering it. You should also be prepared to switch your media focus at short notice. It's not about the medium, it's about the message. Maybe that's not the way Marshall McLuhan would have seen it, but it's my take.

Social media; time to get serious

The hype around social media is beginning to die down. Now it's time to get serious. If you are going to make use of social media in your business (and you don't have to), then you need to have a strategy, a plan to measure the results, regular checkpoints, and a willingness to put some resource behind your efforts. Here are a few tips to crank up the volume on your social media campaigns.

* Make sure you can measure your results. If you can't measure, you can't judge how well you are doing. There are plenty of tools available.
* Behave professionally. Don't leave your Twitter feed to the office junior (unless they are very good).
* Get your internal people trained, so they are confident to use social media responsibly.
* Look for niches and special areas where your customers are speaking. You don't need a presence on every social network.
* Don't hide your involvement. It's no longer the time for limited test sites. Go mainstream.

Finally, don't believe what external advisors and consultants tell you without reviewing their evidence. By now, anyone who advises on social media policy should have a track record of success. If you're serious about social media, you need solid professional advice.

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.