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
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
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.
* 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.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
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)
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)
Monday, April 19, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
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?
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?
Friday, April 09, 2010
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
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
Monday, April 05, 2010
Tiger's Pre-Masters Press Conference
Tiger Woods has just made his third appearance in front of the "media" (a ticket-only audience) since his night drive in Florida five months ago. How did he do this time? Here's my assessment:
He looked and sounded a little more relaxed than in his previous two appearances. He referred to his pals on the course in affectionate terms, and was clearly glad to be back in golf. He constantly referred to the fans, and how he needed to acknowledge them, which he admitted he had "under-appreciated in the past".
He had some prepared phrases "I did everything to the letter of the law", and was clearly well-rehearsed. He complained of "constant harassment" to his family, and said it was "hard to heal".
The questioning was not exactly tough, and it appeared as though Tiger may have known some of the topics in advance (hardly difficult to guess).
Asked how he lived a "secret life", he responded by saying it was "terrible to his family", and that winning golf tournaments was "irrelevant compared to the damage he caused". Not exactly an answer to the question.
Tiger denied ever taking any illegal drug, but admitted that he had "PRP injections of plasma" into injury sites to help them heal. He also revealed that he had treatments in hyperbaric chambers.
He looked decidedly uncomfortable when questioned about his wife, who will not be joining him at the tournament. He was also clearly annoyed about a question about his state of mind at the time of the accident, and simply said "I was fined 166 dollars, case closed"
Overall, we saw more of the "real" Tiger Woods, but this was hardly a grilling. He referred to most of the journalists by their first name (a mistake in my view), and there was rarely a supplementary question. Once more, this press interaction was tightly controlled and stage managed. Many of the questions were easy shots, and he was never in a tough position. As part of his rehabilitation, it was another step on the road. As far as answering any of the questions about why he did it, or what happened on that night in Florida, the world is none the wiser. The man remains an enigma.
He looked and sounded a little more relaxed than in his previous two appearances. He referred to his pals on the course in affectionate terms, and was clearly glad to be back in golf. He constantly referred to the fans, and how he needed to acknowledge them, which he admitted he had "under-appreciated in the past".
He had some prepared phrases "I did everything to the letter of the law", and was clearly well-rehearsed. He complained of "constant harassment" to his family, and said it was "hard to heal".
The questioning was not exactly tough, and it appeared as though Tiger may have known some of the topics in advance (hardly difficult to guess).
Asked how he lived a "secret life", he responded by saying it was "terrible to his family", and that winning golf tournaments was "irrelevant compared to the damage he caused". Not exactly an answer to the question.
Tiger denied ever taking any illegal drug, but admitted that he had "PRP injections of plasma" into injury sites to help them heal. He also revealed that he had treatments in hyperbaric chambers.
He looked decidedly uncomfortable when questioned about his wife, who will not be joining him at the tournament. He was also clearly annoyed about a question about his state of mind at the time of the accident, and simply said "I was fined 166 dollars, case closed"
Overall, we saw more of the "real" Tiger Woods, but this was hardly a grilling. He referred to most of the journalists by their first name (a mistake in my view), and there was rarely a supplementary question. Once more, this press interaction was tightly controlled and stage managed. Many of the questions were easy shots, and he was never in a tough position. As part of his rehabilitation, it was another step on the road. As far as answering any of the questions about why he did it, or what happened on that night in Florida, the world is none the wiser. The man remains an enigma.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Ask the Chancellors - who won?
If you missed the C4 debate between George Osborne, Vince Cable and Alastair Darling, you can watch the highlights on the C4 website later on.
According to the poll conducted by C4, Cable was the winner with 36% of the votes, with Darling and Osborne on 32% each. Other rating systems mirrored the same findings, as did the anecdotal reports. The only outlier was The Times online poll, which made Osborne a clear winner with 44%, which may say more about Times online visitors than actual performance in the TV debate.
My take was that Vince Cable put up the best showing, with Darling getting somewhat flustered (though having the best hair), and Osborne underperforming. While Cable dodged the party bickering and called for an all-party approach to solve the economic crisis, Osborne and Darling traded party insults.
I suspect that the least happy bunnies tonight will be in the Tory party HQ. Vince Cable will no doubt get a pat on the back from Nick Clegg. I'd be interested to hear what others thought
According to the poll conducted by C4, Cable was the winner with 36% of the votes, with Darling and Osborne on 32% each. Other rating systems mirrored the same findings, as did the anecdotal reports. The only outlier was The Times online poll, which made Osborne a clear winner with 44%, which may say more about Times online visitors than actual performance in the TV debate.
My take was that Vince Cable put up the best showing, with Darling getting somewhat flustered (though having the best hair), and Osborne underperforming. While Cable dodged the party bickering and called for an all-party approach to solve the economic crisis, Osborne and Darling traded party insults.
I suspect that the least happy bunnies tonight will be in the Tory party HQ. Vince Cable will no doubt get a pat on the back from Nick Clegg. I'd be interested to hear what others thought
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
How to demonstrate you know FA about management
The Football Association (FA) is looking for their seventh chief executive in eleven years, following the departure of Ian Watmore over the weekend. It was clear from the manner of his leaving that all is not well at the FA. Mr Watmore was only in post for nine months. Apparently the last straw was a row over a leaked internal briefing paper.On his departure, he fired off a furious email to fellow board members, including this threat "I don't know which sad person thought to brief yesterday but we know it had to be from this list as you are the only people who received it....If I ever find the person who leaked the briefing then I will ensure that that person's reputation is damaged beyond repair. This is the last time I share any information in advance."
It is no secret that the FA has been riven by bickering and personality clashes for years. But this public display of pique does no-one any favours. It certainly does not help the FA, who have now had to appoint an acting director. It does not help Ian Watmore, since presumably he will be looking for gainful employment at some stage in the future. Nor does it reflect well on the board as individuals, and the way the FA is managed.
Whoever gets the permanent post next time had better be a diplomat, and a good communicator, and a very capable CEO. Oh yes, and a knowledge of football may help.
Rumours that the FA Board is thinking of running a whelk stall have been denied.
It is no secret that the FA has been riven by bickering and personality clashes for years. But this public display of pique does no-one any favours. It certainly does not help the FA, who have now had to appoint an acting director. It does not help Ian Watmore, since presumably he will be looking for gainful employment at some stage in the future. Nor does it reflect well on the board as individuals, and the way the FA is managed.
Whoever gets the permanent post next time had better be a diplomat, and a good communicator, and a very capable CEO. Oh yes, and a knowledge of football may help.
Rumours that the FA Board is thinking of running a whelk stall have been denied.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Five tests to verify a social media expert
Back in December 2009, a search by B L Ochman found almost 16,000 self-proclaimed social media experts on Twitter. That's a lot of (apparent) expertise. If you needed social media expertise for your business, how on earth could you choose? I believe there are some very simple checks you can do to give you the best chance of finding a genuine "expert". Here are five tests that I hope will help you.
1) Evidence of success.
Rather than explaining what they might be able to do for you, any genuine expert should be able to "show and tell" a number of examples where their work has been of benefit to clients. Ideally, they should be able to quote examples of similar work to that you are asking for, and provide proof of their success. Look for numbers and financial value. If they say that their value is "impossible to quantify", be very wary.
2) Referrals from happy clients
This is similar to the one above, but your potential expert should also be able to provide contact details of past clients who will vouch for them. Ideally, they should allow you to select several clients from a list, and then provide you contact details so that you can take up references. If your expert claims that all of their work is "confidential", or "too early to tell", this should give you cause for concern.
3) Referrals from other experts
This one is a bit more tricky. In my opinion, people who are very good at what they do become known by other experts in their field. There are a number of universally acknowledged expert in social media, such as Robert Scoble, Guy Kawasaki, Amy Jo Martin, Chris Brogan and Joel Comm (yes, and some others - make up your own list). I think it is reasonable to ask your "expert", which of these people knows them and could vouch for them.
4) Online presence
Real social media experts use social media a lot. That's why they get good. It's not just about the number of followers they have (though that is significant), but it's also about whether they post regularly, engage with their connections and appear to know what they are doing. If you their Twitter profile and find they are following 2,000 people, but have only a few hundred followers, run away quickly.
5) Published expertise
Have they written a book (yes I know, very 20th century), blogs or wikis that you can look at? Do they speak often at large events? Real experts publish their knowledge widely, and are often asked to speak. It's not a guarantee of expertise, but it's another sign.
This list is not exhaustive, and nor does it mean that if they don't tick every box, you should not engage their services. But if they only meet one or two of the above criteria, are you sure they are a real expert? If you're putting your money out there, you need to be confident. Take care.
1) Evidence of success.
Rather than explaining what they might be able to do for you, any genuine expert should be able to "show and tell" a number of examples where their work has been of benefit to clients. Ideally, they should be able to quote examples of similar work to that you are asking for, and provide proof of their success. Look for numbers and financial value. If they say that their value is "impossible to quantify", be very wary.
2) Referrals from happy clients
This is similar to the one above, but your potential expert should also be able to provide contact details of past clients who will vouch for them. Ideally, they should allow you to select several clients from a list, and then provide you contact details so that you can take up references. If your expert claims that all of their work is "confidential", or "too early to tell", this should give you cause for concern.
3) Referrals from other experts
This one is a bit more tricky. In my opinion, people who are very good at what they do become known by other experts in their field. There are a number of universally acknowledged expert in social media, such as Robert Scoble, Guy Kawasaki, Amy Jo Martin, Chris Brogan and Joel Comm (yes, and some others - make up your own list). I think it is reasonable to ask your "expert", which of these people knows them and could vouch for them.
4) Online presence
Real social media experts use social media a lot. That's why they get good. It's not just about the number of followers they have (though that is significant), but it's also about whether they post regularly, engage with their connections and appear to know what they are doing. If you their Twitter profile and find they are following 2,000 people, but have only a few hundred followers, run away quickly.
5) Published expertise
Have they written a book (yes I know, very 20th century), blogs or wikis that you can look at? Do they speak often at large events? Real experts publish their knowledge widely, and are often asked to speak. It's not a guarantee of expertise, but it's another sign.
This list is not exhaustive, and nor does it mean that if they don't tick every box, you should not engage their services. But if they only meet one or two of the above criteria, are you sure they are a real expert? If you're putting your money out there, you need to be confident. Take care.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Have a break, have a social media disaster
Oh dear, oh dear. Nestle have put an enormous, chocolate-covered foot in it. They've discovered Facebook, but not how to use it. Here's a message that greeted visitors to their Facebook fan page:
“This page is for fans of Nestlé. Linkspamming, abuse etc will be removed, and repeat offenders will be excluded. Posts that have been recently removed have either been abusive or been linkspamming (or both).”
Well that seems clear, if not exactly in the spirit of social media. But it got worse. Whoever runs the page has now started bleating about the way in which visitors are using the Nestle logo. They are also offering advice on spelling and grammar.
Here's what the administrator said "We welcome your comments, but please don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic – they will be deleted.”
So far, so disastrous. There are now over 90,000 "fans", many of them posting comments very critical of Nestle. Personally, I'd like to thank whoever runs the Nestle fan page for a social media strategy that is so wrong, it makes a great case study.
Why not go and see it yourself?
“This page is for fans of Nestlé. Linkspamming, abuse etc will be removed, and repeat offenders will be excluded. Posts that have been recently removed have either been abusive or been linkspamming (or both).”
Well that seems clear, if not exactly in the spirit of social media. But it got worse. Whoever runs the page has now started bleating about the way in which visitors are using the Nestle logo. They are also offering advice on spelling and grammar.
Here's what the administrator said "We welcome your comments, but please don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic – they will be deleted.”
So far, so disastrous. There are now over 90,000 "fans", many of them posting comments very critical of Nestle. Personally, I'd like to thank whoever runs the Nestle fan page for a social media strategy that is so wrong, it makes a great case study.
Why not go and see it yourself?
Friday, February 26, 2010
What's social media for?
I'm spending more and more time with clients working on their social media strategies (but without abandoning traditional media of course). To those who are new to social media, there's a phase where they need to be convinced of the business benefits before taking the plunge. That's fair enough. Alas, there are way too many "instant social media experts" who will over-sell the rewards, without understanding a basic principle of marketing - you have to sell to the people who are buying.
A recent Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) survey of 80 brand managers found that over half of them were using social media to find out what customers were saying about their brand, and three-quarters were "actively engaging" with customers on Twitter and Facebook. It doesn't require a lot of effort to use social media in this way. In fact, I suggest that before you embark on any sort of campaign, you need to start by monitoring your brand in social media, and talking to your customers.
It's often said that you need to use social media in a way that engages with people, offers them help, and doesn't market overtly. All that is true. However, companies like Dell (via Dell outlet), Ford (via the FIesta Movement) and Asda (through their YouTube channel) have used social media to directly boost sales. There's nothing wrong with that. We all need to put bread on our family's table.
There's also an argument that if you connect with enough people, the business will come to you. That may be so, and I'm not short on connections myself. However, the majority of my business still comes via referral and face-to-face meetings that may have begun via social media, but are rarely concluded through it.
Rather than wasting time and money, shrewd use of social media can help you to save it, by preventing costly marketing mistakes. It can also help you to test out new ideas for products and services without commissioning expensive research. It can also help you react quickly to deal with any issues that arise (now that can really save you money). So what's social media for? A whole load of things. But if you use it to save or make money, that can't be bad, can it?
A recent Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) survey of 80 brand managers found that over half of them were using social media to find out what customers were saying about their brand, and three-quarters were "actively engaging" with customers on Twitter and Facebook. It doesn't require a lot of effort to use social media in this way. In fact, I suggest that before you embark on any sort of campaign, you need to start by monitoring your brand in social media, and talking to your customers.
It's often said that you need to use social media in a way that engages with people, offers them help, and doesn't market overtly. All that is true. However, companies like Dell (via Dell outlet), Ford (via the FIesta Movement) and Asda (through their YouTube channel) have used social media to directly boost sales. There's nothing wrong with that. We all need to put bread on our family's table.
There's also an argument that if you connect with enough people, the business will come to you. That may be so, and I'm not short on connections myself. However, the majority of my business still comes via referral and face-to-face meetings that may have begun via social media, but are rarely concluded through it.
Rather than wasting time and money, shrewd use of social media can help you to save it, by preventing costly marketing mistakes. It can also help you to test out new ideas for products and services without commissioning expensive research. It can also help you react quickly to deal with any issues that arise (now that can really save you money). So what's social media for? A whole load of things. But if you use it to save or make money, that can't be bad, can it?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Eyes of the Tiger - did Woods convince?
The eagerly-awaited "news conference" from Tiger Woods took place today. Actually it wasn't a news conference at all, it was a 14-minute scripted statement. There were few reporters present, and no questions.
Tiger was clearly emotional, which is understandable. It's been close to 100 days since his drive hit a tree in Florida. His mother sat in the front row, but his wife, Elin, was absent. I think that was probably the right decision, since to have Elin at his side (like a wife who "stands by" an errant husband) may have been too stage-managed. They clearly still have a lot to discuss.
In terms of Tiger's handling of his media and personal crisis, I am only qualified to comment on the former. His personal life, as he said, is only a matter for him and his close family.
In terms of the media, I believe that his appearance today was well-planned, but ultimately counter-productive. He did not offer many answers. There was no date to return to golf and no clear information about he intends to do in future. He apologised to many people, but he could and should have done that a lot sooner.
I suspect that all he has done today is to prolong media interest in his story, which is probably the opposite of his intent.
I'll be saying more about Tiger's performance on Talk Sport radio this evening at around 11.20 pm. Feel free to ring in and comment.
Tiger was clearly emotional, which is understandable. It's been close to 100 days since his drive hit a tree in Florida. His mother sat in the front row, but his wife, Elin, was absent. I think that was probably the right decision, since to have Elin at his side (like a wife who "stands by" an errant husband) may have been too stage-managed. They clearly still have a lot to discuss.
In terms of Tiger's handling of his media and personal crisis, I am only qualified to comment on the former. His personal life, as he said, is only a matter for him and his close family.
In terms of the media, I believe that his appearance today was well-planned, but ultimately counter-productive. He did not offer many answers. There was no date to return to golf and no clear information about he intends to do in future. He apologised to many people, but he could and should have done that a lot sooner.
I suspect that all he has done today is to prolong media interest in his story, which is probably the opposite of his intent.
I'll be saying more about Tiger's performance on Talk Sport radio this evening at around 11.20 pm. Feel free to ring in and comment.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The secret shared by Smokey and Keith.
Smokey Robinson knew the trick. So did Keith Richards. They know how to grab an audience in a couple of seconds. People of a certain age (actually, people of many ages) only have to hear Keith's first two fuzzy notes of "Satisfaction", or the six bell-clear notes from Marv Taplin's guitar on "Tracks of my Tears" and they're hooked.
OK, some of the emotion when you hear a song now comes from the familiarity, and memories it evokes. But there are some openings so good that the first time you hear them, you want to hear more. That's not only the secret to a great song, it's also the secret to a great speech.
If you can evoke a strong emotion in the first few seconds, your audience will be with you for the rest of your delivery. However, if you stumble to the mike, slightly embarrassed at your introduction, and begin with a phrase like "I'll do my best to tell you something of interest", then you may as well forget it and walk off again.
You need to seize the opportunity, make a promise of great things to come, and then launch into the melody. Still don't believe me? Then watch this -
OK, some of the emotion when you hear a song now comes from the familiarity, and memories it evokes. But there are some openings so good that the first time you hear them, you want to hear more. That's not only the secret to a great song, it's also the secret to a great speech.
If you can evoke a strong emotion in the first few seconds, your audience will be with you for the rest of your delivery. However, if you stumble to the mike, slightly embarrassed at your introduction, and begin with a phrase like "I'll do my best to tell you something of interest", then you may as well forget it and walk off again.
You need to seize the opportunity, make a promise of great things to come, and then launch into the melody. Still don't believe me? Then watch this -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)