Tire-kicking on Google+

Late last week, I succumbed to the temptation and joined Google+, the latest shiny new thing social media has to offer.

A word of warning before I begin: I am a beginner on this platform. I haven't spent more than a few hours on Google+, and so am no expert. If I get anything wrong in this post, please do me and my readers the favour of correcting me in the comments, below - thanks!

Mashable.com has provided an overview of Google+ and what it offers compared to other social media networks like Facebook and Twitter; a more detailed review is posted here. 

My early impressions

I think Google+ has huge potential, if -- and it's a big if -- Google can get people to adopt it. 

Here's what I can already see being huge selling features.

• Easy grouping of friends/followers/people. This is one of the big ones, for me. As an instructor in a college, I have a large number of students who are active in social media, many of whom follow me on Twitter for the benefit of the links I share, and many of whom also send friend requests on Facebook. To keep things fair and ensure no-one thinks any classmates have any "inside track" information others don't, I've declined current student Facebook requests (with an explanation as to why). If they still want to be Facebook friends after they graduate, I'm happy to add them - but not before then.  With Google+, I can easily categorize people according to the kinds of information I intend to share with them. I can create a circle for current students - and once they graduate, can move them out into my custom "Communicators" circle if I want to. WIth drag-and-drop functionality, it couldn't really be easier.
• Easy selectiveness when posting to different groups of friends/followers/people. Related to my last point, if I want to post about something personal or family-related (I'm under no illusion that students who connect with me on social media for the PR-related links also want to know about all the cute things my kid says, cute as they may be), I can choose to only send it to my "Family" and "Friends" circles.  Some of my "Family" and "Friends" also qualify as "Communicators," who'd likely receive most of the links I currently send out on Twitter to PR-related content of interest, so they can be in both circles. At the other end, I have to think it would also make the experience more enjoyable for all my connections, because they're receiving less content from me that doesn't interest them.  Some of my Twitter followers would likely welcome my creation of a "Tennis" circle, saving them from having to read my cheers and rants during Grand Slam tournaments. And I could target administrative messages related to the Creative Communications program to students currently in it. Twitter's hashtag allows people to opt in to such messages today -- but it doesn't have a way for other followers to opt out, without unfollowing altogether (at least, to my knowledge).
• Potential, down the road, to streamline the number of social networks you're on (i.e. saving time). Just think: if everyone was using Google+, you could check and post to one site, and reach all the people you want to reach with the content you feel they would be interested in. This wouldn't just translate into time saved toggling back and forth between platforms -- it could also reduce time spent trying to refer back to something. "Where did I read that? On Twitter? Facebook? LinkedIn?"
• Group video chat. I watched my students this past winter tweet back and forth about school projects they were furiously working on, to deadline. I can only imagine a Google+ enabled class would have an even easier time of getting together to discuss ideas, issues, and what constitutes a typo late at night once everyone's left campus. Same goes, of course, for collaborators in the professional world, and anyone wanting to chat with others in different locations. Video chats involving parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles will be easier to manage here than getting everyone on Skype (at least, in my experience). Not having used the new Facebook video chat service yet, I can't speak to whether it's equivalent.
• Integration between social and the rest of the content Google has access to. I haven't used it enough to really experience this yet, but if I'm reading Mashable correctly, Google+ will make it easier for you to find content that interests you, from both within and outside your social networks. If it's done right, this has the potential to make a social network even more useful, as we now won't be bound by the limitations of our networks.

But here's why I'm not calling the game for Google+ quite yet.

On top of Google's successful execution of this whole thing, it still relies on people to leave where they are and come to this new place -- not an easy sell.

Ask any marketer about the difference in the cost of keeping an existing customer vs. winning a new one, and you'll find out that getting people to leave things they know to try things they don't isn't easy. Add to that the "stickiness" factor inherent in Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn's existing networks, and it's even tougher.

Without the people you want to interact with on Google+, it really won't offer the value for you; it'll just be one more login to add to your social media cycle. 

With more than 750 million users worldwide, Facebook has a pretty good lock on us, at least in the short term. Here's a screen shot I grabbed earlier today from Facebook (you can find these and other stats here) that gives you a sense of the leg up Facebook currently enjoys over the new game in town (which, Mashable is reporting, at least one observer is estimating at almost 10 million users in a couple of weeks, which is nothing to sneeze at either!).

Facebook's recent launch of video chat powered by Skype is, I'm sure, meant to address the new competition, showing Facebook doesn't plan to give Google+ much slack.

But to my mind, Twitter has more to worry about than Facebook. Mathew Ingram writes a good article on gigaom.com looking at Twitter vs. Google+ (I was alerted to this article on Google+ this afternoon by blogger ChrisD) and I have to think Twitter has more to fear than Facebook because of the way we use it.

• While Snooki may be using Twitter, your grandmother is likely on Facebook. 
• I (mostly) use Twitter to share information of interest with people who share interests with me (public relations, tennis, Red River College); I (mostly) use Facebook to connect with family and friends about other stuff.

Why do I raise these points?

Your grandma, and many of my non-office-dwelling family and friends, aren't looking for all the functionality Google+ brings. They want news, and community, and photos, and Scrabble, and Farmville (yeesh). Right now, there's no reason for them to move over there.

Snooki and celebrity tweeters, on the other hand, want whatever platform will give them access to their fans. Office dwellers and digital road warriors want whatever will be most effective and efficient. Twitter's real-time, un-gated news feed has offered that until now -- and given everything else the new kid on the block is offering, I think Twitter may see the biggest migration to Google+.

It's back to experimenting for me. If you have observations to share or any corrections to make, please comment!

 

But for the apostrophe, it was a perfect lunch

Any student in the Creative Communications program at Red River College, where I teach PR, will tell you we're a little bit nuts about accuracy and grammar in writing. Whether you're majoring in journalism, advertising or public relations, it's pretty tough to build a successful career if you can't write properly.

Misspell a proper name in our program and your assignment gets an "F," no matter how brilliant it is otherwise. Sound harsh? Maybe... but not if you're a working communications professional. I've thrown more than one resume/cover letter into the recycling bin after seeing the company name misrepresented: if you can't spell the name of the company correctly in that high-stakes document, I'm guessing you're not that careful on the job, either.

In the PR major, every typo or glaring grammatical error costs you 10%. Guess how long it takes PR majors to dramatically cut down on the number of grammatical errors in their assignments in my class. [Answer: not long.]

Why does it matter so much?

In our business, credibility is vital, and clean writing contributes to credibility. Whether you realize it or not, errors in grammar and spelling send a message to your audiences, and that message is "I'm not really polished, and maybe not as professional as I should be."  A journalist who commits grammatical errors will raise the ire of his/her editor (if the editor is worth his/her salt, that is); a newspaper or news site containing more than the occasional error will be harder to believe than one offering accurate, polished writing.

In PR, our employers often count on us to write and to be the last set of eyes on organizational documents before they're released to the public; if our writing is strewn with errors, the company's image takes a hit.

Today's lunch

Today, I was treated to a delicious lunch at one of Winnipeg's finer restaurants. I had only been there once before, years ago, shortly after it opened: it's a high-end steakhouse, and as I remember it, featured a staff member at dinnertime offering guests "le tour du boeuf," a platter displaying the impressive cuts of beef on offer that evening, complete with a full explanation of their exceptional quality. It was pretentious, but then, pretentious can be fun (especially if you're in what Oprah calls a chi-chi-poo-poo restaurant with a gift certificate). 

It was a lovely environment, and my husband and I were both very much enjoying our little taste of the high life for an evening.

But then, it happened.

As I read the menu, I noticed glaring errors in the French, and the spell was instantly broken. As I remember it, it was like the needle being dragged across a vinyl LP mid-song: what had moments ago felt like a special evening in a special environment now had the feel of little kids playing dress-up in their parents' formal clothes.

Fast forward a decade or so, to today, at lunch.

I had recounted this story to my friend when we made the date, and we'd laughed together about it (she's a PR guy too, and an excellent writer). Today, we sat on the beautiful terrace on a gorgeous day, and enjoyed a delicious lunch together. A duck and her ducklings waddled along the grass past the terrace. And the menu didn't contain a single error (that I noticed, anyway). I greatly enjoyed my lunch, and vowed not to wait so long before coming back the next time.

Shortly before we left, I walked to the ladies' room laughing at myself for having been so anal about the typos in the French.

And then, having reached my destination, I stopped and stared at the engraved brass sign on the door.

"LADIE'S"

Are PR and marketing the same thing?

I've been hearing some debate on Twitter about what PR is and isn't.

A few years ago, The Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) brought some of its leaders together to produce a definition of PR. Here's what they said:

Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.

(Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
 
Some of the conversations I catch online revolve around the notion that PR and marketing are the same thing. As many industry "outsiders" seem to see it, PR is about getting attention for a company or its product, or apologizing for problems, to facilitate sales.

And it is that -- but not only that.

The "PR is a function of marketing" definition only addresses the "realize organizational goals" part of our professional objective and commitment, where the organizational goal we're talking about is generating sales. While marketing may achieve mutual understanding between a company and its audiences in the pursuit of that, marketing isn't focused on the public interest: its job is to create and promote products people will want to buy. 
 
So PR isn't about money, it's about the public interest?
 
It's not a one-or-the-other situation.

It's a fact: companies exist to make money. And PR functions in for-profit companies play a major role in supporting marketing (through publicity, customer advocacy, employee communications, etc.). But our focus is a bit different: in PR, it's not primarily about selling the benefits of the product, it's about creating and nurturing relationships that will make customers want to buy from the company. That's why mutual understanding and the public interest are central to the practice of PR: people prefer to do business with companies that treat them with respect.
 
For example, I'm aware of a business that sells what many consider an excellent product, but whose founder and CEO is widely reputed to be a terrible person.
 
Let's call this company Bob's Danishes, and the founder/CEO, Mr. Bob. Bob's Danishes produces what many people consider excellent danishes: they are tasty, they are appealing-looking, and they are made of high-quality ingredients. Mr. Bob's marketing folks work hard to get the message out about Bob's Danishes, and talk all about their high quality and appetizing characteristics. They create great advertising, promotional and merchandising campaigns, which target the audiences most likely to enjoy Bob's Danishes with exactly the right messaging to draw them to Bob's Danishes stores.

But while they have been very successful, there's also a significant segment of their ideal target market that won't go near a Bob's Danish store, and will tell anyone who'll listen why not: because from what they understand from media reports and the grapevine, Mr. Bob is a first-class jerk, who treats employees and anyone he feels "beneath" him like garbage.
 
Marketing can pound that hold-out segment of the target population with brilliant product advertising and deep discounts all it likes: this public won't budge, because they don't want to support Mr. Bob.
 
That's where PR comes in.
 
PR's role in the for-profit environment does support the ultimate goal of achieving sales, but not by flogging the product: our role is to give the customer reasons to want to do business with us.
 
Now, if Mr. Bob is actually the jerk he is reputed to be, the PR challenge is huge. PR practitioners who practice professionally and who adhere to codes of standards like those of The Canadian Public Relations Society and the International Association of Business Communicators won't lie about him, and (if they're willing to work for him at all) will have to focus on creating goodwill in the community through initiatives like a generous community relations program, hoping that the good done in the community will help people look beyond their boss' personal failings.
 
If Mr. Bob is misunderstood, the PR person has the opportunity to change that, so the company's publics feel good about buying from Bob's Danishes.
 
Even in for-profit companies, PR is about relationships before sales.
 
More than once in my career, I intervened in organizational activities that I felt could damage the company's goodwill in the community.  To be clear, these planned activities were never dishonest or dangerous or anything like that -- but they were geared at generating sales with one segment of the customer base in a way I felt would damage the company's relationship with another.
 
PR practitioners in for-profit companies do this all the time. Sometimes it's simply a matter of killing an initiative that is too potentially damaging; others, it's about getting together with the publics we think might have a problem with the initiative, to seek and address their input before moving forward.  
 
I don't want to make it sound like I'm saying PR is altruistic and not economically-motivated: in for-profit companies, it is about making money. If we don't make sales, we don't exist, period. But if our customers don't want to buy from us because they think our company does bad things for the community or the environment or its employees, no marketing campaign will make the sale.
 
The PR function is about creating and maintaining healthy, two-way relationships with a company's publics; we work toward mutual understanding and the public interest, because doing that will help us meet our organizational goals, whatever they may be -- including sales.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Choosing which hairs to split

I was honoured to receive a teaching award from my PR students at their convocation this week - and as it turned out, the award provided a "teachable moment."

Red River College's College Relations department interviewed me for a short bio in the convocation program, which said that I had joined the faculty in 2008, "after serving 10 years at MTS Allstream, where she was Director of Corporate Communications." This is correct - I did serve as Director of Corporate Communications at MTS Allstream; and between MTS Allstream and its holding company, I did serve there for 10 years.

But I didn't serve as Director of Corporate Communications at MTS Allstream for 10 years, which is how that statement was understood by some. The College Relations writer and I actually discussed this specific sentence before it was printed, because I wanted to ensure it was accurate.

I started out as a Public Affairs Coordinator at Manitoba Telephone System in 1996; in the decade that followed, I was promoted, my title changed, and the company's name changed, too. All that detail, though, doesn't really matter to most people, we figured - so we gave the length of my tenure, and my title when I left.

My first call upon realizing how the sentence had been understood was to June Kirby, who was the Director of Corporate Communications at MTS from 1996-2000, and my boss at the time - I didn't want her thinking I had tried to take credit for her accomplishments. 

Her reaction? "Oh come on, kiddo, even I didn't read it that way! No-one will care!" (I love it that she still calls me "kiddo.")

Of course, I hope she's right - but I wanted to set the record straight regardless.

Finding the balance between efficiency and clarity in your writing

I spoke with the writer in College Relations this morning before writing this blog post, and we laughed a bit about how we had tried to make the sentence accurate while still straightforward... and obviously didn't do it well enough. 

He said he had considered adding something like "where she held a number of positions ending with..." but in the end, felt it over-complicated the sentence - and likely wouldn't matter. I had entertained the same thought, and had come up with the same conclusion. After all, the sentence was accurate as written... as long as you understood what we meant.

And that's the key. Whose fault is it, usually, if someone misunderstands what I meant? Mine. As writers, it's our job to ensure our messages are communicated clearly, with as little room as possible for misunderstanding.  

In the end, I don't know that anyone but me cares - but it's a good lesson just the same.  If you split hairs too much, your writing may be lumpy - but if you don't split them enough, you risk inaccuracy. Find the right balance, and your writing will be at its most effective.

On Burson-Marsteller, Facebook, and ethics in PR

News broke this week about global PR giant Burson-Marsteller pitching untrue stories about how Google's Gmail Social Circle feature breaks FTC rules on users' privacy. 

According to various reports, two Burson-Marsteller account executives, one a former CNBC reporter and the other a former political columnist, attempted to persuade influential bloggers and mainstream media to report on (ultimately false) allegations of Google's violations of privacy rules -- and refused to name their client. (The emails between Burson-Marsteller's John Mercurio and blogger Christopher Soghoian, whom Mercurio was trying to persuade to write an Op-Ed on the topic, are posted here.)

Honesty and transparency in PR: the rules are clear

PR has been fighting its own bad PR for at least a generation. An article on the story in AdWeek included the following infuriating (to me) statement: "While sleazy PR firms trying to spread scandalous stories is old hat..."

Ethical, moral, honest practitioners of public relations face this kind of slag on a regular basis, thanks to unethical, immoral, dishonest practitioners of backroom dealings who've come before them and branded their work "PR."

I've heard it myself from former journalists, in the context of joking around. I'm in PR, so I must be all about spin, right? I'm likely a very good liar, right? I must be, I'm in PR!

No, not right. (And on my cranky days, not even funny.) But what can we do about it? It's not as though those impressions are baseless; PR has gotten that reputation because people speaking on behalf of organizations, in the role of "public relations," have taken actions that have brought that reputation on us all.

Here's what we can do: prove that reputation wrong. 

The best thing PR people can do to combat PR's bad rep is to work honestly and ethically. Nothing is more persuasive than personal experience: most journalists, whether or not they buy into the "PR people are liars" storyline overall, have worked with PR people who deal in good faith, and whom they trust. The more above-board PR people they deal with, the less they'll be inclined to believe the old story.

Many PR professionals like me join professional associations like the Canadian Public Relations Society, the International Association of Business Communicators, and the Public Relations Society of America, among others. Each of these associations has a code of ethics or of professional business conduct that details the requirements for its members to conduct business ethically, honestly and transparently.  You don't need to belong to one of these associations to perform ethically, of course -- but by actively participating in them, you make a commitment to your clients that your work will follow their publicly-stated standards.

The more real PR people consistently deal openly and ethically with their audiences, the less that "sleazy PR firm" image will endure.

At least, I hope.

A point worth making

As I followed this story on Twitter yesterday, I saw a Tweet from British PR educator Heather Yaxley that said something I had been thinking.

(Thank you to @jgombita for re-tweeting it to her followers, including me.)

It's not lost on me that the PR practitioners in question are both former journalists. I wonder whether they also joked about how sleazy PR people are, in their journalism days. 

Even the big guys have to follow the rules.

Here is Burson-Marsteller's statement, posted earlier today on its website.

"Now that Facebook has come forward, we can confirm that we undertook an assignment for that client.

The client requested that its name be withheld on the grounds that it was merely asking to bring publicly available information to light and such information could then be independently and easily replicated by any media.  Any information brought to media attention raised fair questions, was in the public domain, and was in any event for the media to verify through independent sources.

Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined. When talking to the media, we need to adhere to strict standards of transparency about clients, and this incident underscores the absolute importance of that principle."

Without its reputation, the product of integrity and ethical dealings, a PR firm can't be successful in building relationships with any of its audiences. Professional PR people almost have to be more honest than everyone else -- or they'll be out of work.

Burson-Marsteller has a big job to do. 

GolinHarris gives CreComm a warm welcome and great advice

This morning, 35 CreComm students (and two instructors!) were welcomed at the global headquarters of PRWEEK's 2010 Large PR Agency of the Year, GolinHarris.

Alyssa and Alexandra:
"There's no such thing as a typical day in PR."

Assistant Account Executives Alyssa Bronikowski and Alexandra Kassel gave us a quick tour of GolinHarris' Chicago headquarters at the corner of The Magnificant Mile and the Chicago River, gave us a great overview of the agency's work, and then discussed some recent campaigns they've worked on for clients including Magnum Ice Cream, Breyers, and the Dow Live Earth Run for Water, among others.

They walked us through GolinHarris' different practice areas, and talked about the various activities account staff will often undertake over the course of a day.

Advice for aspiring PR professionals

Alyssa and Alexandra shared some excellent advice for PR students wanting to approach their internships and first jobs with the right mindset for success.

1) Always be looking for solutions.
In PR, you always have to be finding ways to make things work. If you're a "well, I tried but it didn't work out... and now I'm just going to wait for someone to tell me what else to do" kind of person, PR probably isn't for you. A lot of success in PR depends on your ability (and willingness) to dig until you find the information you really need -- whether it's the best vendor for chocolate jewellery, the right media monitoring solution, or the audience profiles that will ensure you reach the right people with the right messages for your campaign.

2) Be organized.  
In a PR agency (just like in the corporate world), PR people face different tasks and challenges, with different factors always changing, and oftentimes for multiple clients, every day. If you don't have your act together, you won't last long.

3) Write, write, write.
So much of what we do in PR depends on strong writing. We write materials for our clients; we write plans that must persuasively outline our strategies; we write proposals to win our clients' business in the first place. The more you write, the better you'll be.

4) Stay on top of new ideas in your profession.
Our hosts recommended our students sign up for The Skinny on PR (click to sign up), a free e-newsletter from PR News that focuses on the PR profession; subscribe to PRWEEK; and always be watching what other organizations are doing. Your education in PR never ends.

At the end of the session, Alyssa and Alexandra gave out their business cards and generously invited our students to contact them if they had any questions about internships, launching their careers, or even projects they might have in school next year. They were excellent hosts, and we were very thankful for the opportunity to learn from them.

Thank you so much, Alyssa, Alexandra, and everyone at GolinHarris -- and to Gini Dietrich of Arment Dietrich, who helped set us up for our visit there. It was a fantastic experience!

How to take PR advice

This week, I've been having an interesting discussion with a fellow professional communicator about the value of a blog post (written by yet another professional communicator) we both read on corporate use of Twitter.

In a nutshell, I felt it contained valuable information; she disagreed, for a range of reasons, one of which being that it could lead readers to make decisions about using Twitter "carte blanche" in certain situations.


In PR, other than "be honest," don't use any advice "carte blanche"

While we weren't on the same page about the blog post we were discussing, I'm certain my colleague and I completely agree about this: don't follow anyone else's advice about whether you should use any tool or tactic "carte blanche."  Effective PR isn't achieved using templates -- though many, unfortunately, think that's the case.

There isn't a proven, right way to do anything every time; simply copying what some other organization did in a similar situation to yours won't necessarily work. And while we're at it, simply copying what you did the last time you were in a similar situation with the same audiences won't necessarily work, either.

The field is always changing.

The foundation of any good strategy in communications is knowing your audience. But that doesn't mean knowing their ages, genders, income levels, geography, etc. etc. -- it means knowing what makes them tick, what they care about, whom they're listening to and why. And those things are constantly changing.

Think about your own behaviour. Do you do the same thing every day, watch the same TV shows every night, visit the same websites on a scheduled basis? Do the people you follow in social media say the same things, time and time again?

Or do your behaviours and the external factors that influence them change over time?

Of course, they change. Which means the best way to reach you changes, too.

This makes the PR manager's job tougher - but is also why the PR manager has a job.

If people ran on predictable equations, "template" communication plans would be all you'd ever need. You would find out what your key audiences' habits and preferences are, and apply the appropriate plan for the situation.

But people don't run on predictable equations -- which means you need to always be interacting with your audiences to have a sense of where they're coming from (and where they're going) at any point in time. You can of course learn from what has and hasn't worked for you in the past, but you need to identify what's changed at your audiences' end to be able to address them properly.

Similarly, you can learn from what others have done in the past (hence the value of reading textbooks, blog posts, and presentations about their experiences); evidence of what has and hasn't worked for others can help steer us in the right direction, and can help us show why we're recommending what we're recommending.

But not because the tactic or tool will deliver exactly in our case what it did in the example: because it's one example that can give us a sense of what we might expect. Even more important than the results others have delivered using certain tactics, for our purposes, is how our situation is different from theirs. Only when we evaluate the two together can we really have a fair sense of what might work for us.


Take it under advisement

The only way to identify the best approach for your audiences in any given situation is to know the options, and know your audiences.

There are gazillions of textbooks, articles, presentations, and blogs out there that will give you advice -- including this one! -- but you shouldn't ever just implement someone else's plan with your audiences. Unless their plan worked with your audiences, in your situation, and at this particular point in time (which is impossible!), it won't be as strategic as it could be... and it won't give you your best shot at success.