Speeches: when to call an audible

This past weekend, tennis fans were treated to an extraordinary match in the final of the Australian Open in Melbourne, in which world #1 Novak Djokovic beat world #2 Rafael Nadal 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-5. 

The match lasted almost six hours; as the Telegraph put it, it "was certainly the longest, surely the hardest and arguably the greatest Grand Slam final in history." 

The players were both physically spent by the time it was over, having covered miles of court (I can't find the stat, but it must have been miles!) and hit the ball incomprehensibly hard over and over again, for hours. When it was finally over, these fine competitors were understandably in pretty rough physical shape.

And that's when I started thinking about PR.

Enter the tournament sponsor

The Australian Open's main sponsor was Kia Motors. As part of its sponsorship, a Kia executive had the opportunity to open the trophy presentation ceremony.

His prepared remarks were appropriate for the occasion, content-wise... but the circumstances of the match might have called for a bit of a last-minute re-write.

As both players' bodies began to cool down after the match had finally ended (six hours!), they began to cramp. The Kia spokesman, who had his back to the players, couldn't see their discomfort from where he stood: but judging by the booing that eventually came from the crowd, everyone else likely did. (The feed I was watching on TSN actually kept the camera on the players almost the entire time, like this YouTube clip -- so the players' worsening pain was all the audience could think about.) 

Those poor guys... and the poor guy from Kia. Oblivious to the pain his speech was literally inflicting on the players, he kept going.

When the moment is right, call an audible

Without corporate sponsors, tournaments like this wouldn't happen; it's entirely appropriate for the main sponsor to have the opportunity to speak with the tennis world listening.

But imagine the great impact this opportunity could have had, if the Kia rep had simply stepped up to the mike, thanked the players for what may well become the match of a lifetime, shared how honoured Kia was to have been a part of it, acknowledged not wanting to make them wait a minute longer than necessary, and turned the presentation over to the emcee.

If he had, I think fans in Rod Laver Arena and around the world might have felt a connection with the sponsor, rather than willing him to just stop talking... and his appearance could have earned Kia more than polite applause (and saved him the "boos").

Always be aware of your audiences' circumstances when you step up to speak; if they might be better-served by a different speech than the one you've prepared, consider making changes on-the-fly.

Doing so well could turn your routine speaking engagement into a memorable moment shared with your audiences.

Tim's re-names its coffee cup sizes: PR or not PR?

I love Tim Hortons coffee, and since there's a Tim's here at The Roblin Centre, I buy at least 5 cups a week.

Until last week, the cups I bought were usually "large;" now, the very same cup is "medium." To make room for a new 24 oz size (bigger than what was formerly called "extra large"), the company has re-named all its existing coffee cup sizes and added a new "extra small."

Source: www.timhortons.com

A news release on the Tim Hortons website says the company tested the names of its new cup sizes, "and the response has been overwhelmingly positive." It added that "[b]y shifting the sizes, we're able to provide coffee lovers with a full range of five size options: from extra small, all the way up to the new extra large."


Testing, testing


In Creative Communications first-year PR, we look at how organizations use research to help them make business decisions -- and we examine how carefully questions need to be worded to yield an accurate view of public opinion. 


We also look at examples of the different ways one set of research results can be interpreted, depending on how questions are worded.


In this case, I'd love to know whether the "overwhelmingly positive" response in the research was to the idea of actually re-naming all the familiar cup sizes with the names of other equally familiar cup sizes (except one)... or whether it was to the names themselves. 


I would expect overwhelming support for names like extra-small, small, medium, large, extra-large from customers who were already used to ordering small, medium, large and extra large. I might expect the response to be a bit less enthusiastic if the question was about using all those same names to denote new sizes... but I could be wrong. That's why we do research!


Is this a PR issue?


No, it isn't -- it's a marketing issue.


But it could become a PR issue if it caused a customer backlash (of which I haven't seen any evidence, in this case). If you don't think a change in marketing can cause customer backlash, though, go back and check out what happened when The Gap tried to update its logo in 2010. 


Could this be a publicity stunt?


A friend of mine suggested it might be, in the interests of getting everyone blogging and tweeting about the new sizes. (If that's the case, you're welcome, Tim's!)


I'd question whether Tim Hortons would take that risk unnecessarily, since there was the possibility customers would find the whole thing confusing and annoying until they got the hang of it. 


I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I wouldn't have recommended potentially confusing and annoying customers intentionally, in the hopes that their reactions would generate "buzz." That might generate publicity, but I don't think it would help the company's PR. 


The bottom line


Even if people find the re-naming annoying, I can't see it being a reason for anyone to stop buying coffee at Tim Hortons if that's the coffee they like. The company has a great reputation and brand -- this is at most a blip.


And even if Tim's has turned my old large into a medium, it still beats calling it a "venti."

What constitutes a PR problem?

A tweet this afternoon led me to a story on the O'Dwyer's PR site entitled "Google, Starbucks Take First PR Blows of 2012."

The O'Dwyer's article linked to a piece in the New York Times, which quoted a retired NYPD bomb squad member on how Starbucks' Frappuccino bottle makes a suitable container for a Molotov cocktail, after an arsonist used the bottles in a series of firebomb attacks in Queens, NY over the weekend (thankfully, no-one was hurt).


Is this actually a PR problem for Starbucks?

Embarrassing, yes, but I don't think it's really a PR problem for Starbucks. Actual PR blows, to my mind, de-value an organization in the eyes of its publics; for instance, it would be a PR blow if this story revealed that Starbucks' product or behaviour didn't deliver on its brand promise, and/or that it operated in some way irresponsibly.

While I'm sure any reputable company would be aghast that its bottles were being used to help people hurt other people, and might even decide to change its packaging to reduce that potential, I don't see this as a reason for anyone to think less of Starbucks as a company... or to be any less likely to want to do business with it.

The fact is that bottled drinks come in bottles; and while we're at it, people intent on hurting others will find a way to do it, no matter what kind of bottle Starbucks uses for its Frappuccino.


Unflattering headlines aren't necessarily bad PR

This story reminded me of a smart post I read by Judy Gombita on the Windmill Networking blog late last year, about what constitutes an online crisis.

Thanks to social media, there are many, many voices out there -- and because of their interconnectedness, an observation or opinion from a small group can quickly start to look like a PR problem.

But I think it's important to recognize that embarrassing or unflattering coverage doesn't necessarily mean bad PR, if by PR we mean the relationships our organizations maintain with their publics.

If we deal in good faith, and a by-product of our good-faith dealings has a negative impact, we have the opportunity to consider making changes (if they're warranted) to reduce that negative impact -- and I don't think our publics would be likely to think any less of us for it. I don't have any research on hand to back that up, but it's what my years as a PR practitioner and even more years as a consumer tell me.


How should Starbucks respond?

I'm going to ask my classes about this tomorrow. If you have opinions to share, please do!

Misspelling... on purpose

Graphic from Carey's presentation

This morning, Carey Gatz, Online Marketing Supervisor at online pharmacy CanadaDrugs.com, gave first-year Creative Communications students a valuable primer in search engine optimization ("SEO").

As an online pharmacy, CanadaDrugs.com's business success relies heavily on its customers' ability to find it on the web -- so Carey Gatz and his team always need to stay on top of evolutions in search engine technology. They need to understand what the search engines are looking for, and how they look for what they're looking for, so CanadaDrugs.com's site can be set up to earn the best possible search rankings.

I've uploaded his slide presentation to the CreComm Blog Network.

Advising students to misspell?

In CreComm, misspellings can be very expensive -- because professional communicators just have to be able to spell. It's pretty tough to make a career of communications without that key skill.

But as Carey pointed out this morning, if you're hoping to help your customers find you online, it's a good idea to include common misspellings of your keywords in your site's tags (where no-one can see them). 

The sad fact is that typos happen, and sometimes spelling isn't your customers' strongest suit. But that doesn't mean you don't want to serve them!

I'm guessing CanadaDrugs.com's hidden tags might include "words" like perscription and prescriptin. They might also include slang terms for commonly-used medications, which the companies don't want to strengthen by giving them credibility on their sites…. but which customers might use to search for them.

The key is to help your customers find you in an ocean of competition.

Again, as always, know your audience

Along with his point about intentional misspelling, Carey pointed out that since many of the company's customers are American, CanadaDrugs.com uses American spelling. So while the company's headquarters is located in a Winnipeg neighbourhood, the site might talk about a customer's neighborhood.

Think these things don't matter? Think again. 

If you want your publics to be able to find your site using search engines, you have to start by using their language.

The PR value of being nice

I had to call a company this morning whose employees almost invariably treat me like I'm an idiot.

It's not that there's one cranky employee, or that I happened to catch one normally friendly employee on an off day: every single interaction I have with the (multiple) staff in this business is unpleasant -- and has been over the course of a few years. And it's not just me: friends have reported the same experience. These staff talk down to their customers in a way that leaves a bitter taste... and a lasting, unfavourable impression.


Customer service issue, or PR?

In some organizations, the PR department is charged with managing relationships with certain key stakeholders and the media, and customer service is left to the "customer service" experts.

And while there are plenty of aspects of good customer service delivery that require the attention of the customer service experts, your stakeholders' experiences in dealing with front-line employees have a huge impact on your organization's public relations.

In PR, our responsibility is to build and nurture healthy relationships with people and groups who are affected by what our organization does: customers, employees, community neighbours, donors, beneficiaries, government, interest groups, investors, mainstream and new media influencers, just to name a few.

We work in a wide range of environments, for a wide range of causes, to deliver on a wide range of objectives. But fundamentally, it comes down to this: our job is to give people reasons to want to do business with our employer/client in some way.

What makes you want a relationship?

It's not beautifully-written and designed annual reports, it's not flawlessly-executed special events, and it's not entertaining and informative speeches -- though, for some audiences, those can help.

At their core, good relationships are built on respect -- whether they're between two people, or between a person and an organization of some kind. So if your company's various audiences don't feel respected, anything else your PR department does will fall short.

How do you recognize respect when you see it, hear it, or feel it? It looks, sounds and feels like consideration.

And how do you show consideration?

You listen, and you respond based on what you've heard in a way that shows the other person their experience matters.

When someone listens to you and responds in a way that aims to improve your experience, you feel respected.

In companies, good PR starts on the front lines

Front-line staff (store clerks, helpline operators, volunteers - anyone who interacts with your publics day-to-day) have the ability to affect your audiences' impression of your organization every minute of every work day. Their handling of your audiences' concerns/business/issues/opportunities will have far more impact on how people feel about your organization than many of the corporate communications materials you produce.

For the PR department, that makes front-line managers and staff key partners in the organization's public relations function. You want to know what they're hearing from your audiences, and you want to ensure they're equipped to deal with issues and opportunities alike. You want to know what their personal job-related issues and ideas are, and you want them to know their issues and ideas matter.

Why?

Well, first of all, because it's nice. But secondly, because it's good for business. Your front-line folks are an audience too: and they need to be respected if they're going to want to contribute to positive relationships -- with the company and with its customers.

Sour employees = sour customer experience

It so happens that I'm stuck with the company that motivated this post, for the time being, at least: they provide a particular product I've become accustomed to and don't want to give up. But my behaviour as a customer has changed as a result of the poor treatment I get at their head office: I access the product in a different way, which cuts into the share of my spend the company gets.

The difference between the company getting all my investment and getting only part of my investment is literally the cranky attitude of the employees who answer the phones.

That's a clear bottom-line impact of customer service on my relationship with the company, and that company's bottom line.

If I were in that company's PR department, I'd want to get on that. One cranky employee is one cranky employee; but a whole staff of them, to me, suggests an organizational problem.

Bitterness doesn't just turn up overnight, and it isn't dispelled overnight, either: but as anyone who has had relationship troubles can tell you, the best place to start repairing an injured relationship is to listen.


>

Apologies

The Winnipeg Free Press has been reporting this week on a "ground-breaking" event that happened today in Halifax, at the third of seven national Truth and Reconciliation Commission events: University of Manitoba President David Barnard apologized for his university's role in educating perpetrators of the abuse aboriginal children, families and communities suffered under the Indian Residential School System.

Photo and caption from the
University of Manitoba website

Barnard's full statement is published on the university's website, here.


The apology follows others from churches and governments, including an apology on behalf of the federal government from Prime Minister Stephen Harper; but this is the first time a university has stood up and apologized for the indirect role it played. As it is explained in a story in this morning's National Post, "The university itself was not a perpetrator of the tragedy, and its mea culpa stems from having educated the clergy, teachers, and politicians who perpetuated the system."


An apology, or an attempt to profit from the suffering of others?


The National Post story, entitled "University's residential school apology raises eyebrows," questions whether the U of M's apology will be taken in the spirit in which it's meant. In it, Michael Davis, of Vancouver reputation management firm Reputations, suggests the university might be seen to be taking advantage of the tragedy for a gain in its public image.


The National Post story quotes Mr. Davis as saying the university’s connection to the residential school system “seems very tenuous,” and that by making an apology "the school runs the risk of appearing to 'use what was a very serious and tragic history for some sort of gain'.” 


In a separate story in the Winnipeg Free Press this morning, however, Truth and Reconciliation Commission member Marie Wilson says the apology "will be tremendously encouraging to survivors."


How can you know whether your apology will help or hurt?


When an organization has acted badly or in some way hurt people, an apology is the first step in repairing damaged relationships.


When the organization's role in hurting people is indirect, as Mr. Davis points out in the National Post story, there's the potential for motivations to be judged (and possibly, misjudged). 


Regardless of how pure the organization's motives, it's important to do research that will help predict whether audiences are likely to take it in the way it's meant... because, PR issues aside, your objective is not to have your apology inflict further disrespect to a group that's already suffering.


Mr. Barnard provided some background on how the university decided to make the apology, noting in a Winnipeg Free Press story that he "consulted widely on campus among deans, senior administrators, the board of governors and the senate. He has also discussed the university’s plan with Manitoba aboriginal leaders." 


That's good PR.


If you can't know, ask.


You can't ever predict with perfect accuracy how people will react to something; but asking a wide range of opinions from within your stakeholder publics will always help. While there will invariably be people "out there" who will disagree with your actions or question your motives, what matters most is how most of your audiences will view them. 


Statements like Mr. Davis' illustrate the risk in taking a public stand. But if the U of M has done its homework and knows its own audiences will see the apology as the sincere gesture it's meant to be, the apology will (hopefully) be able to help its community take a step toward healing.

RIM: how long should a response wait?

There have been plenty of articles and blog posts blasting Research in Motion (RIM)'s decision to wait before talking to its customers (and investors, and the watching world) about the major outage its BlackBerry service experienced last week. An October 12th article in PR News summed up what many were saying with a quote from Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former head of communications:

 "Explain while you fix. Apologize when you have. Recompense after. Handling so far woeful," he tweeted. 

If you Google "BlackBerry crisis communications" you'll have a wide choice of links, many of which pointing out how RIM ignored one of the basic principles of crisis communications: talk to your audiences and stakeholders and give them the facts (or whatever facts you can) before others shape the story for you.


It sounds easier than it is.


Having spent more than a decade in a telecom corporate communications department, I have to say I had some sympathy for the folks at RIM. It's easy for us to sit back and say "you should be out there telling your customers what's going on," but sometimes it's not that simple. Sometimes, even the experts aren't exactly sure what the problem is - and no-one wants to go out and make it sound better or worse than it actually is. I remember getting briefed on network outages that initially looked like they were going to take hours to fix, but were actually repaired in minutes. Hindsight is 20/20, and your in-the-thick-of-it statements will live on long after the crisis does; natural instinct is to want to be sure you have it right before you say anything at all.


There's also the problem of explaining what the issue is when the audience can't possibly understand it. The communicator needs to be accurate, but can't use the technical language the engineers use: our customers aren't engineers. That translation process takes time, too (and, often, debate).


The communicators have their hands full: even if the higher-ups are on board with the idea that the company should communicate publicly about the problem (and this isn't a given in every company), they have to find out what the issue is; get agreement from all the experts on what the problem is, its scope, and what will be required to fix it; and translate it all into their audiences' language. It's not something you can do within a few minutes.


But it is something that needs to be done, and as quickly as possible -- because as the RIM example shows, the story will build with or without you.


A quote that caught my eye


A story in The Globe and Mail Monday about the RIM issue attributed the following statement to RIM co-CEO, Jim Balsillie:

Mr. Balsillie defended how RIM communicated the outage to the public, saying every minute doing public relation is time not spent fixing the problem.

Unless its communicators do double-duty as engineers, I think RIM could likely have communicated without jeopardizing the repair time by too much. The communicators would need access a tech expert to formulate and help with "translating" the message, but any time lost by techies would, I'd argue, be well-invested in showing your customers you're working to fix it.


Customers don't really expect everything to work perfectly all the time, though it may sound like they do when they're complaining online. But they do expect the company to show that it "gets" their frustration and is doing everything it can to fix it. 


On Thursday, RIM uploaded a video to YouTube featuring Mr. Balsillie's co-CEO, Mike Lazaridis, talking to its customers about the outage.

A message like this one (which still doesn't tell us much about the nature of the problem) could have taken down the temperature on the criticism of RIM, had it come out a few days earlier. 

Every crisis is also an opportunity


Your audiences are listening... you might as well say something you want them to hear.