Archive for the ‘best practices’ Category

Do The Old Timing Rules Still Apply For Media Relations?

When I first got into media relations, a few pitching best practices were hammered into my head on a regular basis. For example:

  • Know who you’re pitching and what they’re after
  • Tailor your pitch
  • Don’t bcc a “mailing list” of pitch recipients (pitchees?)
  • Don’t pitch journalists when they’re on deadline

When it came to print journalists, that last bullet translated to “don’t pitch journalists after around 2:30 or so.” I’ve stuck to that as much as possible since that time (of course, it varies for radio and television depending on when the show runs, and hence when people are around). However, a conversation I had recently with my colleague Karen Nussbaum has got me rethinking that approach.

New rules for timing pitches?

Photograph of a newspaperHere’s the theory:

The idea of print journalists’ deadlines has always centred around the 24hr news cycle, where stories were assigned in the morning, researched and drafted during the day and which culminated in a deadline for the story to be filed mid-afternoon. Trying to call a reporter anywhere near that deadline would result in you getting ignored or (sometimes) told off for not respecting their time.

In today’s media environment, stories are filed for the web throughout the day. Often they’re filed multiple times, with information being added as stories develop. As a result, the afternoon deadline has turned into constant pressure and ever-looming deadlines. For the media relations folks, that means:

  1. Journalists are always pressed for time (as one said to me a little while back when I asked if it was a good time to talk, “it’s never a good time – I’m always busy”).
  2. Afternoon pitching is no worse than morning pitching. In fact, it may be better as they’ve had a chance to clear out their inbox from the morning… and if everyone else is calling in the morning, you may have a better chance of getting through in the afternoon.

What’s more, the emergence of email as a pitching tool means initial outreach can be asynchronous- if journalists are busy they can read them later.

Is it time to re-think the old rules around when to pitch print journalists?

Public relations pros: does this picture fit with your recent experience?

Journalists: does this ring true for you?

(This is a re-post of a piece I wrote for the Marketing Profs Daily Fix. To check out the original and my other posts there, check out mpdailyfix.com)

Seven Reasons You Should Care About Disclosure on Twitter

A tweet from Eden Spodek caught my eye the other day:

“Am I in the minority in thinking consultants should disclose when tweeting about clients?”

DisclosureNow, I’ve written about disclosure plenty of times in the past, but given the recent introduction of disclosure rules by the FTC down in the US (check out Louis Gray’s fun post… is it just a matter of time until we have them in Canada?) and the growth of promotional postings on Twitter, it’s worth revisiting – especially in light of the new contributor function within Twitter.

From my perspective, I don’t think it matters if you’re being paid to talk about a client, if you’re just doing it yourself or even if you’re writing about a client’s competitor (a risky task). Either way, trust and relationships you’ve developed online are at play.

Here are seven reasons I think you should take those extra few keystrokes to disclose your client relationships:

  1. Undisclosed posts can be revealed – nothing is secret on the web.
  2. Social media is all about trust (it’s why Technorati did so well for so long (authority rankings) and why Google is doing well now). Failing to disclose your bias can contribute to losing trust.
  3. Most clients (Kanye excepted) won’t thank you for stirring-up controversy.
  4. Every string of characters you post can either build or damage your reputation. Which would you prefer?
  5. Your reputation is worth more than eight keystrokes – “(client)”.
  6. The benefit you’ll get from better conversions may be negated by the people who complain about you – to regulators, to the media or to others online (and those groups may overlap).
  7. Content exists online over a long period time thanks to Google (all the more so if Twitter fixes its ridiculous two-week search limit). If rules around disclosure get tightened down the line, you’re better off safe than sorry.

Opinions often vary on this – what’s your take?

(Image credit: margolove on Flickr)

Corporate Social Media Policies Ebook

Earlier this year I published a short series of posts on how to go about creating social media policies for your organization.

I’ve now pulled the essence of these posts into an ebook on corporate social media policies, to make the content even easier to reference when you’re working on these documents for your organization. You can download the Social Media Policies Ebook here, or check it out on SlideShare.

View more documents from Dave Fleet.

Build Your Social Media Strategy With Rocks and Sand

Social media is taking off right now. It’s all over the traditional media; there are books on it being released in every direction, and everyone seems to be on at least one of the various social networks, be it Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace or any other.

Meanwhile, from a business perspective it feels like every company we talk to is at least including social media in its plans; in many cases it’s front and centre.

Some of those companies immediately look for the “quick wins” – campaigns that will get them immediate bang for their buck. In those cases. it can be difficult to explain what I believe to be the truth:

Quick wins are difficult in social media and it’s often ill-advised to seek them. Social media works best as a long-term initiative.

Can of stonesWe occasionally use (and wreck) a ‘rocks and sand’ metaphor when thinking about social media. You can have a jar full of rocks in it, but there are lots of gaps. To truly full it, you need sand to fill them. Social media is similar – you can have lots of big campaigns, but for your efforts to truly pay off you need the ’sand’ – the long-term foundation that keeps everything in place.

What is that foundation? It’s the infrastructure you build – the policies, training and workflow that keeps things running smoothly. It’s the executive support that lets you move beyond a publicity-based approach. It’s the listening program that lets you identify issues early and learn from ongoing conversation. It’s the ongoing presence that gives you the credibility to maximize those short-term pushes.

Bottom line: it’s the fundamentals.

Try to push ahead with your ‘big rocks’ without the ’sand’ and you’ll come up short, with holes in your plans.

(Image: Shutterstock)

Social Media Agencies and Transparency

On Tuesday, Rachel Kay asked a thought-provoking question during a Twitter Q&A with fellow PR practitioner Sarah Evans:

How involved can an agency get in a clients SM execution & remain transparent?

In my view, agencies can get involved in every aspect of clients’ social media execution without sacrificing transparency. I say that not just from personal opinion, but because I’ve been there.

Note: I say “can” not “should aim to be.” More on that in a moment.

I place great importance on transparency (see my earlier posts on ghost blogging if you need convincing). However, that hasn’t stopped me from being involved in the full gamut of social media strategy development and execution, from brainstorming and drafting through to manning the Twitter account and blog.

How do you achieve that level of involvement while maintaining integrity?

Disclosure.

We make a point of disclosing client relationships at every turn. That runs from disclosure in blog comments, to naming individuals in bios on blogs and Twitter accounts, to even naming who is writing individual tweets. By disclosing who you are, transparency is maintained.

Now, on to an important issue: I don’t think this is an ideal long-term solution.

In the short term, there are many reasons why an agency might get involved in executing social media tactics:

  • Clients may not have sufficient capacity to undertake the work
  • Clients may lack the expertise necessary to execute at the best level
  • Clients may want to pilot-test an initiative before committing in-house resources

All of these are valid short-term reasons.

However, in the long-term I think the best solution is for much of the tactical execution to be taken in-house if appropriate staff with the right skillsets and framework within which to operate are available. Agency roles in the long-term are best played as a strategic advisor, training staff, developing ideas and strategic direction and offering advice on tactics where required. Agencies can also play a valuable role doing some of the “arms and legs” work – monitoring, reporting, designing and developing online properties, email campaigns, etc.

In summary, agencies can be involved in every aspect of social media execution without compromising transparency. That just doesn’t mean they always should be.

For the record, here’s Sarah Evans’ response to the question:

I think that agency SM involvement should ultimately result in biz’s online sustainability (i.e. can they do it themself?)… #prexaminer

It’s a lot about working with them, teaching, listening, identifying (or creating) the right tools. #prexaminer

…I created a “clients” section on my blog to disclose who I’m working with. I’ll be up front if we’re connected. #prexaminer

What do you think?

Social Media Policies For Your Company: External Policies

In my last post we explored the policies that companies should consider internally, within their organization, when getting started in social media.

This time we’ll take a look at the social media policies that organizations might consider posting publicly, for everyone to see. There are two:

  1. Comment moderation policy
  2. Interaction policy

Comment moderation policy

Comment moderation policies are closely related to one of the “norms” of social media, and one of the aspects which organizations that can find hardest to stomach: People expect that when they leave a comment, it will appear on the site.

If someone posts a comment and it doesn’t appear on the site, they may react badly. These reactions can range from repeated attempts to post comments, letters to your boss, to independent posts on other sites that are out of your control, through to sparking the organization of activist activities on an ongoing basis.

Frankly though, if you have an official blog you may want to review comments before posting them. You’re probably quite sensitive about the site content anyway, and you know that the Google has a very long memory.

So how do you protect your organization from a consumer backlash, while protecting the conversation on your site from being derailed?

You publish a comment moderation policy, to which you can point if you have to reject someone’s comment. It’s out there, up-front, and nothing is hidden so people should have no complaints if they violate it. Think of it as an insurance policy, just in case something goes wrong.

Consider covering the following:

  • Language and manners: Will you reject comments which include offensive or inappropriate language?
  • Personal attacks: Will you rule out personal attacks? Ideally you might allow people to question or argue the content – after all, this medium is about conversation. Aggressive attacks, though, are another thing.
  • On-topic comments: What will you do with comments that veer away from the topic of the post or other peoples’ comments?
  • Comment spam: Will you allow comments that appear to be spam?
  • Number of links: Do you want to limit the number of links that you will allow? Will you use no-follow links?
  • Blocking: Will you take action against repeat offenders?
  • Contact: Will you provide a way for commenters to contact someone if their comment is not approved, or if they have other questions?

Online interaction policy

Let’s say you recognize the importance of listening and, as your online efforts mature, you’re starting to engage with the people talking online about your industry. The trouble is, you know that once you start to engage with people online they’ll expect it and you know that you’re not going to want to respond to everyone. You should try to avoid the “dark side” of social media.

How do you draw the line? 

As with your comment moderation, you state up-front which conversations you will engage in, and which you won’t. Again, having this posted publicly on your site gives you the ability to point to it if someone asks why you haven’t responded to their posting.

An interaction policy also helps by adding some credibility to your approach, as you can publicly set clear standards for your interactions. This has the additional benefit of reinforcing your standards with your employees.

You may want to consider the following facets of an engagement policy:

Conversations:

  • Spam and off-topic comments: Will you respond to spam or off-topic comments? Likely not.
  • Defamation: You may want to avoid responding to defamatory remarks.
  • Misinformation: Ideally, you should aim to correct misinformation as soon as possible. Remember, if people don’t see a correction they may assume an incorrect statement to be true.
  • Dissent: What’s your approach to commenters who simply disagree with you? Will you debate with them? Will you avoid the conversation? Where do you draw the line between dissent and trolling?

Standards:

  • Timeliness: Assuming your processes allow for it (which they ideally should), consider stating that you will reply to online comments as soon as possible.
  • Honesty and accuracy: Consider stating that you will take all possible steps to ensure that what you post is complete and accurate.
  • Error correction: Make it clear that if you post something that you discover is inaccurate, you will endeavour to correct it immediately.
  • Confidentiality: Publicly state that you will not discuss confidential information.
  • Disclosure: Note that when employees engage  in public conversations about the organization, they will disclose their affiliation.

Your interaction policy will also benefit from an internal component – a clearly-defined process for how to go about those interactions. The US Air Force has a well thought-out decision tree that lays out the considerations for whether to respond to posts. You may want to tweak it for your organization, but it provides an excellent starting point.

Beyond this, though, clearly lay-out who is responsible for what in your process, and the timelines involved. As Alex de Bold said to me last week, social media moves in dog years. You won’t have time to figure this out on the fly. Will you triage posts? What approvals are needed at each level?

Thinking this through in advance will not only make your life easier, it may also save you if things do go wrong at some point and people ask why things were handled a certain way.

Conclusion

This is the final part of a three-part series on social media policies. To get the full story, check out the rest of the social media policy series. Once again, a big hat tip goes to Michael O’Connor Clarke for his ideas on this topic over the last few months.

Do you have these kinds of policies? What would you change in the approaches above?

Social Media Policies For Your Company: Internal Policies

Your organization is dipping its toe into the social media pool, but you know you need the right policies in place to set the stage. Where to start?

In this post I’ll outline, at a top level, three internal policies that you should consider when your organization is getting started in social media:

  • Blogging policy
  • Outbound commenting policy
  • Employee guidelines

Step one: review your organization’s existing policies. Your existing employee standards may cover much of what you’re about to read here. If you don’t need to reinvent the wheel, don’t. In that case, consider finding a way to draw attention to those policies – basic training or an aggregation of those policies on your intranet, for example.

I’m not a legal expert, but here are some pointers on the internal social media policies you should consider for your company. Some of these specifically overlap, on the assumption that you may not implement all of them. Edit, tweak, add to your heart’s delight. These are just starting points.

Blogging Policy

With hundreds of millions of blogs out there, chances are that some of your employees have their own blogs outside work. You may have your own official blogs at work, too. 

Your blogging policy lets your employees know where the line is when writing on their own blogs, whether official or otherwise.

Consider covering:

  • Advice - tips on things like transparency, disclosure, human voice, etc – not necessarily rules; rather they’re guidelines for how to approach the medium with a minimum of risk and maximum effect
  • Attribution – state that if employees cite content created by others, they should acknowledge it
  • Copyright – may employees use the organization’s logo, name etc (you may want to restrict their use)? Also consider stating that employees should not violate the copyright of others
  • Ownership – who owns the content of employee blogs, along with the responsibility for the content?
  • Confidentiality - as with the employee guidelines below, consider stating explicitly that employees should not disclose confidential information. It’s common sense, but you should be explicit.
  • Disclaimer – should employees state that they are writing as themselves, not as representatives of the company (unless they are)?
  • Existing policies – note that the blogging police does not supercede other existing policies, and that employees must continue to abide by those.

Outbound commenting policy

Your outbound commenting policy sits between the “blogging policy,” which covers employee social media properties, and the general “employee social media guidelines,” which cover more generic use of tools. The grey area: when representatives and other employees comment on other peoples’ sites.

This policy can be a bit simpler than the other policies here. Consider covering:

  • Do no harm – may employees attack competitors via their comments (which may reflect badly on your company)?
  • Transparency – if commenting on a work-related discussion, should employees disclose their affiliation/conflict of interest?

Also consider the internal process for monitoring and responding to conversations. Which conversations will you engage in? Which ones will you simply listen to? The US Air Force blog response chart is a great starting point for this side of things, though you may want to amend this for your organization.

Employee social media guidelines

As social media tools become more and more ubiquitous, you can’t expect your employees not to use them outside work (or at work, in reality). What’s more, given that they spend most of their waking life at work, it’s tough to expect them to completely avoid talking about it outside the office.

Of all of the policies, these guidelines are most likely to be covered by your existing employee guidelines.

These guidelines serve two purposes:

  1. Protecting your organization by setting out boundaries for what employees can and cannot do online;
  2. Empowering employees to use social media tools by removing doubt over what is “allowed” and what is not.

Consider covering the following in your employee social media guidelines:

  • Boundaries - are employees actively encouraged to engage in conversations regarding the organization (may depend on organizational culture)?
  • Transparency - are employees required to identify themselves as employees when discussing the organization (likely: yes)?
  • Confidentiality - may employees discuss of confidential information (likely: no)?
  • Financials - may employees discuss financial information (likely: no)?
  • Consequences - outline the consequences both for the company and the employee when someone says something ill-advised
  • Work use – is social media use permitted during work hours (may differ depending on whether employees are encouraged to engage in conversations regarding the organization)?

This is part two of a three-part series on social media policies. To get the full story, check out the rest of the social media policy series. A massive tip-of-the-hat to Michael O’Connor Clarke for his thoughts on some of these topics.

What do you think? What is unnecessary and what am I missing?

Getting Started: Social Media Policies For Your Company

Is your organization looking to get started with “this social media thing?” If so, alongside the thinking you should be doing about culture and top-level support, organizational policies should be one of the things you think about first.

Next week I’m delivering a workshop on “Building A Solid Foundation: Social Media Policies, Best Practices And Ethics For Your Organization” at a conference in Ottawa. Thanks to this, social media policies are at the top of my mind right now.

What will you do when someone “talks” to your representatives online? How will you decide whether and how to respond? What if an employee goes rogue and starts posting confidential information online?

Social media moves quickly, and Google has a long memory. A lack of preparation for events like these can mean a slow response, an escalation of issues, and perhaps even lasting damage.

How should you approach this initial thinking?

We recommend two types of policies – internal and external.

Internal Policies

  • Blogging policy
  • Outbound commenting policy
  • General employee guidelines

Public Policies

  • Comment policy
  • Engagement policy

Over the next couple of posts I’ll take a look at each of these policies in turn, the kind of things you should think about and the kind of things they should cover. Sometimes these things may be covered by your existing employee guidelines; other times you may need to come up with new approaches.

Don’t worry; it’s not that complicated. It just needs a little thought.

If you’ve been around the blog with these tools, am I missing anything in terms of policy types? Which social media policies have you found the most useful?

Where’s The Line With Twitter “Spam”?

Do you find it helpful when people link to their latest content on Twitter?

Tweetstats says I’ve posted an average of about 25 tweets per day since September 2007. In the last few months, I’ve averaged over 40. Each weekday, one of those tweets is usually to my latest blog post. 

The question is, does that tweet add any value to your stream or is it just spam?

Back in March, during the ghost blogging saga, someone mentioned on my site that they were far more concerned about the ethics of people posting links to their own content on sites like Twitter than they were about people using ghost writers to produce content under their name. Ever since then, whenever I link to my own content I’ve wondered whether it’s a good practice.

Every day I decide that I think it’s ok.

Different types of self-linking?

Jennifer Mattern points out two different types of self-linking which may fall into the category of spam:

  • Manual posts
  • Automatic posts

My links fall into the former. If I feel my post is worth it (I usually do, or I wouldn’t have published it) I’ll manually write something in Twitter and post it. Others use automated services like Twitterfeed or blog plugins like Twitter Tools. I used to use them, but decided I preferred the choice of posting the link or not and being able to write something a little more ‘human’ to people.

Does it matter into which of these groups you fall? Not necessarily. A manual poster (TechCrunch, for example) may post multiple links per day while automated posts might be way less frequent.

The main difference here is in the level of personalization. I’m much more likely not to tweet an issue from within the post than I am to post simply the headline. That’s evolved over time, but it’s where I stand now. Meanwhile, automated posts are, well, automated – they don’t vary in format or based on nuances in the content. In that regard, perhaps automated links are more likely to be “spammy.”

Does volume matter?

Is there a line to be crossed? Is posting one self-link every 40-45 posts any different to posting 35 self-links within that same volume? Is it different to one post per day, always linking to yourself? Some would argue not. I would argue there is. If you’re constantly having conversations – discussing things, offering advice and sharing. I think that builds-up the social capital to be able to throw in an occasional link to your content.

If you post 39-44 tweets per day which converse with others, or point to other interesting content, does one post really constitute spam?

Changing audience behaviours

As Bill Sledzik pointed out in Mattern’s comments, it seems that more and more people in this space are looking to Twitter for their reading material nowadays. So, even if people subscribe to someone’s site, they may not check their reader regularly now due to the volume of great content flowing through Twitter, so they may miss a lot of your content.

On the flip side, does someone following you on Twitter mean they’ve signed-up to see links to your blog? Might engaging, interactive content be a better way of driving people to your site?

From my perspective, people who choose to follow you have chosen to read whatever you post. I always appreciate feedback on how I go about things and am willing to change, but at the end of the day people have the ultimate sanction – they can simply stop following you if you continuously post irrelevant things.

If my audience is spending most of their time on Twitter rather than their RSS reader, and I have content of which I’m proud, I’m inclined to post it there.

What’s more, as good communicators know, people usually need a call to action in order to do something. If you want people to read your posts and give you their feedback, you’re much more likely to get that if you point people in that direction. So, if you post all the conversational content in the world but very little of that is necessarily related to your website content, few people will click through. Of course, perhaps that means we should be a little more thoughtful about what we post on Twitter. Perhaps when you’ve blogged about ghost writing, you should post more tweets about that topic.

Your thoughts?

Note: I’m not asking whether linking to your own content is right or wrong. As I mentioned yesterday, there are shades of grey in social media and one person’s “rules” are often irrelevant to another. Guy Kawasaki has 115k followers to an account that is largely automated, so who am I to say it’s wrong? Still, Guy’s audience is not my audience.

I’m really interested to hear what you think on this. Does posting occasional links to your own content constitute Twitter spam?

Social Media Needs Shades Of Grey

Shades of greySocial media operates in shades of grey.

The more I think about our application of these new tools to communications and marketing, the more I realize that things aren’t black and white. Ghost blogging is grey. Online personas are grey. The rules are grey.

Why should you care? Because your approach should be no different.

Your approach to social media will probably differ from most others.

Different situations, different approaches

I just finished co-chairing the Social Media Summit Canada Conference, where I watched Aaron Wrixon deliver a presentation on the Workplace Safety and Insurance Bureau’s (WSIB) approach to monitoring online conversations.

The WSIB, an Ontario government agency, is at the beginning of its use of social media tools. Right now it uses a variety of free tools to monitor online conversations, and is in the early days of responding to them.

The WSIB’s approach to responding to conversations is based around the U.S. Air Force’s own decision tree. However, it is a little more tentative, ignoring any posts meeting the following criteria (emphasis is mine):

  • Obviously angry posts
  • Taunting/baiting
  • “Not of sound mind”
  • Wrong/misguided posts

The last point in this list stands out to me. The WSIB won’t correct misinformation about it online. What’s more, their protocol for responding to conversations is firmly centred around protecting itself, rather than communicating with the public. Legal, IT and Security departments are also heavily involved in the response process.

Remember the context

My immediate reaction, as yours may have been was that this was a poor approach to engaging online. Frankly, the specific and deliberate decision to not respond to misinformation means that (as David Alston mentioned earlier in the day) this information can propagate and in the absence of anything to the contrary, people may simply assume it is correct.

Before you judge, though, consider the environment in which WSIB and its staff operate. Fear 2.0 is rampant – to an organization that, for years, has had the illusion of being in control of its brand, the idea that it might need to engage with individuals is scary. It’s a huge jump for organizations that put layers and layers of approvals between communications staff and the public.

Culture check

One of the first steps on the road to social media adoption is a culture check. Does your organization really want a conversation with people? Is it really ready to accept that, contrary to the rose-coloured glasses people inside might wear, people do disagree with them? Are you willing and able to respond to conversations in real time?

Many organizations simply aren’t ready to engage with people. They need to adjust the way they and their processes work to effectively engage in a timely way (comment on a blog post 48 hours later and (a) most people have already been and gone, and (b) your comment may be buried at the bottom of a long list).

In this context, WSIB has adopted an approach that fits its situation. One might advise them that, at this stage, they’re just not ready to engage with people. They may be better-off monitoring and assessing discussions, and learning within their organization while they get to a point where they can have a positive effect by reaching-out online.

The important point here, though, is that the WSIB has adopted the “rules” of social media to its organization. Its staff listen and, within the context of their environment, they act accordingly.

Is it “textbook”? No. Is it ideal? No. Is it better than ignoring the online space? Yes.

Shades of grey. It’s not just black and white.

What do you think?