blogging | davefleet.com

Archive for the ‘blogging’ Category

Criticism is Good

11.06.28

Yesterday I published a post (ok, fine, a rant) about people who sling unconstructive criticism at others and the effect it has.

Several people seemed to take that to mean that I think all criticism is bad, or that we should avoid commenting on other posts. That’s my fault – I buried this line way within the post (as, per the previous paragraph, I was ranting):

“As I’ve said before, criticism can be good. For that to be the case, it needs to be informed and it needs to be constructive.”

My concern is that there’s a big difference between these two statements:

“‘Company X’ did this. I don’t think that was the best move – I might have considered [change A], [change B] or [change C] to make [aspects D, E and F] better.”

“‘Company X’ did this. What a dumb move – who in their right minds would do that? Fail.”

One is constructive; one is unhelpful. One offers useful suggestions; the other tears the organization down. One builds; the other tears down. One makes you look smart and helpful; the other does the opposite.

Happily, the people who read my post and took that meaning from it (again, my bad) chose to do so in a constructive way and made some constructive points in return. For that, I thank you.

Criticism is good. Most people don’t receive enough feedback — the kind that builds and helps them to be better, that is, not the kind that makes an example of them. I know I always strive to receive more, as I know there’s a lot to improve. We just need to get better at both providing and receiving it. The aim of the last post was to let those who aim to knock others down rather than build them up know that that’s not part of the equation.

Make sense?

#thatisall

Posted in: blogging, miscellaneous

Tags: blogging, miscellaneous, pr, public relations

4Comments

Armchair Quarterbacks: Don’t Be That Troll

11.06.27

A quick thought (or ten) for anyone who is thinking about armchair-quarterbacking someone else’s PR or social media execution without anything constructive to add…

When you criticize things from the outside, you:

Don't be this guy.

1. Don’t know what actually happened. You know what you read in blogs, in the papers, etc. You don’t know what actually happened — who said what and to whom.

2. Don’t know what discussions happened internally. You see the reported outcome. You don’t know what conversations happened – between the agency/agencies in question and the company; within the company or among the various stakeholders at the table. Hell, you probably don’t even know who all of those stakeholders and agencies are.

3. Don’t know the context for the decision(s) that were made. You don’t know the competing priorities in play. You don’t know what had been tried before and didn’t work. You don’t know what communications happened behind the scenes.

When you criticize from that starting point and don’t have anything constructive to say, you:

4. Make yourself look uninformed to all parties in question. You don’t impress anyone by taking cheap shots; you just show how little of that context you actually have.

Is this how people sit when they come up with this stuff?

5. Make yourself look petty. You’re taking cheap shots. You’re sniping from the sidelines. When was the last time that made someone look good? Oh, that’s right, it didn’t.

6. Set yourself up for a fall. By taking those cheap shots, you set yourself up there on a pedestal, ready for anyone who encountered your critique to take you down next time you screw up. And guess what? Even if you didn’t actually screw up, you don’t have a leg to stand on – that leg is occupied trying to kick others when they’re down.

7. Lose recruitment opportunities. I’ve said many times – PR is a small world. Those people you just alienated might have been potential recruits some day. Don’t worry about it, though – given that you just alienated their client, too, you won’t have too much incremental work to worry about.

8. Lose new business opportunities. I just mentioned it – you don’t just alienate the agency in question; you alienate their client, too, through your misinformed punditry. Say goodbye to being on that shortlist.

9. Damage your own reputation and that of your employer. It’s not just yourself that you hurt with your critique – it’s your employer, too. Yep, just as in so many things nowadays, your actions are tied to that of the company you work for. “These opinions are my own” disclaimer or not, you’re working for that company and the words you say/write are those of someone working for that company. People will draw that line whether you want them to or not (to take it a step further, ask the many people who have lost their jobs after ill-advised comments online).

10. Get me worked up. Ok, that’s not really a big deal, but did you really think I would publish a post with nine points? Yeah, right.

Don't be this guy either.

For the record: As I’ve said before, criticism can be good. For that to be the case, it needs to be informed and it needs to be constructive. It can’t be uninformed, because that leads to you giving criticism that is based on a slice of reality and that does nothing to benefit anyone (including you). And it can’t just be an attack, with no constructive input, because then you’re just a troll.

If you find yourself falling into that trap (and I’ve done it myself in the past), do yourself a favour and cut the company a break.

Make sense?

(Yes, this was sparked by a particular incident. No, it wasn’t about me or about Edelman. Yes, it got me worked up. No, I won’t name the people at fault. Move along…)

(Images via here, here and here)

Posted in: blogging, miscellaneous

Tags: blogging, miscellaneous, pr, public relations

10Comments

How To Engage On Sites Using Facebook’s New Commenting Plugin

11.03.08

Facebook recently introduced a new version of its Facebook Comment Box Plugin, allowing website owners to integrate their commenting functionality with their Facebook presence.

We’ve already looked at the pros and cons of the Facebook commenting plugin for businesses considering implementing the plugin on their sites. Today, let’s take a look at what the implications are for companies running engagement programs.

The new plugin poses a conundrum to those working in engagement programs – specifically, around how they engage in the comment streams on sites using the plugin:

Do they comment as a Facebook Page, assuming they have one (and deal with the lower personalization and effect on Page content)?
Do they personalize responses more by using commenters’ own Facebook accounts (does that cross a work/life boundary)?
Do they just avoid commenting on sites using this plugin?

Here’s my take on five clear options for people running social media response programs. What’s yours? Let us all know what you think in the comments below.

Option 1: Individual employees comment using their own profiles

Have company employees log in and comment using their own Facebook profiles.

Pros:
- Transparency of person’s identity
- Avoids potentially negative comment streams being pushed to the company’s Facebook page

Cons:
- Requires employee to use a personal account for business purposes. Could be considered to cross a work/life divide
- Company-related conversation aggregated on employee Facebook profile
- Possible that some company spokespeople may not have Facebook pages
Conclusion:
- As transparent as this option is, the cons and the risk of violating work/life boundaries outweigh the benefits
- Lost opportunity to aggregate relevant conversation and to activate advocates on page

Option 2: Comment as company-owned Facebook page

Company employees log in to their own accounts, but use the new person-like features of Facebook Pages to leave comments as the company’s Facebook page.

Pros:
- Clear that responses come from company’s official presence
- Avoids using personal accounts for business purposes
- Drive additional traffic to appropriate Facebook pages
- Aggregated conversations provide additional content for Facebook pages

Cons:
- Potential lower transparency, as company name shows as the comment author (although can be mitigated via comment content)
- Conversations aggregated on company page may not be positive in tone
- Dilutes official content on the company’s Facebook page
- Requires wider group of employees to have admin access to the company’s Facebook page, meaning less control over activity on the page
- Potential for accidental comments as Facebook Pages on non company-related conversations, if employees forget to change their commenting profile back to their personal accounts
Conclusion:
- Clear benefits over using personal profiles, but increases the level of risk on company pages via increased admin access and unpredictable content. Depending on the company, this approach may be viable.

Option 3: Create new, business-only Facebook profiles for commenters

Company employees engage in the comment streams under their own names, but via profiles created purely for company use.

Pros:
- Separation of personal and business profiles
- Avoid additional admins on Facebook pages
- Maintains engagement on sites with Facebook commenting plugin installed
- Avoids diluting content on Facebook pages

Cons:
- Violates Facebook terms and conditions – risk of accounts being deleted by Facebook.
- Lost opportunity to aggregate relevant conversation and to activate advocates on page
Conclusion:
- Risk incurred from violating Facebook terms and conditions is not advisable.

Option 4: Create Yahoo! accounts for commenters

Company employees comment on posts themselves, but do so through a new integration in the plugin – a Yahoo! login.

Pros:
- Works within Facebook’s rules
- Avoid additional admins on Facebook pages
- Avoids diluting content on Facebook pages
- Maintains engagement on sites with Facebook commenting plugin installed

Cons:
- Less credibility of commenter profiles – Facebook profiles perceived as more credible than Yahoo! accounts
- Lost opportunity to aggregate relevant conversation and to activate advocates on page
- Could be perceived as easy for anyone to claim to be a company employee
Conclusion:
- This option minimizes risk to the company and maintains the ability to engage. However, this option also loses the opportunity to curate conversations on the Facebook page, and the lack of identity verification that Facebook provides may reduce spokesperson credibility (although no more than via other commenting systems).All-in-all, this provides a viable option for companies looking to engage on these sites.

Option 5: Avoid commenting where Facebook Commenting Plugin is used

Avoid the pros and cons of all of the other options by refraining from engagement on sites using the new Facebook commenting plugin.

Pros:
- Avoids risk of accidental cross-posting
- Avoids diluting Facebook page content

Cons:
- Lose opportunity to participate in relevant conversations via comment streams
- If adoption of Facebook pages increases, lose broader opportunity to engage
Conclusion:
- This is the “do nothing” approach. Frankly, it’s a last-resort if a company is already engaging in conversations on third-party sites.

Conclusion: It depends on your culture

Facebook has thrown a bit of a wrench in the works for companies engaging in social media response programs. None of these options is ideal from a company perspective – each comes with draw-backs in terms of risk, transparency and credibility.

Many companies may want to use Facebook’s new ‘company as a page’ functionality (option #2) to benefit from the ability to aggregate conversations on their own Facebook pages, and to do so credibly while providing interesting conversations for fans of their pages to participate in – and a way to leverage the advocates on your page to weigh-in on relevant topics.

However, for those carefully tailoring the volume and type of content posted on their pages, this makes life difficult. Dan Zarrella, for example, has shown that if you post too often to your page, you may lose fans. By throwing comment replies into the mix, companies may run the risk of saturating their page with content, to the detriment of people on the page. What’s more, your comments are unlikely to always be positive, so you may end up aggregating negative conversations on your page.

Meanwhile, logging-in via a Yahoo ID (option #4) offers a good balance of maintaining work/life separation for empoyees, influence over Facebook Page content, and risk mitigation from avoiding additional page admins and reducing the risk of accidental comments “by the company”. The downside of this, though, is the lost opportunity to bring these conversations to your fans, and the lack of identity verification that Yahoo IDs provide.

Ultimately, this is likely to come down to company culture. Is your culture more risk averse? Then you may want to go with Yahoo IDs. Are you more accepting of slightly higher risk? Then commenting as your company’s Facebook page may provide the greatest benefits without usurping employees’ personal accounts.

What do you think? Would you come to the same conclusion? What would you add to the mix?

Posted in: blogging, communications, facebook, social media

Tags: communications, facebook, pr, public relations, social media

10Comments

A New Approach

10.12.21

A large part of what we do for many digital clients involves managing content and community for their online properties. However, in this case the cobbler’s son (my blog) has gotten to the point where he has no shoes.

For the last several years, I’ve focused on writing long-form content for this site. Each post that I’ve written has generally taken me between one and three hours to write, as I prefer to share in-depth, thought-out ideas that either provoke new thoughts or provide useful input.

Times, however, are a-changing. Caralin and I have recently bought and are in the process of renovating our first house; we’re planning our wedding and I’m working and traveling as much as ever. Set alongside all of these priorities, the time I’ve been able to spend on this site has suffered as I’ve found it difficult to find the time to flesh-out long-form content on a regular basis. As a result, a lot of ideas I have go unposted – not because I’m no longer having them, but because I don’t have the time to build them out in full.

So, I’m beginning a new approach to content, continuing the process I began with my Tumblr blog. I’ll be producing a mixture of long-form and short-form content; of the same kind of posts I’ve always posted and shorter thoughts, snippets and pointers to other interesting content. I will continue to prioritize long-form content when I can, but when time is short I’m going to prioritize thought-starters ahead of rounded-out posts.

I’m hoping that this will re-invigorate my site, without negatively affecting the content. The volume of longer posts will remain as it is now, but I’ll fill the gaps between them with regular shorter snippets. So, expect more questions and more speculative thoughts, and more points for discussion along the way.

I know I’m not the first person to struggle with this dilemma. Have you encountered this problem? How have you addressed it?

Posted in: blogging

Tags: blogging

3Comments

Are Spammers Getting Smarter?

09.12.29

If your blog gets any remotely significant amount of traffic, you’ve probably experienced problems with comment spam. Right now, I have just over 2,100 comments in my spam queue thanks to the Akismet WordPress plugin.

Spam You might think that with that many comments caught in my spam filter, the software was doing a good job. However, it appears the spammers are getting more creative in their attempts to get around the protection and I’ve noticed more spam comments getting through the filter and into my moderation queue in recent months.

Here are a few of the spam comments (sans links) I’ve found recently:

“Aw, this was a really quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real effort to make a good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate alot and never seem to get something done.”
“I normally do not leave comments but I recently started using twitter and I am a little lost. Thanks for clearing some stuff for me. Looking forward to your next post.” (the URL submitted with the comment gave this one away)
“@Madeline, you appear to know what you are talking about. Do you care sending me your e-mail? I would like to talk more with you.”
“Sometimes it’s really that simple, isn’t it? I feel a little stupid for not thinking of this myself/earlier, though.”
“I know this is really boring and you are skipping to the next comment, but I just wanted to throw you a big thanks – you cleared up some things for me!” (the give-away with this one was the same identical comment left multiple times)
“Hello, I thought I would post and let you know your web site layout is really messed up on the Firefox browser. Seems to work OK on Internet Explorer however. Anyways keep up the good work.”

A couple of characteristics of some of these examples:

Referring to specific usernames
Mentioning tools which (through pure chance perhaps) relate to the post
Self-deprecating comments
Compliments towards the author

Of course, there’s still a massive volume of generic drug-focused spam comments and gibberish in there too. Still, these comments caught my eye.

Is it me or are spammers getting smarter?

Posted in: blogging

Tags: blogging, spam

21Comments

Be Wrong

09.10.29

Wrong I’m going to take a guess and say that around 5-10% of what I write on this site misses the mark. Maybe I’m wrong about something, or I write something to which people don’t relate, or I write badly.

I know when this happens because on those posts I’m deafened by the silence in the comments. When I get it really wrong, people will tell me but for more things it usually just gets really quiet.

For many of us, especially those thinking from a corporate perspective the fear of the consequences being wrong online is a little greater than that associated with a personal blog. The fear of critics; of trolls; of brand damage; of financial or legal consequences in severe situations can be great. It requires a bit of a shift in thinking to realize that, in conversational channels, it’s ok to be wrong occasionally.

Why should you be ok with being wrong occasionally online?

Admitting you’re wrong is, in its own way, a powerful way to connect with people. It brings you down from your pedestal.
You can learn from the comments you’ll receive from your readers.
No-one is perfect. If you’re never wrong, it likely means you’re not breaking out into new territory. That gets boring pretty quickly. Few people really want to be boring.

Of course, we’re talking about opinions here. When it comes to financial, competitive or IR information you can’t mess around. However, if you’re using social media to connect with people, many times we’re going to find ourselves giving opinions.

It’s ok to be wrong.

What do you think? Are you ok with being wrong occasionally?

(Image credit: gundolf)

Posted in: blogging

Tags: blogging, business

35Comments

Disagree With Me

09.05.05

One of the reasons I write so frequently here is that I love reading your take on things.

Sometimes I’ll write about things I know something about; other times I’ll write about things I’m not so sure about. Regardless, the most rewarding part is reading the comments (even if they have been slow recently – Twitter seems to be replacing commenting for a lot of people, but that’s a topic for another day… and I value them both).

Sometimes I get people here who strongly disagree with me. Often, other people tell me to stop interacting with those people as “I’ll never win.”

Here’s the thing: I don’t aim to “win.”

Every day I look forward to seeing comments on my posts so that I can learn. When I respond, I hope that the other person learns something too, even if it’s just a different perspective. I don’t need to “win” each disagreement.

I learn the most when people disagree with me. It makes me reconsider my thinking. It forces me to remember that the world isn’t black and white; it’s shades of grey. As long as the person stays within my commenting policy, I welcome disagreement.

For me, the worst possible reaction to a post is silence.

So please, if you read something on here and you think I’m way off target, please tell me. I’ll learn, maybe you’ll learn, and we both win.

It’s not wrong to disagree here. I welcome it.

Posted in: blogging

Tags: blog, commenting, Twitter

6Comments

Fast-Tracking to Twitter

09.04.22

Back in February I mused about the apparent greater willingness of companies to sign up for Twitter than to start blogs. I’ll go one further now – I’m starting to see companies skip blogging entirely and go straight to Twitter.

Companies like Fairmont Hotels are by-passing blogging entirely and starting to engage with Twitter as an initial step into social media. Until recently it might have appeared more logical to suggest blogging as a common core step in the social media process (listen, engage, develop) once the groundwork is laid. Nowadays that’s not necessarily the case.

If we consider the different apparent commitment levels of the two tools this isn’t too surprising:

Blogs require designing and developing; a Twitter profile has a minimum of setup;
Blog posts can take lots of time to draft and edit; Twitter posts can take just a few seconds;
It can take a while to start to develop conversations on a blog; on Twitter you can begin to engage in conversations very quickly;
As a real-time medium, conversations evolve and spread more quickly on Twitter than on all but the most popular blogs.

Some of these commitment differences are perceived rather than real – you can spend just as much time on Twitter each day as it takes to write a blog post, for example. Still, I find it interesting that Twitter is now sufficiently accepted that it is seen as a potential first step into social media.

Posted in: blogging, social media, Twitter

Tags: blogging, social media, Twitter

7Comments

Retweets Welcome

09.03.18

Mitch Joel says ““I’ll tweet that” is the ultimate insult.”

The gist of Mitch’s argument is that “tweeting” takes almost zero effort – you push a few buttons, hit enter and it’s done. A few months back, people would perhaps write a blog post about what you said, which took much more commitment and could potentially drive lots of traffic over time.

He also notes that only a small proportion of users are on Twitter at any one time. For the others, “…odds are that piece of content will become nothing more than road kill on the information superhighway.”

This leads Mitch to conclude that tweeting about someone’s content is “almost a cop-out” and to wonder if someone tweeting about you is “the ultimate insult.”

Re-tweeting is a compliment

I disagree with Mitch’s perspective for four key reasons:

You may not have something useful to add to that excellent post you’ve just written. I think there’s little use in blogging about a topic without adding value.
One of Twitter’s greatest strengths (and issues) is that Twitter exponentially increases the volume of information to which you’re exposed. Blogging takes a long time. I wrote down five topics today alone that I want to write about. Most of those will never see the light of day, because tomorrow I’ll think of or read another five things. As much as I like your content, I don’t have time to write about everything. You’re probably in the same situation.
The argument that “a tweet does drive traffic, but it’s nothing like a Blog post or a position on a Blogroll” implies by extension that comments also have little value, as they only reach the people who are already on your site. However, I value comments highly, as I know most people, including Mitch, do too.
Posting on Twitter about something still requires you to put your name next to it. I may not have written the post, but by tweeting about it I’m saying I agree with it. To me, that’s worth something.

If someone tweets about something I’ve written, I’m delighted. Presumably they’ve read it and they’ve enjoyed it, or it made them think. That alone makes me happy. The fact that they want to tell others is even better.

I get the difference in commitment. I get that tweeting about something takes less effort than a blog post, and has less long-term impact than a blogroll.

I still appreciate it.

The value you put on different forms of interaction will vary by personal. What’s your perspective?

Update: Mitch has commented below and updated his post. I’ll wait while you read it… ok,? So, what do you think?

I’ve disagreed with Mitch on a couple of things recently. I suspect that’s because I consume more of his content than that of almost anyone else – on his blog, on Six Pixels of Separation and on Media Hacks. Mitch rocks. If you haven’t already done so, I suggest you subscribe to all three.

Posted in: blogging, Twitter

Tags: blog, comment, Mitch Joel, retweet, Twitter

23Comments

Who Are You Online?

09.02.27

Who are you when you’re online? Are you yourself, or are you someone else?

I had a conversation with my colleague Kerri Birtch last night about how we behave online in relation to how we behave in real life. We agreed that we both do our best to be the same “person” in online forums as we are when we’re offline.

On reflection, though, do we really act like this?

Of course, there are the obvious differences like people who have a ghost blogger. I’m talking about more subtle differences, though.

Are you more aggressive online?
Do you tell more jokes online?
Are you more outgoing online?
Do you swear more, or less, than you do online?
Do you talk about your personal life online?

It’s easy to say that, yes, you do all of the things online that you do offline at home.

Here’s something else to ponder: away from the computer, do you act the same with clients as you do at home?

I know I don’t. I’m more polite; I tell less jokes. I have a pretty cutting sense of humour, which I keep under control around clients.

What about you? Do you behave the same with clients as you do outside work? I expect not, but you tell me.

Now, put the two of these questions together. Do you act online as though your clients are watching what you post?

Enough of my clients are on Twitter that, alongside my client searches, I have a group set up for all of my clients on the service. Post scroll through that column fairly rapidly. I bear that in mind when I’m twittering, especially during office hours (although sometimes I slip up). I try to remember that existing and potential clients may see what I post, and try to behave accordingly.

There’s a line to tread here, and it’s tough. I want to be myself online, but I know that I occasionally need to self-censor.

Do you?

Posted in: best practices, blogging, Twitter

Tags: Twitter

21Comments