Beating the recession

What an inspiring blog post from Chris Barraclough in Marketing when he suggested that the recession is a great time to start a new agency.

The part I agreed with the most was when he referred to clients seeking new solutions that could improve their ROI and how starting out means you have none of the 'administrative fat' of the big agencies.

It's a premise that Elliott House has built its business on and an offer we find is attractive to our clients.

We can offer experienced and skilled editors and designers to work on projects at a cheaper price than the larger agencies as we don't carry any unnecessary overheads. It means we deliver a top service to large and small businesses but without the hefty price tag – especially good news now everyone is guarding their budgets more closely.

Times are hard but the right proposition, an abundance of creative ideas and excellent service will pay off every time.

Shopping for better communication

It's good to see that the high street has started to fight its way back into consumers' shopping baskets. Large supermarket chains and out of town retail parks may have lured us into their free parking lots with cheap deals and the convenience factor but smaller high street stores have at last spotted the crucial gap in the market. Their employees.

While online shopping has eliminated the need to exchange any kind of niceties with shop assistants (no one likes being pounced on as soon as they arrive in a store) it has also removed any physical human interaction which might have resulted in more product knowledge, confidence and actual joy in your purchase. (I don't know about you, but I still get a nagging doubt about my decision after buying anything on the web.)

Online shopping in the UK may be estimated to reach 81bn euros in 2011, according to the latest figures from IMRG, the UK's industry association for global retailing, but retailers are recognising there is still money to be made on the high street with the right proposition.

Holland & Barrett have just announced that it's shifting its marketing away from price promotions to focus more on its employees' expertise. It's a strategy Elliott House thinks is worth shouting about. It could be just the tonic for information-starved consumers who want reassurance that they're buying the correct product - rather than ignorantly shoving a packet of vitamins in the trolley alongside their frozen peas at the supermarket.

In a similar vein, retail guru Mary Portas is on a mission to bring a lot of love back to the high street. Her exploits in setting up her own shop in House of Fraser are currently being aired on Channel 4 and while she is focused on creating a better high street experience for older women, the principles she sets out about customer service should be on any store's shopping list.

"Shopping is about a sensory experience," explains Mary in the House of Fraser video below. "I want customers who come into this shop to feel cared about, loved. I want them to think: 'the time I was in that shop I was truly looked after.' And then I want them to feel fantastic."

While 37 million people might shop online in the UK, they and over 23 million others, are still interested in the 'sensory' shopping experience too. 

Investing in a better shopping environment means investing in employees. Mary shows, as is Holland & Barrett, that staff training, product knowledge and communication are key to pulling people through the door.

Customers want to be served by staff who believe in the brand, that understand the product and can help them to shop in confidence. And employees need to feel valued, knowledgable and informed to be able to do their jobs well.

Regular and effective internal communication can help retailers deliver those goals and beat the competition.  

Socially inadequate

I was reading someone's blog recently that was offering tips for charities on how to 'Tweet' properly. I was having a peek because I'm currently helping out a small charity with some PR and comms support and wanted to see if there were any tricks I was missing to add into my plan.

The tips in the blog were fairly basic and the comments underneath, from charities, nearly pulled the blogger's virtual being apart – describing his tone as patronising and out of touch. Charities, quite frankly, can tweet with the best of them, they chorused.

This is true to a certain extent – look at any of the big national charities and you will find they have all invested in social media to engage with thousands of their loyal supporters and promote the cause. But what about the little ones? The ones that do vital work in their local communities but on tiny budgets?  

When I approached the trustees of this small charity I am helping with my new plans for re-branding, website overhaul, improved PR and a social media strategy – it was the Twitter and Facebook suggestions that left them cold.

This charity desperately need to raise funds to be able to continue their work so I was surprised they would turn their back on what is basically 'free' exposure. But I also understood. Their particular work is based on confidentiality ­– and not shouting about it from the virtual rooftops. They feared a backlash from ‘exposing’ their name too much.

It's a fine line and one that needs to be trodden by communicators with extreme care and sensitivity. I could see the benefits of a new approach involving social media (not only to raise funds but also awareness) but I could also understand their concerns. 

Social networking may now be considered the norm by most major organisations and charities but for a lot of smaller businesses and local charities they are still working out where it sits in their communication mix and what benefits it can reap. 

Social media has to be handled in the same way as any new communications channel – it’s the same set of principles just a different set of tools. 

One thing is for sure, it can’t be ignored. There’s no stopping the conversation ­– even if you choose not to take part in the debate.

Too clever by half

The decision by The Guardian newspaper to suspend its dedicated Twitter feed retelling the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US shows how we’re still finding our feet with new communications technology.

On the tenth anniversary of the attacks, the Guardian set up the @911tenyearsago account which retold the events in real time as they happened ten years previously, starting with “Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari board American Airlines Flight 11 at Boston Logan airport” and continuing as that and other flights take off, and goes on to show how news filtered through that something was wrong.

It got as far as “George Bush – preparing to meet children at a Florida elementary school – is told an aircraft has struck the World Trade Center” before, just 16 Tweets in, it announces bluntly. “This account of the events is now ending.”

The decision to stop the feed appeared to be a result of some of the replies to the Guardian’s Tweets which included calling it a “sick sideshow”, “tacky” and “grotesque”.

Like so many bad ideas, it was actually based on good intentions and innovative thinking, typical of the newspaper’s approach to using new technology alongside traditional print.

Similar ideas can work quite well in other media – repeated real-time television footage can be instructive as it reminds us how news anchors struggled to cover the story because they so obviously in shock.

And the Guardian itself reprinted commentary articles that were written in the immediate aftermath which help to show how ten years of hindsight compare with the raw emotions of the time.

But the same trick won’t work with Twitter for several reasons. First of all, it isn’t genuine. The contemporary reporting is part of the history of 9/11 and when we watch it or read it, we are taken back to 2001, either because we remember consuming that media at the time, or just because we know we are looking at a historical document and we can put it in context.

But Twitter didn’t exist in 2001 and so the Guardian had to create the updates from a 2011 perspective.

Secondly, ten years isn’t very long ago (it doesn’t even look very different, unlike the contrast between 1973 and 1963, or 1995 and 1985).

For those who lost someone in the attacks, the emotions are still very raw. But even for those fortunate enough – like myself – not to have been directly affected, it still seems fairly recent and so the account seems a little – as another Twitterer put it – “perverse”.

So it was too long ago, and yet too recent.

In communications terms, the Guardian was guilty of one of the most common errors – broadcasting the message that it wanted to say, without considering how it would be heard by its audience.  

Head in the sand

Communicators have their work cut out during these difficult economic times. Redundancies, budget cuts, restructures – no one likes being the bearer of bad news. 

Making the decision is only half the battle. Relaying the message can require a suit of armour. 

In times of change internal communications are crucial but I know of so many cases where companies decide to 'hold off' informing employees until the deed has been done. They may think they have avoided a crisis – but in fact they have just created a bigger one. 

Where there is no communication people create their own. Where rumour rules, anger and fear creep in. If your internal ambassadors lose faith in the company – who's selling the brand? If they feel the need to start searching for new jobs – what's happened to productivity? 

Communicating after the event can only create more problems. Trust has to be earned and a lack of communication can create company saboteurs. 

A survey by Hewitt Associates showed that employee engagement is at an all-time low – not surprising when people have lost colleagues through restructures and now face increased workloads or a lack of progression. 

The difficult boardroom decisions are now playing out on the shop floor.

Those companies who kept their people informed during the bad times will reap the benefits of a united workforce, preparing to rise again during the good times. 

Here are some tips for communicating internally during times of change: 

1. Use your existing trusted channels but 'brand' up a special version of your newsletter, social networking feed and/or area of the intranet to give employees a dedicated stream of information about the changes. 

2. Make sure your CEO is visibly commenting on the changes and decisions that are ahead – either through blogs, webinars, newsletters or, where possible, face to face communication.

3. Use communication champions from different teams and keep them informed of the plans and developments taking place. These people can represent voices from the rest of the business and input ideas and opinions on the best style and method of communication for people who work in their area. Using people from all levels of the business will help promote that all voices are being heard.

4. Ensure there is a channel for everyone to voice their concerns and ask questions – this could be through an area on the Intranet or a dedicated email address.

5. Update people even when there's nothing to say. Sounds silly - but no news can be good news. Waiting to hear and not hearing anything is worse than knowing that talks are taking place or have been delayed.

6. Ditch the corporate speak. It’s easy to hide behind carefully crafted sentences about ‘downsizing’ and ‘challenging climates’ but these only cause more anger and confusion. Be honest about the reasons for redundancies or restructures and explain why actions have to be taken.

7. Communicate the positives – what will the restructure/change do to help get the business back on track? Give employees a goal to work towards during and after the changes.

8. If people have been made redundant, think about setting up a memory wall or use the Intranet as a place for colleagues to pay tribute to those who have helped grow the company. The business will show it values the contribution made by others but had to make difficult decisions.

When the directors hide away in important discussions – it’s the internal communicators' role to get the message out there as clearly and quickly as possible. The head in the sand technique never did anyone any good. 

Social awareness

This mind-blowing video was uploaded to YouTube to publicise Erik Qualman’s book Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live and Do Business.

Despite the premise of both the book and the video, I couldn’t help but notice the irony that you can buy the hardcopy from Amazon for less than you can download it to a Kindle.

Nevertheless, it is a powerful watch – four minutes and 19 seconds of relentless pummelling of how social media is changing the way we live in the real world, including the fact that online students outperform those receiving one-to-one tuition and that one-in-five divorces are blamed on Facebook.

Of particular interest to business communicators is the way customers use social media. Even if your company doesn’t use it, you can bet that your customers do, and they could well be talking about you.

Is this concerning? Or inspiring? It depends on how you react. The video’s startling assertion that if you don’t use social media, your business will not exist in five years is potent stuff, but the democratising nature of social media means that it is something that any of us (including our customers) can use.

Qualman says that 90% of consumers trust peer recommendations but only 14% trust advertisements. That’s good news for those who can’t afford expensive advertising budgets – the technology is there for us to build our own communities and, as long as your quality and service are up to scratch, you can let your customers do your promotion for you.

As always, the issue boils down to content. Is your story good enough to get people talking about you? 

Back to the future

I have a bit of romantic view of life in the 1950s. Obviously, it's a naive sentiment as the decade was marred by a world still scrambling to its feet after the effects of the war – or in fact stumbling into more conflicts. 

But it's the sense of opportunity that appeals to me. Change was afoot and this era feels like it was dipping its big toe into the future, ready to embrace the leap into the next decade. 

Last night's episode of BBC drama The Hour, which is set in the mid-1950s, made me realise though how journalism and communications are in a similar position today. 

The reporters made a brave move to take the cameras out on the streets to record the protests about the Suez Crisis and to try and capture the mood of a nation. Despite being hindered somewhat by the size and bulk of the video camera, the team tried to get closer to the action, immersing themselves among the protesters. Wearing suits and speaking with those clipped English accents – they delivered the news from the kerb side.

Riot reporting
Move to 2011, and when the riots plagued major English cities last week, reporters were out there among the crowds recording the action. Forget the suits though – and in some cases the fancy camera equipment. 

One reporter recorded the events in Clapham on his iPhone. The footage moved about quickly, the audio was dodgy in places and the quality would have been frowned upon by Bel Rowley and her team at The Hour. 

But it captured the moment – it immersed viewers in the event and gave them a more intimate sense of what was going on than a better quality feed from a helicopter could ever hope to achieve. It was on YouTube almost immediately and links were shared on Twitter and Facebook in seconds. 

The pursuit of the story has never changed but the delivery has. Once, we were desperate to improve quality – now it's about speed. That iPhone recording of the 2011 riots was not a polished work of art – but it told a story and fast. 

The democratising effect of new and relatively cheap technology has given rise to

the “citizen journalist”. This phenomenon was first identified after the terrorist attacks on London in 2005 when newspapers, websites and TV used photographs and footage taken by witnesses on digital devices in the immediate aftermath.

Now, they can bypass the traditional media altogether (especially when the phone hacking scandal is eroding trust) – social networking sites delivered the breaking news of the riots in fewer than 140 characters. Who needs lengthy commentary when you can get the views and updates from the man on the street? Only the man on the street isn't a trained journalist anymore – he's someone who has a phone and a Twitter account. 


Citizen journalist

But the England riots showed the limitations of the 'citizen journalist.' Yes, news spread in seconds on social networking sites – but often it was without just cause. The police in non-affected areas even had to issue official updates to confirm their streets were quiet.

With everyone taking the job of 'reporter' into their own hands – will there be any need for trained journalists and communicators in the future? But how is the message controlled? Is there more value in instant communication than a considered viewpoint? 

The BBC World Service is one of the most respected media organisations in the world – but it isn’t always the first to break a story. It considers accuracy, balance and fairness all to be far more important than speed. If that means that it takes a little longer to broadcast a story than other networks already have, then it’s a price worth paying. And its audience values that position, which is why it is so trusted.

We are all journalists now. But we are also all part of an audience. And we owe it to ourselves to consider the source of the message that we are receiving – is this source reliable? Is there an agenda? Is it coherent?

And, as communicators,  we have a duty to ourselves and our audience to demonstrate our credibility, and to show that a considered viewpoint can add context and nuance to the latest reports.

Like the reporters in the 1950s – eagerly pushing to take journalism to the next level – I wonder where this decade will lead us and if journalists in 2030 will have a romantic opinion of our time.