I have a been involved in many communication-based projects that have required input from several parties over a short turnaround period. These days, most communication takes place via email. This modern convenience is generally seen as fast, efficient and indispensable. But, from my experience, email is sometimes the worst communication tool out there. Here are my reasons and observations.
1. One of Many - Most people receive several emails throughout the day. The email you send can often be put on the back-burner if there is a more pressing or interesting one to be opened. Also, those who tend not to respond immediately to your email may forget to do so.
2. The Way We Read Email - We seem to read email messages differently than letters. We tend to scan them a little like we scan texts rather than reading them like we do letters, a newspaper or a book
3. Lack of Attention - Emails may be opened while having breakfast, chatting to a colleague, or even in traffic! The nature of the distractions the average digitally connected receiver has to negotiate are ubiquitous, and growing all the time.
4. Too Many re:re:re's - Senders do not use the subject line effectively or the actual subject of the email is not communicated in the subject line.
So here are some tips I have found to be helpful:
1. In my experience, there are good email correspondents and bad ones. If you happen to be working with a good one who reads an email properly and in its entirety; gets back to you in a timely manner, make sure you do the same - keep that channel of communication flowing.
2.Your message is more likely to be read and responded to if the subject line looks fresh and specifically relates to the nature of the email.
3. I have noticed that if I have multiple questions or require feedback on several issues, many of the points buried in the body of the email get lost. Either: try to number the points that need addressing, use a separate paragraph for each point (even if the paragraph is only one line long) or, if the receiver is a scanner and not a careful reader, send a separate email for each separate issue.
4. I am often astounded how much email communication is misread. Even when using the plainest language people misunderstand email messages. I always like to send a summary email after I get a response to ensure everyone is on the same page.
5. Please learn the difference between reply and reply to all.
Happy emailing!
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
"Junk Shot" Crisis Communication
Crisis Communication or Issues Management as many are calling it these days, is possibly one of the most intriguing but also one of the most maligned Public Relations functions. Intriguing because of the myriad options, angles, tactics, messages and approaches crisis communication can take, and maligned because of its reputation for "spin".
Over the past two months we have witnessed major crisis communication in action. BPs massive oil leak due to the destruction of a drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico has been an event that, apart from its devastating environmental consequences, will surely be studied in countless PR classes over the next several years. So how is BP doing with its crisis communications? The Globe & Mail's Simon Houpt has an interesting observation.
In an article published Monday, June 7, Houpt compares BP's Issues Management to the way in which they have attempted to plug the leak.
"After more than a month moving through and then ripping up the handbook of how to fix a gushing well head one mile below the surface of the ocean, the oil giant now appears to be adopting the same approach for its public relations strategy, veering into territory that is both uncharted and potentially risky."
The company has opened a toll free number where members of the public can share their ideas on how to solve the problem, they have bought a 60 second television spot where CEO Tony Hayward tries to allay the fears and concerns of all stakeholders. It has employed two "BP reporters" who travel around the gulf writing upbeat first person accounts of the clean-up operation.
These are what Houpt believes are part of a "Junk Shot" strategy - the strategy engineers, who had run out of more traditional ideas, attempted. It involved pumping debris into the well head to try stop the leak. It was a last resort - they were in uncharted territory.
Some have said that by not communicating that they were in uncharted territory, by not admitting they were stumped, BP lost the battle to salvage trust, did not manage this PR nightmare and failed to get people on side.
This event is unprecedented and so BP's crisis communication plan is bound to be a "junk shot" of sorts. But when one of the BP reporters wrote an article entitled "Ballet at Sea" describing the boats laying oil containment booms; weaving their way over an oil slick - it only served to infuriate people. "Ballet at Sea"? Come on! Those are the ridiculous angles that give PR a bad name.
Another interesting observation in Houpt's article talks about the time crisis communications has to react. Because of the speed of information transfer over social media- companies used to have 24 hours to respond - these days they have 24 minutes. Scary. Almost as scary as this environmental disaster.
Over the past two months we have witnessed major crisis communication in action. BPs massive oil leak due to the destruction of a drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico has been an event that, apart from its devastating environmental consequences, will surely be studied in countless PR classes over the next several years. So how is BP doing with its crisis communications? The Globe & Mail's Simon Houpt has an interesting observation.
In an article published Monday, June 7, Houpt compares BP's Issues Management to the way in which they have attempted to plug the leak.
"After more than a month moving through and then ripping up the handbook of how to fix a gushing well head one mile below the surface of the ocean, the oil giant now appears to be adopting the same approach for its public relations strategy, veering into territory that is both uncharted and potentially risky."
The company has opened a toll free number where members of the public can share their ideas on how to solve the problem, they have bought a 60 second television spot where CEO Tony Hayward tries to allay the fears and concerns of all stakeholders. It has employed two "BP reporters" who travel around the gulf writing upbeat first person accounts of the clean-up operation.
These are what Houpt believes are part of a "Junk Shot" strategy - the strategy engineers, who had run out of more traditional ideas, attempted. It involved pumping debris into the well head to try stop the leak. It was a last resort - they were in uncharted territory.
Some have said that by not communicating that they were in uncharted territory, by not admitting they were stumped, BP lost the battle to salvage trust, did not manage this PR nightmare and failed to get people on side.
This event is unprecedented and so BP's crisis communication plan is bound to be a "junk shot" of sorts. But when one of the BP reporters wrote an article entitled "Ballet at Sea" describing the boats laying oil containment booms; weaving their way over an oil slick - it only served to infuriate people. "Ballet at Sea"? Come on! Those are the ridiculous angles that give PR a bad name.
Another interesting observation in Houpt's article talks about the time crisis communications has to react. Because of the speed of information transfer over social media- companies used to have 24 hours to respond - these days they have 24 minutes. Scary. Almost as scary as this environmental disaster.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Social Media Discussion
Last week we were lucky enough to have a guest speaker in our strategic corp. comm. class who spoke about (among other things) social media.
Dan, who by his own admission wasn't too comfortable with social media until recently, was amazed at how Facebook in particular brought a whole new level to corporate communication. What emerged in class was a discussion around how social media not only gives corporations the targeted audience they desire, but also serves as an instant source of feedback for the organization. In Dan's case, people at the foundation he was working for thought that they knew what their audience wanted. The organization believed that they understood the kind of material their audience would respond to. They were wrong. It emerged during their foray into social media that they were mis-reading their audience and what they in fact wanted was information that was much more personal, local and practical rather than theoretical, global and impersonal.
Dan also spoke about the maintenance of social networking within an integrated communication model. Someone asked how a small company with limited staff could fully utilize social media. Dan said that they shouldn't try - his reasoning being that it needs to be an ongoing discussion - not just a tweet here and a status update there. Will smaller companies hire people only to do social media? Who knows.
Finally, something that Dan said really stuck with me. He said that there are no Social Media gurus and those claiming to be so are to be avoided. "We're all learning as we go along", he said. Too true. Social media is a complex ever-changing thing which seems to take on a life of its own. In some respect it's the closest thing we have to a tangible social consciousness - and who could claim to know how to control that or even to understand and utilize its potential.
Dan, who by his own admission wasn't too comfortable with social media until recently, was amazed at how Facebook in particular brought a whole new level to corporate communication. What emerged in class was a discussion around how social media not only gives corporations the targeted audience they desire, but also serves as an instant source of feedback for the organization. In Dan's case, people at the foundation he was working for thought that they knew what their audience wanted. The organization believed that they understood the kind of material their audience would respond to. They were wrong. It emerged during their foray into social media that they were mis-reading their audience and what they in fact wanted was information that was much more personal, local and practical rather than theoretical, global and impersonal.
Dan also spoke about the maintenance of social networking within an integrated communication model. Someone asked how a small company with limited staff could fully utilize social media. Dan said that they shouldn't try - his reasoning being that it needs to be an ongoing discussion - not just a tweet here and a status update there. Will smaller companies hire people only to do social media? Who knows.
Finally, something that Dan said really stuck with me. He said that there are no Social Media gurus and those claiming to be so are to be avoided. "We're all learning as we go along", he said. Too true. Social media is a complex ever-changing thing which seems to take on a life of its own. In some respect it's the closest thing we have to a tangible social consciousness - and who could claim to know how to control that or even to understand and utilize its potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)