Private eyes, spying on our partners, and internal communication

On a rainy Sydney morning, this ad stood out to me for its encouragement to DIStrust those closest to us.

While I may not like this private eye’s exhortation to us all to snoop on our partners, I do think there’s a message of value in this bus advertisement for us all. Or at least for those of us who work in communication. And for leaders.

So back to the bus ad. What might it mean, or what might it look or sound like if our partner is “acting suspiciously?”

Well I’m guessing it’s something like this...they say they are committed but you wonder because they...

• Show unexplained behaviour changes
• Appear distant
• Are physically absent with no or little explanation

...and I’m sure a whole lot of other things we really don’t want to go into!

So what’s the link to internal communication and leadership behaviours?

We all know, as professional communicators or leaders, that our behaviour or the behaviour of the senior executives we work with is more powerful in the workplace than the messages we send through written communication.

So if our words suggest one thing, but senior management behaviour says another, what are we to believe?

Of course what we believe is what we see or observe in terms of behaviour. It’s certainly not what was written or said. Actions really do speak louder than words.

Especially when your partner stays out all night or your manager espouses the value of employee engagement but never says thank-you.

In talking to two colleagues recently I heard two sides of this “behaviour speaks louder than words’ idea at work.

A CEO friend talked to me recently about how their behaviour, not their words, is watched so closely that colleagues can pick up unintended messages – and the impact that can have at work. Things they didn’t ever intend to convey can be read into their actions. Now this is, among CEO’s, a very self-aware and capable leader. If this person is sending unintended messages then who among us isn’t, I asked myself?

Another colleague shared recently how their CEO appears internally. I have great regard for this CEO as a courageous and able leader in their field. The view from inside, at least in this person’s eyes, was different. What they see is someone who doesn’t trust their people, doesn’t effectively encourage them or share the vision and strategy well and who appears irritable, perhaps even impatient when in front of the whole organisation.

So the PR or internal communication equivalent of this ad would be this: “Is your manager acting suspicious?”

Excusing the appalling grammar, the message is clear. Is your manager doing something that belies the overt values of the organisation, takes away from the strategy, or just doesn’t “sit right” with you or others around you?

And if they are, they may actually welcome feedback, delivered appropriately, that “calls it out”. It would be nice to think that in an open and transparent workplace, it’s okay to be able to call someone on their behaviour if it really doesn’t match the rhetoric. And if you can’t maybe your friendly internal communication or HR leader can. Or perhaps a more senior executive or Board member/Chairman.

And really, it should work that way in our relationships as well. Surely if we have doubts about our partner, we can just talk about it, not have to call the PI in.

TEDxSydney: why communicating your ideas well, matters

At TEDxSydney today I've been blessed to hear, and see, some great ideas. Some great ideas were well expressed. Other great, important ideas were not well expressed...and thus may languish.

Some less interesting and less ground breaking ideas were well expressed.

So what's the buzz? Well it's about the ideas that are well expressed...of course.

The presenters got people talking, engaged and wanting to help in their causes. Here's what those compelling presenters did...

- They had a clear theme
- A thread of logic
- A quirk or 'bait' (maybe humour) to draw us in
- They were, in some way, a little or a lot, personal
- Their ideas mattered - they were aimed at doing good

And finally the best presenters, as Naomi Simson pointed out, got their 'look' right. Yes smart people, it does matter. Because like it not our appearance also sends a message. Unmanaged it detracts from good, or otherwise great, content.

And without managing our messages? No one listens. No one supports your great work. The message doesn't get out.

For more on TEDxSydney my tweets from today are under @Carden, and you can see the all of the day's tweets by searching for #TEDxSydney.

For an overview of the speakers at TEDxSydney, see Naomi Simson's blog here.

FSC Life Insurance Conference, Sydney 6 April 2011

Bruce Madden attended the FSC Life Insurance Conference held in Sydney today on behalf of BlueChip Communication

 

The Financial Services Council’s second annual conference dedicated to its life insurance members kicked off in Sydney today with some big numbers.

 

Suncorp’s CEO Geoff Summerhayes reminded us that the financial services sector now accounts for some 11% of our national economy, with plenty of upside for the industry in the downside story that is our nation’s lingering underinsurance problem.

 

With figures ranging between $1.4 and $1.7 trillion, the magnitude of the underinsurance problem is stark. Or, put in the context of another large number, the industry has before it an untapped market representing some 96% of the Australian population with dependent children who currently have zero or inadequate risk cover.

 

The big consumer challenges to overcome? Summerhayes suggests three: accessibility, affordability and trust. In other words, make it easy for Joe or Jane public to get hold of an insurance product, make it stack up for them in the hip pocket nerve, and prove that any genuine policy claims will be paid, simple.

 

Of course, this will be no easy feat, given the current focus of government and its multiple reform agenda which, as Summerhayes eloquently put: “is providing our industry with tailwinds, crosswinds and headwinds all at once”.

 

Buffeted by all this wind, the man from AMP Craig Mellor made the suggestion that the direct market for life insurance will arrive somewhere around 10% to 20%, driven largely by the savvy consumer with a mindset of “instant gratification”. So expect more internet distribution, online transacting and ‘instant conversation’ taking place.

 

One of the big questions facing the distribution thinkers in the industry is the impact of the upcoming FOFA (Future of Financial Advice) reforms, expected to be announced by Minister Bill Shorten just prior to Easter.

 

Few are expecting a swag of treats from the Minister, but all hope for sensible clarity around the contentious issues of commission payments in risk, volume bonuses in investment products, the opt-in proposal for advice in super and the fiduciary obligations of advisers to act in the best interest of the client.

 

This mixed bag of policy issues is proving a collective regulatory hot item – with much last minute discussion taking place in the halls of Canberra. Dangerous portents abound.  If the experience of UK-based Maggie Craig (she is acting head of the Association of British Insurers) then we can look forward to deeper government intervention leading to poor consumer outcomes, even worse standards of underinsurance!

 

Ms Craig reported to delegates that the expected outcomes of moves in Britain to ban commission payments from 2012 will result in fewer advisers (many will simply leave), more expensive advice for consumers, and a large gap between the full advice and execution only segments.

 

The ABI is lobbying hard to find an automated ‘simple advice’ solution to fill this middle ground, and, somewhat ironically, foresees the return of tied agents and bancassurance advice to help fill the gap!

 

If this all sounds like a turgid return to the future scenario you are right. Or, as one delegate put it: a timely reminder that our pain here in Australia is bad, but nothing quite like the torture – including the decree of the European Court of Justice to abolish gender specific pricing on insurance products – that is being endured by our British cousins.

@dmscott, @#PWCMBS ... Yes, it was a Twitterfest!

Last night I attended an event hosted by PwC as part of their Masters of Business series. We were very fortunate to hear from David Meerman Scott. As you may know, David is in Australia, and today hosted a Social Media Masterclass, which, by all accounts, was sensational. While I couldn't make it to the Masterclass, I was delighted to join PwC and more particularly, to watch the stream of tweets emanating from audience members.

Often when I tweet from events, and I almost only ever tweet from events, not from "real life", I'm often the only one, or one of a very few. It's not as odd as it sounds. Our business is a financial services public relations firm. So I'm tweeting, most often, from financial services conferences, seminars, presentations or other relatively arcane events.

Tonight was oh-so-different. And great fun! What else would you expect from an audience of business owners, entrepreneurs, executives, consultants, and other PwC clients interested in social media? A few of the key points that came out from David's presentation were this:

How to manage the popular employee
Employees having a strong following in social media can be both a curse and a massive advantage. It's up to the employing organisation to turn it into an advantage by sensible use of social media guidelines and enlightened HR practices.

Social media for crisis management
Yes, social media can escalate or help manage a crisis. A key point is to respond in the medium that you first learned about the issue, especially in a crisis. Take it offline if it's negative and about a single issue... maybe your online critics are just looking for attention.

If Twitter is "so 2006", is location the tool of the future?
It may well be that location is the key to new social media. Location, and in particular new forms of geotagging and social media forums such as Foursquare, which are based on location, may well be the Twitter of the future.

Do personal and business mix online?
David says that in social networks, the demarcation is breaking down. We're learning more, online, about the people we do business with. This is translating to a completely different kind of relationship offline. In fact, it may well be the making of far stronger relationships offline as we learn more about the whole person, and interact with people on a different level.

Ghosting... and when it's OK.
David is a big fan of bringing in journalists to ghost social content. As he rightly points out, in many countries there are many capable journos keen to adopt another career. And of all people, journalists "get" story telling. Story telling is, of course, the thing that compels people to read our content. If we are not gifted narrators, then we can not buy attention online. And who has trained their entire careers to be good at telling stories? Journalists. Who are the people most likely to aspire, before they were university trained or spent years inside content-creation organisations? Journalists. So who better to ask to ghost your social content, with appropriate guidelines around tone of voice and content themes.

How come tweeting is OK, but SMSing is rude in a group meeting?
Perhaps the question here is more about when did tweeting become OK, when SMSing in a meeting has always been inappropriate. Well, the rise of social media has certainly changed a few things. While it's still rude to take a call in a meeting, or in a presentation, seminar, conference or many other group settings, it's no longer regarded as a social offence to tweet. That said, it might just be the digital natives that think it's OK, because I can think of a few baby-boomers who are still distinctly uncomfortable with that kind of behaviour. Regardless, we are all in presentations, seminars or conferences these days in which people are tweeting constantly.

I'm certainly one of them, and for those busy business owners and consultants who were at the David Meerman Scott meeting wondering how on earth they could develop an online persona when they had already run out of hours in the day? Well my personal solution is to pick a narrow theme, block time in my diary for it, and to have a very restricted Twitter strategy. In other words, I only tweet, when in actual fact I should probably be doing something else, like listening to the speaker. Still, I figure the speaker doesn't mind a bit of extra promotion, and I get to keep my notes in the cloud.

What happens when the RBA joins twitter?

What happens when the RBA joins twitter?

Suddenly social media for business is mainstream news. And we've reached a tipping point.

Not before time. Yes, in the last three years there have been a lot of conversations that run like this:

BlueChip: We believe (insert proof points here!) social media is critical to how you communicate, and in particular to your PR now. There a some things you may want to con side doing, selectively, now.
Company x: Interesting. But not relevant to our business yet. We just don't see how it's going to deliver for our brand or stakeholders.
BlueChip: Well it's similar to PR - there's both opportunity and risk. And initially it will be hard to measure, similarly to PR. That said, you may not know what people are saying about you right now online. As a first step we suggest social media monitoring and managing online risk - develop a social media policy to cover employees and protect your online identity. We also suggest...
Company x: Hmm. How about we do the bit about protecting our identity? But let's not bother with anything else. We have other priorities.

The conversations now are becoming different. Here's an insight:

BlueChip: We believe (insert proof points here!) social media is critical to how you communicate, and in particular to your PR now
Company x: Interesting. I'm not sure how it's relevant to our business yet. But it probably doesn't matter because the people we want to influence are using social media hourly, daily or perhaps just weekly, often without even realizing it. What we don't know is how to speak to our target market using social media the right way - the right messages in the right channels. We also need to build experience in this because it's going to matter more in the future. What should we be thinking about?
BlueChip: Perhaps start with a social media audit then implement social media monitoring and take action to manage your online reputation risk. Once you have that background we can start to think about engaging - whether broadcast via established channels or whether you need a more niche approach....


As I watched the Lateline (time shifted thanks to a hard drive) segment about social media tonight it occurred to me they'd missed the exact thing that made social media really newsworthy today - as opposed to yesterday or tomorrow.

And that's simply that the Reserve Bank of Australia has joined twitter.

I had to laugh because there are plenty of non-believers in social media among the financial services community in Australia. We know financial services lags, say global beverage brands, in adopting something many communication and marketing people believe is now just common sense.

But there are also evangelists and early adopters of social media. Even in financial services.

And today their early mover decision was backed by no less a twitter sitter (the RBA will starting posting from tomorrow) than our Central Bank. At the time of this post @RBAInfo has 1077 followers up from 364 when I followed them late this afternoon.

As my colleague Aideen said today as she sent around this Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/reserve-bank-joins-the-twitter-generation/story-e6frg926-1226030788224) article "Financial services and social media may finally go together in one sentence".

Make your long term (PR) relationship work: top 3 tips

I was talking to a much-loved female relative last night about her upcoming 50th wedding anniversary. That conversation, and others in the last few weeks with the C-suite executives in our client organisations, have caused me to reflect on the nature of success in long-term client partnerships - why it works or fail, and specifically, how we and our clients behave to achieve great PR results.

We've been fortunate to enjoy long-term relationships with several highly valued clients. Each of these relationships has seen ups and downs. Each has experienced highs of sensational results, intimate client relationships. Each has seen times when we thought it might not be forever. And yet, more than five years later, here we still are. Together. Happy. And still working at it.

Similar, albeit a tenth of the time-span, to my dear female relative and her husband. Yes, the punch-line is about the similarity between long term relationships in our personal and business lives.

Here are our team's top three observations about what makes a long term relationship work with your PR firm.

1. Shared committment
We're in this together, through thick and through thin, to achieve something wonderful neither of us can do solo.


Sound like a modern day marriage vow? Not really, it's more like a mission statement for a client relationship. Here's what that looks like in terms of behaviour...


- Have a clear, agreed picture of success
- Keep an eye on whether, as a team, we are achieving a consistently high level of success
- Hold each other accountable to achieving what we regard as success
- If so, persist to overcome issues when (as they will) they arise


At work , as at home, we've all found that if we and our client do not have a clear and shared picture of success, the relationship doesn't travel so well. We pull in different directions, and do not agree on something very fundamental - are we winning or losing here? Are we, for example, jointly shooting the lights out or are we burning budget for no great outcome? Overall, there's the good old "gut feel" barometer to tell is how we're doing. Beyond that, and essential to success, are metrics - observable and ideally independent data - that give an objective read on the success of the relationship. And of course, there will be times when we either don't agree, or something goes wrong. Because all humans are both uniquely wonderful, and fallible. As and when we make mistakes (minor ones we consultants hope) or our client does, it's important to fix it and move on. This of course is only possible if we are consistently good at what we do, professional and pleasant to deal with.


2. The kind truth
Frankly we do give a damn. Enough to tell you when it's...well...NOT working. 

Patrick Lencioni's observations about "naked" consulting, include this idea: tell the kind truth. In his book Getting Naked,  Lencioni talks about the kind truth that our clients need to hear, but perhaps don't want to...or perhaps it's that we consultants don't want to call it out for fear of damaging the relationship - and losing the revenue! And perhaps there are things we have to hear as consultants to help us continuously improve. Hearing even the "kind truth" can be painful. Growth, as professional services expert Michael Kean says, is painful.

Sometimes as consultants (actually often!) we need to hear things that we don't want to - about our behaviour, skills or delivery. BlueChip aims to ask for this feedback...unafraid of the answers we need to hear in order to keep improving what we do for clients. Is it scary? Yes. Do we always hear good news? Not always. Is that helpful to our growth personally and professionally? Absolutely.

But the rub is this: we need permission to give feedback also. A wonderful client recently asked us this:

"What can we do better as your client? Is there feedback you need to give us?"

And you know, there are things our clients can do better on occasion. It's our role to ask if they want to hear it, and to kindly share what we see as the "truth" of our relationship. Such caring frankness builds trust, respect and the preconditions for success...as it does in friendships and other relationships. Uncomfortable to start with, but more rewarding long term.

3. Keeping it fresh
One downside to long term relationships can be simply the "sameness" that comes with working with the same team, on the same issues...day in and day...out for years. 


An issue in relationships as in long term client engagements! So, to deal with the easy bit first, what do we do to keep it fresh?


Keep it interesting: we bring new insights, experiences and approaches to the relationship; and ask our client to do the same. 
We ask ourselves "would this article I found interesting be useful to my client?" or perhaps "this piece of market intelligence is helpful to our shared goal - let's share it". We actively seek out insights, experiences and approaches that help us "keep it fresh" in our long term relationships.


Does that mean change for changes sake? No. It means preserving the innately valuable aspects of what we do, but always questioning where we can change for the better. Holding tight to approaches that reflect our values and help clients build their reputation...and selectively, often in consultation with clients, continually upgrading the service approach.

Of our clients we ask "what's happening in your business? what are the major challenges or opportunities". Now often, the answer is unchanging. But sometimes something fundamental has changed. And that change, we need to know about.

Invest: in the relationship and the future
Good friends, our loved ones, and really good consultants, give a little...and when you really need it, they give a lot. And you trust them enough to ask for the help you need, when you most need it. Sometimes the investment isn't ever paid for - it's just about helping when it's most needed.


Ask: are the goalposts still the right ones?
Sometimes the goal posts need to change. As the environment changes we reset (if it's needed) the strategy - lock, stock and barrel or perhaps more appropriately goals, strategies and tactics. It's great to meet the goals of the program, but not so great if the goals are the wrong ones because they're not reviewed properly or often enough.

My 50 years married relative would probably suggest another key attribute of her, and our long term relationships. Tolerance. Sometimes we really do get on each others nerves. Let's face it, we spend plenty of time together...at some point I'm going to irritate you...and at some point I'll possibly find you challenging.

And at those times? We're both well served to practice tolerance. At work as well as at home!

Just how fast can PR deliver business results?

Recently we were engaged by a client who was well into a particular campaign. Sans PR. Which is fine...unless that campaign needs PR support.

Swiftly after our appointment (days, not weeks) our client asked where the positive media coverage was.

Ouch!

Here's my take on that, and a short version of the conversation I had with our client. I should disclose, our client had ample, positive and on-message media coverage less than a fortnight after our appointment. Or course it's not always that fast, and here's why...

Good public relations results usually take time to deliver.

Time to plan, to create good quality materials and to judge the implementation timing so it hits at just the right time.

Lead time can be days...or weeks...or months...or even years.

The true value of some public relations programs we've implemented for financial services clients can sometimes only be measured years after our appointment - and after years of persistent, consistent action directed at a clear goal.

Years to build a reputation, and minutes to lose it, says Warren Buffet.

Regardless, sometimes you need a PR or media results NOW.

So what can you do to set yourself up for the much needed, but hard to get, quick win?

1. Tell your PR firm the truth - the whole truth, not just the version you'd like to see in the paper. Treating them like mushrooms won't help you get the outcome you want, but it may well put limits on their care factor. You can be frank and still be clear about what should, and should not, make it into the public domain. In any case it's good practice to make sure you have a non-disclosure in place and that all final materials are properly signed off. But beware: as in all things, if you put garbage (the edited truth) in, you'll mostly likely get garbage out.

2. Give them some time to deliver. The time needed to delver an outcome depends partly on how hard it is to get the result you want. If you see effort for a few days or weeks, without the outcome you're seeking, perhaps ask yourself if they've done everything you could reasonably expect...and whether their 'smarts' suggest those efforts were in fact high quality. If you have smart PR people working for you and there are no (or lacklustre) results in, say, the first 90 days then by all means start to second guess your provider. If it's been a few days and you're wondering where the positive media coverage is, perhaps second guess your brief!

3. Be clear. What matters most to you? Consistent coverage in financial services trade media? A big article in the Australian Financial Review? Or a microsite that's direct emailed and achieves high return visits or viewer engagement/dialogue? Pick your goal, and brief your PR consultant accordingly if they didn't ask "what matters most here?" before you got started.

4. Hire smart. Selecting the right PR firm doesn't have to be rocket science, or labourious. But it should be based on clear criteria. So what sort of criteria might help if you are looking for a quick win? Someone who's done engagements like yours before, and ideally very recently. A firm who perhaps have capacity right now i.e. an established team with a good track record. Perhaps if you need a quick win you also need a strong leader in the public relations firm to be on call for you for a short period of time. Fine - add it to your criteria and consider that might add cost. And of course if the quick wins you seek are in media, you need a firm with great relationships with your target media.

Finally, the firm who delivers the quick win may, or may not, be the firm you need for the long term engagement. Long term success requires all together different criteria - a topic for another time!