A guest post by BlueChip senior Paul Cheal attending the Financial Services Council annual conference.
Day 1 of the FSC out with a relaxed "chinwag" with some of the industry's leaders discussing the challenges and opportunities facing the industry.
From the Insurance industry was Jim Minto of TAL who was joined by John Van Der Wielen of ANZ and fund manager SSGI's Rob Goodlad.
The group kicked talking about regulation, which according to 3/4 of 200 respondents to a delegate survey was singled out as the greatest challenge in the last 18 months.
The panel agreed that while legislation will 'be what it will be', the response should be forward looking - adapting and getting ready to move fast once details are finalized.
Picking up on Minister Shorten's comment that we (as an industry) do tend to talk to ourselves, the speakers identified "consumer-centricity" as a key driver of growth - understanding the consumer, giving them confidence. It's not the process, It's the outcome, speakers suggested. The winners will be the ones who become more consumer centric and adapt to new technologies to interact directly with clients.
According to the delegate survey the opportunities ahead will arise from growth and consolidation. For insurance that opportunity was the issue of underinsurance, for ANZ it was not about predicting the future but being across all distribution channels while State Street saw ETFs as the great democratization product for all investors, especially for SMSFs.
In Navigating this Change (the theme of the conference) the capabilities organisations will need are:
- Lower costs - especially in Super
- Operation efficiency
- Organization memory
- Adapting to new technology to deliver solutions to consumers
The conclusion ? The salad days are over. The days of flash cars in the Macquarie carpark are apparently over. There will be more consolidation, increased pressure on fees and redundancies.
On that sobering note it's off for cocktails.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Monday, August 01, 2011
New financial crisis? "What NOT to do" public relations rules hold true
As Australia reaches the end of the first month of the 2012 financial year, we're feeling the shudders of global financial uncertainty. The US debt challenges appear handled, for now....but who knows what's around the corner?
Uncertainty, for leaders and communicators, makes it far more challenging to set, and communicate, a course. Where do you lead people "to" when the landscape is unknown and only "where we're coming from" is known?
Often the answer is nowhere. In 2007, 2008 and into 2009 some leaders and communicators were frozen into immobility by the (sometimes overwhelming) dangers presented to their businesses by global financial instability.
Yet those who came through best were often those who, despite uncertainty, took careful stock of the known and the unknown. Then acted.
Some leaders led when it was most needed. Some communicators communicated superbly - proactively, and with a strong sense of their duty of care to investors, clients, and the people working for their company.
It's those leaders whose actions are worth reflecting on now as we face another "interesting time".
Knowing what to do is hard - but what NOT to do was clearly evident.
Once Lehmann declared bankruptcy at the end of 2007, Australia's blithe "we're okay Jack" approach to our role in the world economy was somewhat dented.
When I flew into New York at the time of Lehmann's collapse, it was clear that most business people in Australia believed we would never feel any impact. Two short months later, we watched seasoned finance executives go grey almost overnight as all the rules were changed.
Few knew what to do - how to manage a crisis and how to communicate during one.
It's worth revisiting here some of the lessons we learned for communicating in a crisis.
It's all very well to know how to communicate in a crisis that involves just one organisation, group of organisations or an industry sector. But the ultimate crisis communication lessons surely have come from the days when it looked like much more was at stake.
Here are our top ten things NOT to do.
1. Say nothing
2. Be overly optimistic or "catastrophise"
3. Make promises you can’t keep
4. Imply you know what’s going to happen now
5. Ignore technology such as webcasts, email, Skype or your website
6. Fail to educate your client with what you do know, as soon as you know it
7. Provide only complex information full of disclaimers
8. Fail to respect the intelligence of your audience
9. Self-justify
10. Understand how your audiences feel
Next post, what TO do.
Uncertainty, for leaders and communicators, makes it far more challenging to set, and communicate, a course. Where do you lead people "to" when the landscape is unknown and only "where we're coming from" is known?
Often the answer is nowhere. In 2007, 2008 and into 2009 some leaders and communicators were frozen into immobility by the (sometimes overwhelming) dangers presented to their businesses by global financial instability.
Yet those who came through best were often those who, despite uncertainty, took careful stock of the known and the unknown. Then acted.
Some leaders led when it was most needed. Some communicators communicated superbly - proactively, and with a strong sense of their duty of care to investors, clients, and the people working for their company.
It's those leaders whose actions are worth reflecting on now as we face another "interesting time".
Knowing what to do is hard - but what NOT to do was clearly evident.
Once Lehmann declared bankruptcy at the end of 2007, Australia's blithe "we're okay Jack" approach to our role in the world economy was somewhat dented.
When I flew into New York at the time of Lehmann's collapse, it was clear that most business people in Australia believed we would never feel any impact. Two short months later, we watched seasoned finance executives go grey almost overnight as all the rules were changed.
Few knew what to do - how to manage a crisis and how to communicate during one.
It's worth revisiting here some of the lessons we learned for communicating in a crisis.
It's all very well to know how to communicate in a crisis that involves just one organisation, group of organisations or an industry sector. But the ultimate crisis communication lessons surely have come from the days when it looked like much more was at stake.
Here are our top ten things NOT to do.
1. Say nothing
2. Be overly optimistic or "catastrophise"
3. Make promises you can’t keep
4. Imply you know what’s going to happen now
5. Ignore technology such as webcasts, email, Skype or your website
6. Fail to educate your client with what you do know, as soon as you know it
7. Provide only complex information full of disclaimers
8. Fail to respect the intelligence of your audience
9. Self-justify
10. Understand how your audiences feel
Next post, what TO do.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
News...morally bankrupt or giving us what we want?
How quickly, fueled by genuinee public outrage, and years of restrained bile, media can turn.
In this case, on itself.
It raises a bigger question than the obvious one of media ethics.
There's a very good reason for the media furore. And it's not phone tapping.
News of the World, and possibly other News Limited titles, intervening in the private lives of grieving people was simply the thread that unravelled the whole ball of yarn...and led to this particular tangle.
The British public are rightly outraged at the notion of media, or anyone, inserting themselves into the investigation of a child's death - and them profiting from such morally bankrupt activity.
But really haven't the media just been giving us what we, the avaricious public, been consuming on demand and gravitating towards by reading ever more salacious details of other people's lives? I'm thinking maybe the whole ball of yarn here has as much to do with media consumers as media malpractice.
There is no justification in my mind for the actions of media party to this behaviour.
But where's the line? And what part do we, the public, play?
I'm speaking here as a media consumer, not as a PR person. As a PR person I tend to think decent journalists have a hard time of it as they set out to do a very worthy job. As a PR person I also strongly believe both media and PRs should work in ethics-driven cultures, and be under scrutiny - nothing beats sunlight to help encourage good behaviour.
Possibly since journalism (and PR) began we've all been reading, hearing and watching and probably will continue to, news that's delivered via foul means as well as fair.
It's just that rarely do we lift the bonnet to see how the engine runs. Because all we care about is whether or not the car gets us from point A to point B in the style we want to travel.
High brow economics commentary? Page three girls? Perhaps a dodgy used car sales person running from the cameras? Or perhaps your taste runs more to celebrity weight loss/infidelity/surgery stories. Or to civilian deaths in another country's conflict.
We've all become, to some extent, voyeurs entertained or informed at some cost to others - whether that cost is their dignity, their safety or simply their right to suffer unseen.
I have no moral ground to stand on here. I read newspapers, listen to radio, read online news and occasionally read 'one of those' magazines while waiting for something better to happen or avoiding my email.
That makes me too complicit in the decline of media standards. Some media would argue that my profession does also...but that's a debate for another day.
If one lasting and fundamental good could come from this 'you wouldn't read about it' saga, it may simply be this: that media are more accountable.
For the most part the many journalists I've worked with, sometimes at cross purposes to, and alongside, are exceptional people.
For often average incomes they work, day after day, to report news that people should know. That's news that is in the public interest. It's news that holds people, governments and businesses accountable. And it's news that sometimes changes the world.
For that ridiculously important task many get little more than a byline or story credit. Very often the money and professional opportunity doesn't adequately cover the grief that goes withnthe job. There is however, for those journalists, the great satisfaction of knowing they really did make a difference.
It's just a shame that media organisations, guided by the scandal and sauce-loving public, have increasingly rewarded another kind of journalist and photographer - and apparently private eye.
That's the kind who really does only care about money and ego.
But they will, sadly, continue to be rewarded by the average reader. Because actually, until now, we really didn't want to think too hard about where our 'news' was coming from or how it was sourced.
In my private nirvana, news consumers and those who serve them, would actually want to know about the kind of ethics and behaviour that generated the headlines.
It's happened with clothing, chocolate and coffee. Maybe one day we'll read news that comes with a "free trade" or "ethical" label. If no-ones rights were infringed, it's okay to read. If so, straight to the bin.
Yes, that's fantasy land. Because media, and many others do believe the means justifies the ends.
But should we all be a bit more careful about that kind of thinking?
Sometimes nothing justifies the ends. Sometimes the means in itself is so wrong that it represents the slippery slide to an ethical wilderness. Once lost, we might never emerge to see the greater good, or innthis case, the public interest.
In this case, on itself.
It raises a bigger question than the obvious one of media ethics.
There's a very good reason for the media furore. And it's not phone tapping.
News of the World, and possibly other News Limited titles, intervening in the private lives of grieving people was simply the thread that unravelled the whole ball of yarn...and led to this particular tangle.
The British public are rightly outraged at the notion of media, or anyone, inserting themselves into the investigation of a child's death - and them profiting from such morally bankrupt activity.
But really haven't the media just been giving us what we, the avaricious public, been consuming on demand and gravitating towards by reading ever more salacious details of other people's lives? I'm thinking maybe the whole ball of yarn here has as much to do with media consumers as media malpractice.
There is no justification in my mind for the actions of media party to this behaviour.
But where's the line? And what part do we, the public, play?
I'm speaking here as a media consumer, not as a PR person. As a PR person I tend to think decent journalists have a hard time of it as they set out to do a very worthy job. As a PR person I also strongly believe both media and PRs should work in ethics-driven cultures, and be under scrutiny - nothing beats sunlight to help encourage good behaviour.
Possibly since journalism (and PR) began we've all been reading, hearing and watching and probably will continue to, news that's delivered via foul means as well as fair.
It's just that rarely do we lift the bonnet to see how the engine runs. Because all we care about is whether or not the car gets us from point A to point B in the style we want to travel.
High brow economics commentary? Page three girls? Perhaps a dodgy used car sales person running from the cameras? Or perhaps your taste runs more to celebrity weight loss/infidelity/surgery stories. Or to civilian deaths in another country's conflict.
We've all become, to some extent, voyeurs entertained or informed at some cost to others - whether that cost is their dignity, their safety or simply their right to suffer unseen.
I have no moral ground to stand on here. I read newspapers, listen to radio, read online news and occasionally read 'one of those' magazines while waiting for something better to happen or avoiding my email.
That makes me too complicit in the decline of media standards. Some media would argue that my profession does also...but that's a debate for another day.
If one lasting and fundamental good could come from this 'you wouldn't read about it' saga, it may simply be this: that media are more accountable.
For the most part the many journalists I've worked with, sometimes at cross purposes to, and alongside, are exceptional people.
For often average incomes they work, day after day, to report news that people should know. That's news that is in the public interest. It's news that holds people, governments and businesses accountable. And it's news that sometimes changes the world.
For that ridiculously important task many get little more than a byline or story credit. Very often the money and professional opportunity doesn't adequately cover the grief that goes withnthe job. There is however, for those journalists, the great satisfaction of knowing they really did make a difference.
It's just a shame that media organisations, guided by the scandal and sauce-loving public, have increasingly rewarded another kind of journalist and photographer - and apparently private eye.
That's the kind who really does only care about money and ego.
But they will, sadly, continue to be rewarded by the average reader. Because actually, until now, we really didn't want to think too hard about where our 'news' was coming from or how it was sourced.
In my private nirvana, news consumers and those who serve them, would actually want to know about the kind of ethics and behaviour that generated the headlines.
It's happened with clothing, chocolate and coffee. Maybe one day we'll read news that comes with a "free trade" or "ethical" label. If no-ones rights were infringed, it's okay to read. If so, straight to the bin.
Yes, that's fantasy land. Because media, and many others do believe the means justifies the ends.
But should we all be a bit more careful about that kind of thinking?
Sometimes nothing justifies the ends. Sometimes the means in itself is so wrong that it represents the slippery slide to an ethical wilderness. Once lost, we might never emerge to see the greater good, or innthis case, the public interest.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Banking on social media at Rabo
Imagine my delight when I opened my inbox on Saturday morning to find... a wrap up from "Visible Banking" on Rabobank's first social media day. Now, I do have to declare an interest. BlueChip Communication, which is the firm I founded and run, does work with RaboDirect in Australia. Our conversations there range from traditional media to online and experiential. Social media is almost always a part of the discussion, and no wonder given what happened in Utrecht last week.
I'm waiting to hear more from some of the participants in the event, but here's what struck me about Christophe Langlois' most recent post.
Visible Banking makes these very good points about what the bank will now need to do to roll out and implement a successful social media strategy regionally and internationally.
I'm waiting to hear more from some of the participants in the event, but here's what struck me about Christophe Langlois' most recent post.
- How cool it was that Rabobank ran a social media day for over 300 staff... letting them get their hands on / experience a very wide range of social media tools
- The event had it's own hashtag on Twitter ... as well as a microsite
- The day engaged employees and helped recruit them into social media advocates
Visible Banking makes these very good points about what the bank will now need to do to roll out and implement a successful social media strategy regionally and internationally.
- Training / coaching their workforce
- Designing a robust and engaged content strategy
- Implement a Know-Your-Followers/Fans (KYF) strategy
Bus tale ... with a tail
Horns. Tail. Colour and movement.
I'm not normally inspired by public transport. But I'm finding buses particularly inspiring this week. Here's one I saw today. It has horns, a multi-coloured hide and a tail.
In PR-speak it's an experiential campaign...perhaps in other words a good old fashioned stunt. Best practice would be to back this great mooving (pardon the bad pun) stunt with an integrated PR campaign.
Now why is this bus relevant to PR people or to those in financial services? Because our audiences, particularly high net worth or high income people, are getting harder and harder to reach.
Their media habits are fragmented. They may be time poor. When they want information they self-serve - Google and word of mouth are favourite sources.
Hence the rise of experiential PR - a stunt, installation or "happening" backed by and amplified into traditional and social media.
It's just a shame that moove media didn't back their superb creative execution with a fully functioning website.
I'm not normally inspired by public transport. But I'm finding buses particularly inspiring this week. Here's one I saw today. It has horns, a multi-coloured hide and a tail.
In PR-speak it's an experiential campaign...perhaps in other words a good old fashioned stunt. Best practice would be to back this great mooving (pardon the bad pun) stunt with an integrated PR campaign.
Now why is this bus relevant to PR people or to those in financial services? Because our audiences, particularly high net worth or high income people, are getting harder and harder to reach.
Their media habits are fragmented. They may be time poor. When they want information they self-serve - Google and word of mouth are favourite sources.
Hence the rise of experiential PR - a stunt, installation or "happening" backed by and amplified into traditional and social media.
It's just a shame that moove media didn't back their superb creative execution with a fully functioning website.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Private eyes, spying on our partners, and internal communication
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
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.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)