How do I ignore thee, let me count the ways…

Posted At : November 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Posted By : Mike McGrail
Related Categories: Social Media,Commentary

Social media communications Mike McGrail

It used to be “you never call.” Now it’s you never call, you never e-mail, you never Tweet, you never Blackberry, you never blog, you never accept my LinkedIn invites, you never post on my Facebook wall, you never join my community on MySpace. Let’s face it, social media tools are just giving us more different ways to ignore each other. Not replying to a Facebook poke is the Web 2.0 version of checking your caller ID and letting it ring if you don’t want to talk to cousin Domenic.

You’d think that the opposite would be true. The cornucopia of communications widgets today gives us so many options for keeping in touch that there must be a personal Rosetta stone for each of us out there somewhere, some single solution to our need to reach out and touch someone. Yet every time another social network tool comes along, I see it less as another way to stay in touch than as one less excuse for not doing so. The issue with me – and I suspect a lot of people – isn’t the avenue of communication, it’s finding time to use them. E-mail, text message, MySpace, at their base they’re all just paper letters in electronic drag. Yeah, commenting on a friend’s blog post is a great way to say “yo, I’m still alive and I see you are too. Imagine that?” LinkedIn is a great way to build up a network of contacts. But you really want to impress me? Find me a social networking tool that adds 10 minutes to my day every time I use it.

Not being delusional enough to think that’s going to happen – unless Facebook finds a way to pierce the time/space continuum – I see the real value in the variety of social media as, well, the variety itself. No one social media tool (which includes e-mail) can help me keep in touch with everyone I want to, but each social media tool I use plays a different role in my communication life, each filling a different crack in my day. I can’t have extended online chats on weekdays, but I can Tweet a few lines here and there to let my friends know I haven’t retired to a mountaintop to write bad haiku. I can’t always reply to all my relatives’ e-mail, but I can put new pictures of my daughter on my Facebook profile. Now if I could just find a social networking tool that will call my mother three times a week …

Comments (1) |

Print |

Send | | 1048 Views

The great newspaper massacre of 2008

Posted At : November 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Posted By : Mike McGrail
Related Categories: PR,Media Relations,Public Relations,Commentary,News,Writing

The newspaper industry’s head is dead, but the body doesn’t know it yet. I’m not talking about the slow, steady decline in circulation and the march of newspaper closings that started in the 1960s. In just the last few months, that lingering disease morphed into a full-on chainsaw massacre, complete with updated versions of Leatherface and Chop Top.

Consider recent events. The Rag Blog reported that The New York Times has a $400 million loan payment due in May 2009, and currently has only $46 million cash on hand. The Christian Science Monitor revealed in October that it will close its 100-year-old print edition in 2009. Two weeks ago, the Boston Globe cut back to four sections to reduce print costs. In October, New Jersey’s largest newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger, announced that it’s laying off half its newsroom staff. The Los Angeles Times and San Jose Mercury News staffs are both half of what they were as recently as 18 months ago. Thirteen newspapers in Connecticut, including two medium-sized dailies, are heading for shutdown because the indebted owner can’t find buyers for them. By the end of this year, the nation’s largest newspaper company, Gannett, will have cut 20 percent of its staff.

Most people don’t care that newspapers are in their death spiral. Those who don’t read get their news from broadcast, cable and radio. Those who do read have gone online to Web sites and blogs. The future belongs to electronic news delivery.

Just one thing. Broadcast, cable, radio and online? They get most of their leads and raw information from newspapers and the Associated Press, which is a cooperative that gets most of its news from its member newspapers. You don’t have to be a biologist to see the impending food chain breakdown here. The newer news mediums need newspapers, as does American society at large. We might not need them in their current form, but we need what they do.

Newspapers are the foundation of an informed society – its first witness. Newspapers are low tech on the front end (reporters only need a notebook and a 39-cent felt tip to cover a story) so they can commit reporters to stories that other media can’t. Newspaper reporters can sit through four-hour zoning board meetings to make sure the local Dunkin’ Donuts doesn’t expand its parking lot onto a wetland. They can dig through decades of court records to reveal sexual abuse by clergymen across the country. By comparison, video crews can’t be idle for that long, and bloggers are usually one-person shops who can only cover a limited amount of stories at once.

Newspaper reporting, for all its oft-mentioned flaws, is the photosynthesis of the news ecosystem; it feeds everything above it. Broadcast and cable follow up newspaper articles with their own reports, bringing the news to a broader audience. Bloggers comment and contribute their own knowledge, correcting and expanding on stories that they would probably have missed if they hadn’t read it in a newspaper. The news ecosystem will not collapse without newspapers, but there’s no way it will uncover important new stories at the pace it does now. That’s not good for society. Fear of exposure is a powerful motivator for governments, businesses and individual to mind their manners. Newspapers have historically done most of the watching and scolding.

So after economic and cultural factors – the aforementioned Leatherface and Chop Top – are done hacking away at the print newspaper corpus with their Black & Deckers, what will take the print newspaper’s place? I vote for the online newspaper. Yeah, I know that the online editions of most papers contribute little to the revenue stream – for now. But newspapers that take risks and work aggressively to use their brand equity and news gathering ability to attract readers and advertisers to the Web will come out of the other end of today’s chainsaw abattoir playing the same role in the news industry as their print forbearers.

There are signs of newspapers making this shift. The Madison, Wis. Capital News shut down its print edition in April to focus on its online operations. Now the Times breaks news through the day like a radio station, but with the depth and detail of print. Here in Portsmouth, our local daily gives readers more content by supplementing its articles with video clips and online photo galleries. This is the kind of thinking that will save newspapers. If readers follow the content, advertisers will follow the readers and newspapers will once again have a viable business model. Society, in turn, will keep its biggest, toughest watch dog on duty, which is good news for all of us.

Comments (5) |

Print |

Send | | 5829 Views

10 branding communication lessons from the ‘08 presidential campaign

Posted At : November 6, 2008 2:17 PM | Posted By : Andy Beaupre
Related Categories: Branding,PR,Strategy,Technology,Social Media,Media Relations,Public Relations,Commentary

Obama - 10 communication lessons from the '08 Presidential campaign

Checkmate readers are corporate communications, branding and public relations professionals. They’re Independents, Republicans and Democrats. There might even be a few Libertarians in the mix too.

Recognizing this reality, today’s blog is bi-partisan, focused on the top 10 communications lessons gleaned from this year’s campaign:

Crisp, consistent messaging still rules - Obama started off his campaign with “change” and “hope” and stuck with it until the end. McCain, by contrast, embraced multiple messaging points, particularly in the last month of the campaign. Maverick. Country first. Fighter. Experienced. Leader. Independent. Straight talker.
Social media changed the ballgame forevermore - both candidates embraced social media. They both understood its power to engage, mobilize and raise gobs of money. Obama had more success, yes, but they both leveraged it. There’s no going back.
The big three got bigger – Facebook, YouTube and Twitter emerged as vital strategies. Obama’s Facebook network exceeded two million and McCain’s was nearly 600,000. Obama's YouTube presence was five times greater than McCain's, including subscribers and videos.Obama has over 118,107 Twitter followers to McCain's 4,942.
Traditional TV was still king – although millions were spent online, the big bucks went to the “it’s so yesterday” boob-tube. Obama spent more than $100 million alone; his half-hour infomercials exceeded $3 million.
Storytelling works – prior presidential elections used this technique, but in ‘08, it was more popular than ever. Tales were told through colorful characters, from Joe the Plumber to the 106-year old lady. Proving the value of storytelling, the latter example was used in the very last speech of the campaign by Obama Tuesday night.
Soundbites stick – people remember a few oft-repeated phrases and slogans. Hockey Mom. Joe Six-Pack. Maverick. Socialist. Lipstick on a pit bull. Soundbites are not only vividly recalled, they also shape our perceptions and opinions.
Teleprompters are double-edged –yes, they improve delivery but teleprompters can also create a false sense of reality. Sara Palin, for example, did a terrific job at her coming-out-party speech at the RNC, but subsequent interviews created the impression she was effective when controlled and scripted, but less so in impromptu conversations.
Body language matters –the Town Hall debates helped shape public opinion when people had the chance to see the candidate in more natural settings. Voters repeatedly stressed Obama’s calm demeanor. Polls revealed McCain came across erratic and less even-tempered.
Repetition works – both candidates understood the benefit of repetition. No new taxes. Yes we can. Essential points have to be emphasized over and over to break through and stick.
Great Web sites are part of a larger conversation – official campaign Web sites were vital but only one element in a much broader conversation that took place online, in real-time, everywhere. News, ad campaigns, campaign accusations and rebuttals broke on YouTube, Twitter and social news sites long before they appeared on mainstream media. The debate was shaped online.

Comments (0) |

Print |

Send | | 1514 Views

Clean tech podcast: Joe Trippi

Posted At : November 5, 2008 10:24 AM | Posted By : Steve Hodgdon
Related Categories: Podcast,Cleantech

National political consultant Joe Trippi talks about the public policy dimensions of clean technology development and why he thinks renewable energy is for real after the false start of the 1970s.

Comments (0) |

Print |

Send |

Download | | 1285 Views

Clean tech podcast: Advent Solar CEO Peter Green

Posted At : November 5, 2008 9:37 AM | Posted By : Steve Hodgdon
Related Categories: Podcast,Cleantech

Advent Solar podcast - Beaupre Brodeur clean technology Peter Green, President and CEO of Advent Solar, a leading manufacturer of innovative solar cells and modules, talks about the parallels between the semiconductor and solar photovoltaic (PV ) industries, and highlights new opportunities for innovation based on these parallels.

Comments (0) |

Print |

Send |

Download | | 1480 Views

The “R” word CEOs really want to hear

Posted At : November 3, 2008 4:15 PM | Posted By : Andy Beaupre
Related Categories: Commentary

We’re so battered and barraged with negative business words these days:

Credit and equity turmoil	401K asset loss
Consumer spending downturn	Lending crisis
GDP contraction	Credit card crisis
Housing market meltdown	Bunker mentality
Cost-cutting	Plunging consumer confidence
Home value decline	False bottom
Job cuts	Negative credit

Recession - the "R" word CES's really want to hear Beaupre & Co.

And of course, the sometimes openly stated, but more typically hinted-at, “R” word: recession.

In this business climate of stress, nervousness and panic, what words do executives want to hear?

Frank Luntz, author of “Words that work: it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear” says there are five words that “really resonate in the world of business right now … that should become part of every executive’s vocabulary.”

What are they?

Consequences
Impact
Reliability
Commitment
Mission

I’m having trouble with some of his picks.

Luntz likes consequences because he says the word makes people immediately think “What does this mean for me?” Consequences is a fine word, but it’s a by-product of action or inaction. It can be used to frame a discussion about the importance of making something happen, or not making it happen. Luntz told Business Week the word consequences “instantly personalizes and dramatizes the potential results (my italics) of particular action.”

I can’t think of a time when companies haven’t been focused – like photovoltaic cells aimed at the sun – on the consequences of achieving or not achieving results. Never more so than now.

Supposed vital business word # 2 is: impact. Luntz says people pay attention to it. “This one word causes people to assume they will see a measurable difference (my italics).” He argues that people don’t relate to words like “effort” or “solutions.” I agree with this latter point, but to my ears, impact sounds a lot like consequences. It’s a derivative of action or inaction. Luntz brought up the other “R” word again in defending the word impact: “People want results (my italics) … they want to know how well you execute.”

Reliability, his third selection, is tried-and-true. “When it comes to such products as automobiles, cable television and personal communication devices, reliability is now even more important among customers than price,” Luntz says.

I agree with reliability; it’s still a vital word. I can’t think of a single purchase I’ve ever made, from a downloaded song to a gallon of milk to a new shirt – let alone a car or house – where reliability wasn’t foremost in my mind. I always want what I buy to work properly, taste good and hold up. Is reliability more important now than ever? Yes.

What about commitment? Is it an emotional grabber for our times? Luntz says words like pledges and promises “no longer carry much weight.” I’d argue they haven’t for a long time (maybe I’m just saturated with political gobbledygook on the eve of tomorrow’s presidential election). “Commitment means a speaker is willing to put his or her credibility on the line to achieve a successful outcome (my italics).”

Relevant business word #5 is mission, according to Luntz.

He argues mightily the mission he’s talking about should not be confused with the now dreaded mission statement, the “cold, empty words” invented by consultants. A mission is “a window into your corporate soul,” and is “shaped by managers and inspires employees with passion and a vision of something better.”

Sorry Frank, but that’s what the mission statement was supposed to Results - Beaupre & Co. Public Relations

be. I can guarantee you that using the word “mission” will only confuse people and conjure the notion of a mission statement, regardless of your intent.

Results and reliability (and I would add "reputation") remain positive, proactive and hopeful because they're pragmatic promises. Either you deliver reliability and results, or you don’t. There’s no gray area. “Measure me against this standard; nothing else matters; everything else is pure talk.”

Yes, results and reliability are overused and often clichéd. But when you back them up with concrete, measurable action and timeframes, they become beacons of authenticity.

The consequences of emphasizing results and reliability will have a very positive impact on a corporation’s mission because they demonstrate the ultimate commitment.

Comments (1) |

Print |

Send | | 1159 Views