eCommunications for global organisations

Digital advocacy – aligned with online campaigning more broadly – has been effective on issues that capture the public imagination for quite a while, largely because the web works extremely well as a grassroots mobilisation tool. From whale hunting to GMOs, pressure groups and concerned citizens have used a variety of online tools to express anger, spread the word and mobilise likeminded people. I’d argue that, were Greenpeace to announce a big-time campaign tomorrow on banning mink farming in Europe, it could be web-centred, with offline elements operating around it. Meaning that Greenpeace would be able to engage and mobilise enough people using primarily online channels to certainly reach (although probably not influence) relevant policy-makers.

However, the vast majority of advocacy issues don’t capture the public imagination. Nobody knows about them; the media doesn’t care. Until a short time ago, these were the sort of issues where advocacy was done off the radar i.e. primarily with stakeholders and policy-makers sitting down face to face. There’d be no large-scale media campaign or the like in support because it wouldn’t have been worth the effort seeing as all stakeholders were a phone-call away.

Now, I’d argue that digital advocacy is nearing the real deal for niche issues as well. Meaning what? That the web is ubiquitous enough – even in public policy land (view Fleishman’s EP Digital Trends or Edelman’s Capital Staffers’ index if in doubt) – to work as a direct advocacy tool.

In practice, I mean that if you plan and execute the online element of your campaign well, you can safely assume that you’ll reach relevant policy-makers directly, as well as engage and/or mobilise the aforementioned stakeholders that are just a phone-call away, using primarily online channels. By no means does that mean that traditional advocacy or media relations are a dying breed, but they can now be supported, enhanced and sped up no end. Exciting times ahead.

(This is a cross-post from Steffen’s blog)

Image source

At our recent event organized with IABC & ING around ‘How web Strategies can transforming your communications’, Globecorp.biz made an interview with one of our panel speakers & clients, Colin Hensley, General Manager of Corporate Affairs and Planning at Toyota Motor Europe (TME) on Toyota’s usage of social media including the Aim Zero Emissions blog, the Green Design Channel and Twitter we set up as part of a campaign we helped to develop.

Colin has developed new ways of engaging with his key audiences and is now actively twittering and blogging about what’s happening on CSR at the heart of Toyota Europe. Here the interview:

The event discussion around how web strategies can transform communications of global corporations is not over yet: You can join the online discussion of the eventin the IABC Ning Community.

This is a cross-post from Steffen’s blog.

It’s often noted that replicating online tools that are mainstream and already perform the functions you need, just for the sake of having something with your own logo on it, is a mistake. In most cases, I’d agree. With social networks in particular, considering the number of existing tools with scores of users - LinkedIn, Facebook, Orkut, hi5, Bebo and so on - if you are looking to create a community, why would you want to create something new? Most networks fail, ROI is hard to measure (you have a load of members - so what?), and as mentioned, existing tools usually have all the functionalities you could ever want (and can even be used easily and cheaply).

All valid points. However, sometimes there’s a case for an organisation, movement, group, party etc. setting up a tailor-made social network:

1. If you want your network to perform a specific function.
2. Most pertinently, when the people who might use it - call it your fan-base or stakeholders or whatever - are numerous, enthusiastic and active, and actually would like a social network that caters for them and them alone.

The success of the US President-elect’s network - my.barackobama.com - confirms both points. The specific functions it performed were a) raising money for the candidate, and b) allowing supporters to mobilise great numbers of people in a very organised manner. And with regards to the second point, I think it goes without saying that Obama supporters were plentiful enough and fired up.

A less conspicuous case-study I’d cite, also from across the pond, is Firefighter Nation, the firefighters’ network, which has 26,000 very active members that are avidly using all the functionalities on the site (e.g. all thirteen forum topics had been active in the last 24 hours when I checked). So why is it working? Primarily because of a very strong dose of point 2 cited above: there are lots of firefighters in the US, they are very passionate about their profession, they have a very strong sense of camaraderie, and they want their own space where they can meet others like them and share their unique experiences. A Facebook group could probably do all the same things, but it just would not feel as special; it would not be a unique platform for them alone.

So the lesson is: if you’re thinking of setting up a network for philatelists or fans of tiddlywinks, use an existing platform (and don’t hold your breath). If you’re interested in something that can really get lots of people fired up (politics, saving wildlife, football) or, say, represent a very active political group or faction, then your own social network could work, if executed and promoted well. And if you really do fancy giving it a go, I’d recommend starting on Ning, which is the platform Firefighter Nation is built on - it’s brilliant, and what’s more, it’s free.

This is a cross-post from Steffen’s blog.

Much has been said of how the Obama campaign mastered the web. The fact that three million people donated online, helping to make his campaign the best funded of all time, meant that money was no object. Having an endless supply of cash was obviously pretty handy, but what’s perhaps even more salient is that the Obama campaign was funded by citizens. Parties, corporations and corporate interest groups are usually candidates’ main donors, and these will at some point expect payback in some shape or form. How will citizens expect payback from Obama? By fulfilling his campaign promises. This is of course no guarantee that he can or will, but it’s a good starting point.

What’s been most revolutionary has been the campaign’s ability to use the web to not just inform people, but to mobilise them. Massive followings on various public social networking platforms has kept people informed and excited, and enabled them to easily spread information and urge their friends and acquaintances to join the conversation or register to vote and so on – the viral effect at play.

Even more important was my.barackobama.com, which became an offline facilitator for people wanting to help in some way - make calls, arrange meets, knock on doors, put up placards and so on. It’s somewhat ironic, but the ability to mobilise people offline was arguably the most important element of Obama’s online campaign: sort of a return to a bygone age when citizens would congregate for hours in town-halls and other meeting places to debate, organise, and delegate in support of their preferred candidate. The web has shown itself to be the enabler and integrator that has resurrected this phenomenon. So much for people being politically apathetic – it was a question of time or the means (and let’s not forget: an inspirational candidate).

A few recommendations on the topic of Obama and the web:

• Seth Godin writes about online viral videos trumping TV ads and how Democrats used permission to grow their support base and interact with them more effectively than the Republicans.
• EurActiv have interviewed Brian Fetherstonhaugh, chairman and CEO of OgilvyOne Worldwide, about Obama’s use of “new media”.
• A good post by Colin at ePolitics who claims that Obama would not have won without the Internet and explains why.
• Last but not least, concerns that Obama and his team would put their web efforts on hold following their win have proved to be without merit. The website of the President-elect, Change.gov, was launched last week, with some decent elements, like a “submit your story” feature and a blog. There’s some way to go before it matches my.barackobama.com in terms of interactive features and so on, but I’m sure that’s coming.
• And a tangent: the UK Conservatives are the latest to have hijacked “change” on their new, admittedly impressive, website.

This is a cross-post from Steffen’s blog.

Microblogging. Think a platform where you can publish a sentence from your PC or mobile phone in a few seconds; or think Facebook with status updates and nothing else. The use of microblogging services like Twitter for professional purposes have not taken off in Europe and yet they’re all the rage across the pond - could it be that we’re just late adopters in Europe, and that this will change once millions of people have signed up to Twitter and the like, or is it that it simply couldn’t work here?

So how is it being used in the US? I’m not going to analyse in depth, but a few of the uses are:

• As with other forms of social media, simply to listen. Using, say, tweetscan, companies are taking note of what people are saying about them, as are politicians.
• After having listened, interaction may be next, following the adage of open, honest, one-to-one communications which customers now expect. If people are writing stuff about them, companies are actually writing back. Or they can ask questions, or generally express an interest and be seen to engage.
• Providing news, like updates on product releases, events, special offers, or just anything people might be interested in. JetBlue do this. As does the Obama campaign, regularly updating people on campaign events via Twitter.
• Customer service. Some companies are actually keeping track of what’s being said about them, and when someone complains or needs some information about a product or service, the company responds on Twitter. Comcast are at the forefront of using Twitter for customer care.

But why are companies (or campaigns, as in the case of Obama) using Twitter? What’s wrong with just using email or other channels? Again, not an in-depth analysis, but the main reasons are:

• It’s another place where people are having conversations, and knowing what people are saying may be valuable, as a company (or organisation, politician, whatever) may want to take note and even do something about it!
• The medium as a message matters i.e. the type of conversation one can have. Messages are short and informal, obviously written by a person without scores of senior communications type people wondering whether the message fits the corporate mantra, meaning you’re personalising the way you communicate. Result? If done well, showing people you’re a decent human-being rather than a corporate puppet, that you’ve got soul, and it’ll help to build relationships.
• It’s just handy: it being quick and easy simply means it’s suited for providing quick updates to people.

For more in-depth analyses of the uses of Twitter, I’d recommend these three posts from Ogilvy’s excellent 360° Digital Influence blog: Twitter for customer relations, Twitter for crisis communications, and Twitter for corporate reputation management.

As to the central question: will microblogging for business or other professional purposes remain limited in Europe because of inherent barriers, or is it just a question of time? Assuming Twitter and the like do take off and there’ll be millions of daily users in a couple of years, some barriers one could think of might be that the language factor makes it difficult to track conversations in multiple countries, so is it really worth it? Or that Europeans are more reserved and don’t regard their roles as consumers as seriously as Americans. Will they really complain about a product, or sing its praises, on Twitter?

I think both points can safely be dismissed. So what if a conversation is not pan-European? The quality or importance of an online conversation is not just defined by how many millions of people are following it, but by the nature of its content and engagement. A company can learn a lot from following online conversations even if there aren’t huge numbers of people involved. And engaging, or providing updates to valued customers or supporters, can be extremely precious in building relationships, even if the numbers are small. Similarly, so what if Europeans tend to be a bit more reserved when it comes to letting off steam in social media? Again, it’s not the number of people, or how vociferous they might be when discussing, say, a brand, but what they’re saying that matters. In addition, I’d say that Europeans’ obsession with mobile phones could play a part here. Being able to update ones own Twitter by mobile phone after having been to an interesting place or seeing something out of the ordinary, or simply to carry on following a conversation when away from the PC, would entice quite a few people.

Plus, moving away from marketing and into a Brussels context, I can see a viable use for a microblogging platform as a near-instant monitoring tool. Dedicated monitoring providers and consultancies are paid a fortune to follow legislative issues that impact their clients, but the monitoring reports are usually sent via email the next day. Basic updates at crucial times, say during a plenary debate at the European Parliament or a key event, can be given via a microblogging platform so that people are updated in near-real time. Via a plug-in, these updates could be made to appear on a website or blog as well as the relevant twitter page, so you would not even need to send people somewhere new, just say: “check out the live updates on our site”. Live-blogging is not far removed from this, but that implies slightly longer entries and requires a laptop, whereas microblogging/monitoring could even be done from a mobile phone.

And will any MEPs or MEP hopefuls take a leaf out of Obama’s book and try to Twitter their way into constituents’ hearts in the upcoming campaigns?! It’d probably be a waste of time to send regular updates given the low profile of European elections (no I’m not contradicting myself: updates don’t mean you’re engaging in a conversation and should only be provided with a significant number of followers). But I would advise them to follow what people are saying in social media in general, including Twitter, and the blogosphere in particular. There won’t be much, but some of it could make interesting reading. And if they really want to start an online conversation, I’d recommend they resort to traditional blogging, but I’ll save that for another post.

I saw this poster strung to a lamp-post near the European Parliament last weekend, and pretty much every other lamp-post in the vicinity, urging MEPs to insert more stringent measures in a CO2 reduction bill doing the rounds at the moment passed by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee last week. Its message is simple and to the point, pulls the heart-strings and guilt-trips naysayers, it uses familiar imagery, AND is visible to the right audience at the right time. Quintessential, well-executed, NGO fare.

The site the poster refers to is OK too. Again, simple, provides further information but does not overwhelm users, and makes decent use of YouTube to present the issues. What I don’t like though is the call to action: a pre-written letter to post or email to an MEP. These are annoying and disingenuous. I think it’s much better to provide links to contact details for relevant MEPs and a few pointers on what to write, but most importantly, insist that the letter be personal, as I’m sure that ten personalised letters from concerned citizens carry more weight than a hundred of the same.

This is a cross-post from Steffen’s blog

We have set up a Hyperth!nker NING for all of those of you who would like to hyperth!nk with us and for those who would like to experiment with this application.

Ning is an online platform where users can create their own social website in just a few minutes. It’s quite simple - you create your own social network on the Ning plattform which can then be linked to other networks - a bit like a mini Facebook. Try it!

We look forward to seeing you on the Hyperthinker Ning.

[youtube]WIvmE4_KMNw[/youtube]

Further proof (if any was needed) that NGOs have mastered eCampaigning better than anyone (click here for the campaign site). A wonderful effort: an engaging opening sequence that’s as good as anything TV can muster, but unlike TV, this then allows you, within seconds, to share with your friends, learn more, donate, and engage with other fans.

Most impressive is the opening video though (plus I appreciate the simple fact that when I go back to the site, it knows I’ve visited before so it doesn’t show it to me again - this is often not the case.) Intro videos are usually poor. Testimony to the fact that web agencies are often not great at creative, and might actually not care that much: it’s about what you can do, how you can engage, and the quality of the core content that matters they say. However, if an intro video is as good as that on The Girl Effect, it will no doubt increase the viral potential of a campaign and pull those heartstrings hard enough to boost donations significantly.

There’s a good article on the BBC describing how the web has played a crucial part in Obama’s (dare we say it?) successful Democratic primary campaign. It highlights the power of the web as a mobilisation tool, and rightly so: although plenty of focus always remains on the web as a fundraising tool, or a one-way communications tool to a younger audience, it’s the grassroots mobilisation potential that’s most revolutionary! student loan

Most people will have noticed how over the last year especially, video is everywhere online - be it company sites showing their goods or services in action, or the CEO remarking on virtuous CSR initiatives; politicians’ sites showing (carefully selected!) interviews and speeches (Sarkozy’s site is practically a video vault); or news sites showing the type of footage we’re used to seeing on TV news. With video-editing tools being part of the standard Microsoft Windows package now (Windows Movie Maker) along with staples like Notepad and a calculator, and YouTube offering free hosting and a player, as well as an an endless source of existing videos, even the most humble blogger can use video to enrich a story.

We’ve gladly jumped on the bandwagon. Not because it’s a fad, but because the power of video can vastly enhance and humanise a story. At a time when even old-school corporate communicators are coming to terms with the fact that engaging and being open, honest and transparent is a) expected of them; and b) can help reach campaign goals or improve personal, company, industry or brand image (if done well!), video is becoming increasingly important. In particular, we’ve found that interviews with expert stakeholders are a great boost to campaigns. Even if the same content is expressed in text form on a site, or in a position paper or traditional press release, actually hearing it straight from the source has proven very effective, for obvious reasons: there’s no potential PR spin around a quote, and even if editing can embellish an interview by cutting out the “bad bits”, there’s less scope than in a press release, where one select quote is usually shown to represent an entire interview or statement. And in the interest of full transparency, what we’ve taken to doing when we’re showing snippets of interviews is uploading the full unedited interview to YouTube as well and letting people know it’s there if they’re interested.

To those who still think it all sounds a little complicated, think again. A simple recording on a hand-held camera can be transfered to a PC in a matter of minutes, edited using say Windows Movie Maker, and uploaded to YouTube. The whole process could take a few hours if you’re really in a rush. What about production values I hear? Some people have asked us why the footage does not look like it does on TV. We tell them what most people understand already: production values are not the point! YouTube (or other video sharing sites for that matter) do not allow for high-quality video (with 2+ billion views per month their servers are pretty busy as it is); but more importantly, say in an interview with a stakeholder, it’s the content that matters, not how grainy the footage is. Plus frankly, grainy footage with background noise appears more “‘real” i.e. less staged than a video filmed with high-end production resources: proper lighting, clean sound, make-up etc. Not great if you’re a high-tech company showing off your production plant; but much better if you’re interviewing a scientist about a highly contentious issue during a coffee break at at an event.

And finally, what do you do once you have your video uploaded to YouTube or other video sharing site? You embed it so it appears directly on a site or blog, meaning the user does not have to click through to YouTube; you simply send the link to people you think should see it; and once you have a few, you set up a channel on YouTube to collect all your videos in one place (an example: Barack Obama’s YouTube channel).