Distinct - Gary Ward's business blog

What does it all mean?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:58:00 +0000

With Christmas approaching faster than the sales (I hope), the meaning of what Christmas is actually all about may start to engage some people who don't usually care about such things.

Even those who wouldn’t call themselves ‘religious’ use the festive period for a bit of reflection, even if it’s only after too much to eat and drink and relates to New Year resolutions.

But while the festive season may give some people pause for thought, as communicators, perhaps we need to ask what we really mean when we communicate anything. Often the pressure of deadlines means that we don’t give our communications too much thought; we just get on with it and get it out there.

Sometimes what we have to say is designed to grab attention at a more visceral or emotional level and perhaps we feel that’s where the creative impulse needs to come from, too. But I think that a bit of serious thought, even a little bit, about what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and who we’re doing it for, will be worth it in the end.

If you’ve ever seen the detailed notebooks of a creative genius like Leonardo da Vinci, you’ll know that there was a man whose thoughts were as active as his feelings and who planned his artistic works every bit as meticulously as his scientific inventions.

A senior detective I knew used to talk about the need for ‘lazer vision’ as he encouraged his staff to think through the use of every bit of evidence they collected; how would it stack up in court? How will you present it? Does it have weaknesses? To win a case, he and his team needed to ensure that everything they did was focused on the aim of ensuring a successful prosecution.

I think these are lessons for all walks of life, and for communications the need to have the end in mind is a very useful one. What am I producing this for? What do I want recipients to think or feel when they receive it? Questions like these at the very start of a project are never wasted. They needn’t take up too much time, but ignoring them might cost you a lot more in the long run.

Why publicity isn’t always a good thing

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:51:00 +0000

When Kazakhstan's president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, attended a Downing Street press conference recently, he could have guessed what was coming.

While Kazakhstan is regarded as key to securing Britain's future energy supplies, it was the film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, that everyone wanted to ask about.

So what did the president make of it? In an admirable touch of down to earth, realism far removed from some of the po-faced reaction to the film, he said: "The film was created by a comedian so let's laugh at it - that's my attitude."

Such restraint is surprising, as the film features a spoof Kazakh TV reporter, played by Sacha Baron Cohen, apparently employed by the country's government to make a documentary on America. Borat is racist, sexist and violent – and depicts ‘his’ country as being the same.

But laughing off the furore, which has seen the film banned in Russia and the production company sued by a number of the duped participants, Mr Nazarbayev saw the positive side, commenting "any publicity is good publicity" - and invited journalists to pay a visit to find out what the place is really like.

He made the point that his country is unknown in the west, and that the film, which has topped the box office in the US and UK, has helped to put Kazakhstan on the map.

So is it unremitting good news? While the reality of hard headed investment decisions will carry on regardless of the film, the hick view of the country exemplified by Borat is going to be pretty hard to shake off. When Gerald Ratner famously called most of jewellery products ‘crap’ many years ago, the company never recovered.

And yet, this is different. Kazakhstan never had a reputation to speak of in the west before Borat, but now it is at least on the radar. And in this country at least, Sacha Baron Cohen’s blackly comic creations are well known. Perhaps it’s the United States that needs to worry.

I doubt, however, that many companies could stand down such an unremittingly negative portrayal and not be damaged. The film Supersize Me led to McDonald’s changing its menu and fighting back with a multi-million pound ‘make up your own mind’ campaign, something that a company of its size can afford.

But for the rest of us, such damage to our reputation would be very hard to recover from and such ‘publicity’ is best avoided at all costs.

Someone once said that the best way to kill a bad product is through excellent advertising, as more people will find out how bad it is. It’s best to ensure that you manage your reputation in the first place, so that exposure to that kind of coverage doesn’t happen to you.

Runny that one by me again…

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:33:00 +0000

I’m trained to teach English as a foreign language and I understand how tough it is to understand all the nuances and subtleties of spoken and written English.

Of course, if you know nothing else of a language, then knowing a few key words can help you get by, with the help of some pointing and gesturing.

Often, though, it’s at that in-between stage, when you know more than a few words and have a rudimentary grasp of the grammar, when hilarious mistakes can be made.

In Italy, I once mistakenly said gnocchi (dumplings) instead of ginocchi (knees) - with predictably embarrassing results!

A great book by Charlie Croker, Lost in translation, published last month (see http://www.michaelomarabooks.com) has collected together examples of mistranslations into English from around the world. Some of my favourites include:

Four people were killed, one seriously (from a Japanese newspaper)
Sorry, we’re open (sign in a Mexican bar)
We highly recommend the hotel tart (hotel in Torremolinos)
And the Indonesian ‘Someday laundry service’

But while those of us who are English native speakers can laugh knowingly at these mistakes, the Chinese government for one isn’t seeing the funny side. As they gear up to host the 2008 Olympics, the authorities in Beijing are determined to stamp out examples of ‘Chinglish’ as its know. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6052800.stm. You can see some good examples of the kind of thing it means here http://www.flickr.com/groups/chinglish/. My particular favourite is the hotel that had complimentary (free) items, such as ‘complimentary shampoo’, and those for sale, including boxer shorts, labelled ‘uncomplimentary underpants’.

But you don’t have to travel thousands of miles to see such linguistic cock-ups. Not far from me, a sign in someone’s front door exhorts ‘no moor junk mail’ (something against Turkish people?) while a sign in one establishment offers fish and chip’s (the perennial apostrophe problem).

Does it matter, as long as you get the gist? Maybe not in a doorway, but if you’re in business, it doesn’t send out a brilliant message if you can’t get the basics right. While getting lost in translation is understandable, losing your way in your own language demands a road map – and someone who can read it for you.

Spending a penny on good design

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 20:18:00 +0000

I’m currently having my website redesigned.
I sometimes travel up to London from the south coast.

The reason these two things are connected is that both have made me think about the utility of design.

My new site should be up before Christmas, and while I want it to be distinctive and stand out, there are some conventions that I’m not going to break, one of them being that you go ‘home’ by clicking in the top left, and/or clicking on the company logo. Change that convention at your peril. If all else is lost, you can always go home – like the breadcrumbs left by Hansel and Gretal. People look for a home page link top left like they look for a ‘contact’ link in the menu, so they can easily find a telephone number or e-mail address.

Which brings me to South West Trains.

The trains from Portsmouth to Waterloo are generally clean and certainly appear to keep time better than the days when I was a regular commuter.

These trains have rather flash loos – you push a button and the door slides open. So far, so good. Users then go inside and look behind the door for the lock – the conventional place to put it. But they can’t find it, because it isn’t there. Just inside the door is the emergency button (an updated version of the red cord). It takes a bit of looking around to find that the 'close' and 'lock' buttons are facing you on the opposite wall when you come in.

Why change a convention?

Several years ago a London estate agent started putting up ‘For Sale’ boards that didn’t say ‘for sale’ at all. They said ‘now available’ and ‘on the market’. Why? It wasn’t recognisable from a distance; it was an attempt to differentiate themselves, but it just made them look daft. Last time I looked, their boards said ‘For Sale’ again.

Of course, innovation can be a fantastic thing – see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6047600.stm for some pretty amazing product ideas. But for some things – and spending a penny is one of them – keeping it simple is often the best way.

On the way to survey heaven

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:14:00 +0000

The media have always liked a good survey. In one ‘quality’ national newspaper on one day this week, the following stories made the paper:

Internet crime eclipses burglary in survey of perceived risks (a sample of 1,317 adults with internet access to launch ‘Get Safe Online Week’)

Iron chain links smoking and poverty (academic research comparing deprivation, smoking rates and the proportion of income spent on tobacco for the charity Action on Smoking and Health)

And last, and probably least…

Thierry factor scores with British fans of France (a survey of 1,010 people to launch ‘French Wines Week’, showing our apparent fascination for all things French)

Why did these reach the survey heaven of making it into a national newspaper, when almost certainly a number of others didn’t?

A bit like many of the surveys that do make it, the answer is not scientific but a combination of accident, the interests of the news editor, what else is happening that day and many other factors that are difficult to control.

But there are some things that can help to increase the chances of getting media exposure for your particular piece of research.

The first example above is topical and has a clear top line message – so clear in this case that it made the headline.

The second example is based on credible sources and data for a credible organisation, gives a geographical breakdown (excellent for local/regional media) and has an important subject – health and smoking – which is also topical because of the impending pub smoking ban.

The third example also has topicality (second homes in France) and involves celebrities in the findings - the Da Vinci Code film stars, Audrey Tautou and Jean Reno, and other French stars like Thierry Henry)

Of course, some news editors are more discerning than others.

Another successful survey – as highlighted by PR Week – was for The Bereavement Register, which removes people’s names from direct mail databases.

This highlighted the songs most requested at funerals – something that affects all families at some point (relevance to people’s lives), but is also a bit quirky and has picture potential (photos of celebrities).

The sample size, while important for credibility, certainly isn’t always the deciding factor if an editor thinks the subject matter is interesting, funny or important enough.

Of course, some surveys are completely daft or self evident - nine out of ten mechanics say your car needs a service, or 95% of psychiatrists reckon you need therapy, for example (alright, I made those up, but you get the idea).

And there’s a lot of scepticism out there as well as a lot of competition. So if you’re going to do a survey with the aim of getting media attention, try to ensure you have a few of the factors listed here, because if you don’t, your budget might be better spent on some other kind of PR or marketing.

Should you eat humble pie?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:45:00 +0000

Being humble isn’t a quality normally associated with people in the communications business. While there are a lot of women in PR and marketing, it’s sometimes the more macho virtues that tend to predominate.

Alastair Campbell’s brand of aggressive media management may have been required to keep the Lobby’s attack dogs at bay – and the government’s message consistent – but it’s not an approach that will work in every environment.

Could a humble attitude be an approach that more people in the business need to cultivate?

Definitions of ‘humility’ include being ‘aware of one’s failings,’ and ‘unpretentious’ – not exactly everyone’s idea of the PR industry, know-it-all journalists or marketers trying to drum up demand for, well, anything.

And of course, popular culture is against it, too. If the plethora of ‘celebrity’ obsessed magazines had indexes, it would be an odds-on bet that ‘humility’ wouldn’t feature. Ever.

In politics, too, the focus seems to be on making decisions and sticking with them, even if the evidence is against you. When a politician’s back is against the wall, the stock response is often (a) blame someone else, (b) deny there’s a problem, or (c) come out fighting. No scintilla of doubt is allowed.

So what about when things are going well? In the UK, we’re sometimes perceived as far too self-effacing when compared with American colleagues; of not shouting our achievements from the roof-tops or ensuring we get the credit.

But I believe there are limits to this approach. Anything that seems high-handed or arrogant is likely to be counter-productive, and in a business where trust and confidence are essential, that’s never a good idea.

Of course, the communications industry doesn’t have a monopoly on perceived arrogance or pretentiousness; at different times, doctors and lawyers have had an image problem, being seen as overweening and greedy.

But does anyone, in any profession, really know everything? Even brain surgeons and cosmologists would agree that they only know a very small proportion of their respective subject matters. So is an awareness of our own shortcomings not something we should admit to?

That’s a tricky one. When you sell communications services, it’s hard to admit ‘actually, I’m not really sure,’ as the client – or potential client - expects you to know; that’s what they’re paying for.

In-house, too, someone in a comms role may be reluctant to admit to a lack of knowledge, thinking that they should know – and other people expecting them to.

One aspect of communications where a bit of humility is definitely required is in internal and stakeholder communications. Like sales, the mantra ‘the customer is always right’ means having to engage with opinions that you believe are misguided, misjudged or just plain wrong. And yet, if you’re consulting with a group pf people, asking their opinions and promising to take them into account, then you have to take the knocks.

A thick skin is, of course, useful here, but cultivation of a bit more humility may help to stop the vain ego getting in the way all the time and taking everything so personally.

After all, what’s the worst that could happen? This business is rarely, if ever, a matter of life and death

Promises, promises

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:39:00 +0000

Can you keep a promise?

Like keeping secrets, keeping promises seems to carry a lot of weight with young children in the playground, who quickly learn who their friends are. But in the swings and roundabouts of corporate life, keeping promises is important with knobs on, as failing to do so is likely to have a negative impact on a brand’s or company’s reputation. An organisation that can’t be trusted is unlikely to be an organisation that will thrive.

And yet how many companies can put their many hands on their hidden hearts and say, yes, categorically, we keep our promises? When I worked for the Advertising Standards Authority, some big name brands were regularly ruled against for breaching the self regulatory advertising codes, producing ads that fell short of the requirement for ‘honest’ or ‘’truthful’ commercial communications.

But I wonder if these famous names have suffered any lasting damage as a result? I’m not sure there’s any evidence to say they have, although brand managers may be looking nervously over their shoulder if senior executives haven’t bought in to an ad that incurs the ASA’s censor.

Unfavourable word of mouth may, of course, be aggravated by negative press, which if prolonged can lead to a long-term problem for any company, possibly placing it at a competitive disadvantage. Many organisations take this very seriously and are assiduous in monitoring and evaluating their media coverage to identify problems and issues. Of course, such good practice is only of value if the information is acted upon in support of crisis, issues and scenario planning and is used to develop a strategic approach to communications.

Going back to promises, they can, of course, be made at any level of an organisation. This summer, I flew twice with British Airways out of and back into Gatwick. On each occasion, the luggage from the flight was late and each time there were announcements apologising for a ‘shortfall’ of their own baggage pickers (which I think means they didn’t have enough people).

While I’m sure the announcements were made in good faith in a laudable effort to keep already delayed passengers informed, it’s here that things started to go wrong. Hopes were raised when we were told that the pickers were at the ‘plane and our luggage was ‘imminent’. After a while we were told it was ‘ten minutes away’. Then, after about 15 minutes, we were promised a further update ‘as soon as we can’.

Oh dear. About 45 minutes after the initial ‘it’ll be with you in ten minutes’ announcement, our luggage duly arrived to be collected by a very hacked off group of travellers.

Has BA’s reputation suffered in my eyes? Yes, the management failing of not having enough staff on shift was compounded by announcements that raised and then dashed our expectations. Some passengers were hoping not to have to spend the night at the airport because they risked missing the last train home.

Will I fly with BA again? Almost certainly, so long as the destination and the price are right. Two poor experiences at the end of my flights aren’t enough to put me off completely. In the great scheme of things, the broken promise of my luggage arriving in ten minutes is small compared to the bigger promise of BA delivering me safely where I wanted to go.

So there seems to be a hierarchy of promises. Break a big one and it could be curtains; break a small one and you may be alright – but break a small one again and again and you could be toast, it’s just that the grill’s not on very high just yet.

Are you having fun?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:51:00 +0000

I like a laugh, but how much fun can you really have at work? A laugh and a joke can make a bad working environment more bearable – unless it’s at your expense, of course – but what do you make of companies that organise special ‘fun’ days for their staff?

Having an organised ‘fun’ day sounds to me a bit like having a ‘let’s try to be cool’ day – if you have to try, you’re clearly not. And yet the discerning corporate client can enjoy anything from circus skills and laughter workshops to dressing up days and outward bound courses to bond teams and relieve stress.

This theme is explored in an award winning PhD thesis by Dr Samantha Warren from the University of Portsmouth. ‘Consuming Work: An exploration of organisational aestheticisation’ (yes, that really is what it’s called) investigates organised fun and play in business.

This goes beyond ad agencies and other creative companies having table tennis tables or pinball machines in their offices, but to me it all seems rather sad. I see an image of a depressive clown with a painted-on smile and wonder what lurks behind the impulse to spend money on events like these.

In my experience, if a working culture is open and receptive to ideas, staff can indeed have fun without putting that month’s sales figures at risk. They’re places where all the talk isn’t about work, but where a great deal of productive work is done.

Such places often have thriving staff associations, and managers don’t have to worry too much about trying to make work ‘fun’. Training budgets are spent on improving skills and processes rather than trying to take the ‘fun’ out of functional. Having a joke and a laugh tends to take care of itself.

Of course, as a sole owner/manager, I could be accused of sour grapes, not having the opportunity to participate in such events myself (I could stage my own laughter workshop, but really, what would be the point?)

Just the other day, I was getting into my car after a business meeting and a man came up to me and said: ‘Can you give me a lift?’ And I said, ‘Sure, you look great, the world’s your oyster.’
How he laughed.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:15:00 +0000

The English language apparently has more than 250,000 words.

With such a huge sea to fish from, you’d think there’d be no problem reeling in the right one for the occasion. But being spoilt for choice can bring problems of its own, as there is so much scope for ambivalence and ambiguity - and so many ways of saying the same thing.

Think about the words and phrases we use when things go wrong. The wheel’s fallen off; it’s all gone pear shaped; what a cock-up/balls up/screw up, etc, etc.

But after the brown stuff has hit the fan, or whatever, there are lots more words to describe the aftermath. We can express sympathy, regret, concern, misgivings, disappointment, and so on.

But in corporate life, as in politics, ‘sorry,’ as Elton John once put it, seems to be the hardest word. In our personal lives, on the other hand, we’ll sprinkle the word about like confetti at a great big wedding.

Of course, there are understandable reasons for companies not wanting to say it - fear being one of them. Fear, that is, of opening themselves up to a law suit by admitting responsibility for something.

The thinking goes ‘if we admit to making a mistake, we’ll get taken to the cleaners, so we won’t say sorry because that implies it was our fault.’

Police services up and down the country settle hundreds of legal actions out of court ‘without admission of liability’. They believe (sometimes) that they’re in the right, but weigh up the financial and reputational costs of a court case and cut their losses.

But what’s worse for a reputation, admitting that you’ve made a mistake, or never admitting to one, when it may become apparent later on that you have?

As we’ve seen, even the Metropolitan Police said sorry when it apologised over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station.

Perhaps companies need to follow their lead.

Saying sorry needn’t get the lawyers into too much of a sweat. At some level in most organisations, ‘sorry’ is a word that passes the lips. For a customer services rep faced with an angry customer, saying ‘sorry you’ve had a bad experience,’ isn’t going to bring the walls tumbling down. It makes sense.

I’m not saying that company directors should make a habit of it. Far from it. Too much apologising will begin to look like weakness and, worse, incompetence. But there are times when no other word will do.

I hope this has been of some interest.
if not, I am truly compunctious.

Red Ted and the spirit of compromise

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:10:00 +0000

Ted Grant died last month aged 93.

In case you didn’t know, Mr Grant was the founder of Militant Tendency, which by the 1980s had around 8,000 members and three supportive MPs – prompting the then Labour Leader, Neil Kinnock, to set about kicking them out of the Party.

So what? Well, whatever you think of his politics, Ted Grant was an interesting case of someone who completely refused to compromise. He maintained his faith in revolutionary socialism from the age of 14 to his death, even though history seems to show that faith to have been completely misguided.

For most communicators, like most politicians, the spirit of compromise seems to be ingrained in the psyche. It’s often called ‘being flexible’ and ‘responding to circumstances’. Ted Grant was having none of it; after being kicked out of Labour, he was later expelled from Militant for refusing to abandon ‘entryism’ – the strategy of infiltrating a mainstream party and influencing it from inside.

For people like Ted, compromise was a dirty word; a betrayal, and something that only the unprincipled would indulge in. He was right and the rest of the world was wrong. Except, of course, he wasn’t.

Is it possible to have principles and compromise? Of course it is. It’s not only possible, it’s often necessary. For companies and organisations, the trick is in making sure that, internally, your position is stated clearly and succinctly and you know the point beyond which you are not prepared to move.

To be specific, the issue may be a negotiation with a union or board of directors; it may be contractual discussions with a potential client or supplier, or it may be a business offer, which isn’t exactly what you had in mind. Whatever the issue, organisations need to ask two fundamental questions: what will be the impact on our business and what will be the impact on our reputation?

In business, politics and life, some degree of compromise is required. You may refuse to compromise on quality, but there will be occasions when it makes sense not to be so rigid that you find your business model is out of date.

What’s that saying about the tree that doesn’t bend with the wind will break? Bend with the wind, but don’t forget what sort of tree you are.

Putting passion into the beautiful game

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:00:00 +0000

After England’s dismal failure in Germany, new manager Steve McClaren had a novel answer to the country’s footballing prayers this week: passion.

The ‘p’ word seems to be a panacea that at once distances him from his undemonstrative predecessor, Sven-Goran Eriksson, and ingratiates himself with England’s die hard fans – who are, of course, ‘passionate’ themselves.

It’s an interesting strategy. Steve McClaren made a point of saying the word. His new captain, John Terry, said it several times, underlining the change of direction it seems to point to. Without criticising Eriksson, McClaren’s first press conference before his first game in charge seemed to establish a new tone of voice, in marked contrast to the luke warm approach exemplified by Sven.

However, his declaration that: ‘I like width, I like pace, I like penetration,’ and John Terry’s revelation that he heard he was to be the new captain while having a massage, conjured up images of a rather different sort of passion. As we know, Mr Erikkson did have a passionate side, which was rarely, if ever, displayed in public.

In business management, too, passion is sometimes spoken of as a useful characteristic for leaders and an essential one for entrepreneurs. It can be inspirational, lead people to achieve great things and lend intensity to any activity.

Fine. But if you don’t live it, it’s just a word. How many employees raise their eyes to the skies when they’re told that they are to be ‘consulted’ with, only to find that a decision has already been taken? Organisations, like individuals, need to mean what they say and say what they mean if they are to have credibility.

It’s well known that England’s new man has had media training, and judging by his first performance, it seems to be money well spent. Only time will tell, though, whether McClaren lives out his passionate dream. While Meg Ryan’s famous public ‘orgasm’ in ‘When Harry Met Sally’ may prove me wrong, I think that passion is pretty hard to fake, especially over a sustained period of time.

It’s also worth remembering that Kevin Keegan was widely regarded as a very passionate England manager, but look what happened to him. Would passion be enough to beat Portugal – or anyone for that matter - on penalties? Skill, composure and confidence probably count for rather a lot, too.

As the fashion designer, Coco Chanel, once put it, rather sadly: “Passion always goes, and boredom stays.” If that’s true, maybe it’s best not to think of Euro 2008. The new Premiership season starts this weekend. That’s passion for you.

Welcome

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:48:00 +0000

Welcome to my blog.

I plan to make (fairly) regular postings on topics related to communications in all its guises - and that's a pretty big field.

As the title of the blog suggests, I hope you'll find these distinctive, thought provoking, interesting or useful, particularly if you work or have an interest in marketeting, PR, internal or corporate communications.

While most of the stuff in here is likely to focus on how companies and organisations communicate with their audiences, it won't all be work, work, work. I'm aiming for a mix of the serious and the light hearted to keep boredom at bay - for you and for me.

Thanks for reading.