"Cheeky" Canadian Campaigns

As a follow up to our dialogue in the comment section of Clare's blog, I promised Clare I would keep her posted as to my first-hand experience with the "Giant Colon" that visited my workplace today.
I never thought I'd have the opportunity to see the 'inside' of a colon ... not exactly something you hope to do in your life, unless you've always dreamed of being a gastroenterologist.

As I stepped into the sci-fi looking structure, I saw first hand what internal hemorrhoids look like, the equally horrific rectal cancer and the pendunculated polyps that startled me as I bumped into the protruding mushroom-looking structures.

The "entrance" or should I say "exit" to the colon:

(photo taken day of posting, April 26 2010, by yours truly Rad Nad's camera phone)

As I continued through the dark tube and took note of the advanced colon cancer growing on one side, I realized I was traveling up, and not down, the colon. You'd think I would have figured that out earlier when I came across the internal hemorrhoids.

Towards the end of the journey I reached the "cecum" which I learned is the beginning of the large intestine.  Outside, I saw a piece hanging from the colon which was the appendix.  Hope that one never bursts.  I braced myself for a potential mock "explosion" of sorts, but thankfully that never happened.

The Giant Colon Tour is an awareness campaign masterminded by the Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada, just one of the many initiatives being implemented as part of an overall PR campaign, making use of both social media and traditional communication tools and events, such as this one.

It certainly helped to provide me with a greater awareness and understanding of all things colon-related.  Good job CCAC.  For more info on this campaign, check out their website:  http://www.colorectal-cancer.ca/en/the-giant-colon-tour/introduction/

Succumbing to the Call of Social Media

Personally, I detest and reject the concept of using social media for my own inter-personal socializing; at least not to the extent that I’ve seen or heard about. The occasional email or contact between friends and family helps, as do interactions over great distances help people stay connected. But to spend any of my extracurricular time on the computer is an appalling concept to me – there I said it!!

Having said that, I’ve turned the corner and finally submitted to the call of the social media kingdom, for the purpose of academic and professional development, as I am increasingly aware of the need to be engaged on behalf of the organisation for which I work and as a member of a society that does not look back for stragglers.

I feel it is important to learn these new communication tools in my professional and academic growth. While I was slow in adapting to these new tools early on in this PR & Technology course, I feel more comfortable with it now and must admit I am thankful for the additional push; I've been meaning to try out Twitter for a while now and know it is necessary for my communications practice and knowledge level for communication strategy and implementation. We can't just expect our web communication teams to do it for us; it's necessary for us as communicators to learn and understand by doing as well as planning. We too must enter the social media realm to engage our audiences, monitor issues and feedback, provide updates and information, and guide our organisations and publics.

My initial reaction to Twitter was one of discomfort and even fear, not completely understanding what was going on. I'm still not 100% sure I know now, however I am getting the hang of it and plan to continue on my journey of learning in TweetLand.

The introduction to blogging and interacting with others' blogs was most surprising and fascinating to me. I quite enjoyed the process, the exchange of ideas and information. I see the opportunity for otherwise silent voices to speak up and I don't mean just self-serving information, but rather, similar to Twitter, providing helpful additions and insights to community discussions. I see it as an extension to academic thought and shared experience.

While on a personal level with family and friends, I will still continue to prefer face-to-face interaction and community, I plan to continue my journey of learning with these social media tools, if not for self-preservation in the communications field, then for an exchange of thought-provoking insights, tips and support to and from colleagues, fellow students, academics, and occasionally friends.

Evangelist or Communicator?

In his article Are you a ‘social media evangelist’ or a communicator?, Steve Crescenzo says:

“Some of us (and you know who you are) are turning into social media evangelists – wide-eyed, drooling, SM zombies who want to push our organizations at breakneck speed into the social media waters without thinking things through. … Some of these folks don’t even have a communication plan, but they still want help diving into social media.”

This triggered my underlying personal discomfort with the newness and unknown of social media communication, and got me asking myself:  Can we distinguish between what is right for our communications and organisations versus what is just trendy at the time?

Please do not take this the wrong way; in no way am I suggesting that we (as communicators for our organisations) should not be engaged with social media and incorporate SM into our very communication strategies and plans.   However, I do think we need to step back every time an overenthusiastic tech geek or persuasive web guru tries to sell the idea or need for every single new tool and product that becomes available.

We must keep in mind a lot of these tools are new not only to us, but to many others as well, and we need to ensure we're not being intimidated from doing what's right in each case, which requires a combination of monitoring and listening to audiences and our clients, our experience, consultation with web communications consultants perhaps, and ultimately, our gut feelings.

I think some online networks, just as in the 'real' world,  can be potentially dangerous waters. We all need to remember that and carefully evaluate every tool and strategy in relation to what is happening at the time and the need.

“If we go riding into our organizations like wild-eyed cowboys hell-bent on changing the very nature of how we communicate without taking into consideration the fear that many organizations have of social media, we’re not doing anybody any good. That’s why it’s critical that you be a communicator first and social media expert second," says Crescenzo.  "Before we can help our organizations use these tools properly, we damn well better understand them ourselves."

Are we on the defensive?

Shirky says: "Professional self-conception and self-defense, so valuable in ordinary times, become a disadvantage in revolutionary ones, because professionals are always concerned with threats to the profession."

I think this is an important point, in particular at this point of ongoing, explosive even, change in the field of communications and PR. The future of our profession is being hotly debated by academics and I would say most at the end of the day, are indicating these changes mean only increased business for PR; however, there is a need for some level of change in strategies and tools for which we use.

Should we be concerned about the future of the profession or see these changes more so as opportunities? Glass half empty or half full? Regardless, there are changes that need to be made. The core principles will never die in my opinion, but techniques and strategies will alter slightly, in some cases significantly depending on the case and time.

It is always best to be open to change and new learning, while maintaining confidence in those core skills only we as trained and experienced communicators intuitively have. With this approach, PR will continue to flourish.

Power, Responsibility and Inequality

Gigi writes an excellent blog With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. Similarly to how Gigi describes effects used in digital photography and editing, we as communicators have always had, and continue to have increasingly now, a role in creating responsible, ethical, accurate, diverse, accessible and transparent communications and representation of our organisations, brands, and audiences.

Some of this comes in the form of the written word, some is in graphical illustration, and some is by association in networks and links we provide online, etc. There are various 'touch points' in which our communications and brands quite literally 'touch'.

It is important for us to portray accurate honest depictions of reality in our pursuit of PR campaigns and goals, and maintaining a strong competitive edge in our industries.

The power in the PR role is not well acknowledged or discussed I find, but we certainly have a huge responsibility as practitioners to reject societal inequalities whenever possible and approach our strategies with a lens of inclusivity, accessibility, and diversity of our various audiences and not just focus on those who reinforce the current society's status quo.

Using YouTube to Reach Our Audiences

My classmate Ralu provides a helpful blog posting providing the pros and cons of using YouTube for uploading videos for our organisations.

I have found the use of YouTube to be an excellent way to engage online social networks at my workplace, as we provide videocasts of health care experts speaking to important topical health issues for our communities; posted on YouTube as well as our website. Our team has recently complemented this with accompanying blogs on our website, as well as an active Twitter and Facebook account and interactive e-newsletter for our communities.

The following videocast was posted on YouTube on September 26, 2007, at a controversial time when the HPV vaccine was being given to girls and young women across Canada. There was a lack of credible research-based information available on the issue at the time, and the hospital provided this videocast of a leading clinical researcher in the area to provide clarity and balance, correct inaccurate reports spreading in both 'real' and online communities, and provide support for young women and families deciding whether they should participate in vaccination. The YouTube clip was accompanied by a link to the hospital's website on The Importance of the HPV Vaccine, that provided further information about the issue. The provincial government's health ministry soon after provided complementary multi-media educational advertisements on the topic as well, encouraging girls and young women to take the vaccine.

In the future, during a crisis, this established account with YouTube will help the hospital to communicate with and reach its publics, provide updates, correct incorrect information or rumours, and generally provide another online social network to engage our audiences.

I think we as communicators are still in the early stages and have a lot of learning to do, as do most organisations in this relatively new world of communication; which is why it is still just as important as ever to strategically think through and decipher each and every tool.

YouTube is an example of a social media opportunity to provide valuable content for our online networks and communities.

On the other hand...

Check out the sarcastic jab about the Department of Finance's move to use Twitter.

Government's Use of Social Media Spoofed



Do humourous reports like this hint at an underlying perception of social media as being juvenile and unprofessional? While this is intended to be political satire, and any new reason to poke fun at government policies or initiatives are an accepted part of cultural and political reviews; there is still an underlying message there that must be tapping into its audiences' psyche, in order for it to be funny and understood universally.

We as communicators must be aware of these perceptions, listen to our publics, and tread carefully with implementation of social media tools and style, as we move forward into newer communication territories.

Are Some Industries Too Complex for Social Media?

My classmate Vivienne Wilson in her blog posting makes an important observation that I think gets overlooked quite a bit in most social media discussions:  many employees working in the public sector do not have access to social media websites at their place of work.

I too see this in my neck of the woods here in Canada, including the organisation for which I work, (a partially-publically-funded hospital); however this social media access is currently being reviewed and guidelines and policies are being developed. (My colleagues and I on the communications team have had access for a while now).

Vivienne's blog posting got me thinking more about the topic of why some organisations restrict their staff from accessing social media, and whether some sectors are too restricted by legal, privacy, or other  restrictions, to fully participate in social media, in particular at the pace expected by online communities.

I think there are two reasons why an organisation limits staff access:

1. Public sector organisations, or any sector for that matter, do not want their employees using social networking websites during work hours for fear that they will become addicts on the Internet all day and be less productive at their work.

2. Organisations want to prevent employees from communicating on behalf of their company, or from making inappropriate dialogue disclosing confidential information, or negative comments about the organization.

I think both reasons have some validity however these concerns can be alleviated by creating enforceable policies and guidelines. I still think reason #1 will be harder to contend with, as staff can easily become lured into communicating with friends or other contacts online when no one is looking; much less obvious than being on the phone. But in those cases, you have to trust your staff and focus on their performance and not micro-manage. If there’s an issue, it will show in their work. And apparently there were similar concerns every other time new communication technology entered the workforce – whether it be the telephone, the Internet itself, or social media sites. But I’m not an HR expert either.

On to what I do know, or am learning, anyway:

While organisations may choose to restrict employee access, temporarily or not, as much as this may seem contradictory in the interim, it is imperative that they do not ignore social media altogether; regardless of what sector they are in. In fact, public sector organisations may even have an increased need to communicate online in order to keep an open, transparent line of communication with their publics and ultimately, taxpayers, who they must be accountable to.

From a risk management or crisis communications point of view, organisations can not afford to ignore online audiences and what is potentially being said about them. Organisations need to be not only engaged in online social media, but also to incorporate these new communications into their strategies and communications planning.

They could technically continue to block employee access, while still engaging social media and online communities from the organisation itself, however this approach contradicts the open flow of communication to audiences, of which one is our internal audience - staff.

I’m sure with some public sector, government, and other legally-charged organisations, that have numerous bureaucratic restraints (as Vivienne discusses),  it’s even more difficult to devise a strategy for online communications. Wright & Hinson said: “tensions exist between legal functions and the public relations or communications function” and their research suggests that approximately one-third (31%) of participants in their 2009 research paper “are aware of situations in which an organization’s legal function has impacted how the company manages blog and social media communication.”

Link to Wright & Hinson's paper: 

An analysis of the Increasing Impact of Social and Other Media on Public Relations Practice 

Some telling comments come from their research respondents:

• “Blogs and social media demand real-time responses and this causes problems for companies that are required to vet all types of external communications through legal, which is not always easily done.”

• “Applying legal constraints to social media has a chilling impact on the effectiveness of modern communication.”

• “Legal will never be comfortable with social media because social media can not be controlled in traditional ways.”

On the other hand, some of the research shows that legal departments can be “a positive, proactive partner to us as we have developed guidelines for interaction with social media.”

Many organisations then, must be working with legal, privacy, and corporate strategy departments to create guidelines, and perhaps press secretaries and other government communications employees are creating similar?

Recently, I noticed Canada’s conservative federal government’s Department of Finance announce they were Tweeting the budget; that was quite the surprise, I thought.

Click here: Government of Canada - Department of Finance Announces Twitter Use

I suppose they managed to devise some type of middle ground strategy that allows them to communicate online in a time-sensitive fashion, and directs them on how to provide responses to inquiries that can not be disclosed publicly, but still communicating that.

I think this is a good example of how even some relatively conservative and bureaucratic organisations are also beginning to engage social media, at some level.

Grandma and the Big Bad Wolf

There’s nothing like cute puppies, babies, and vulnerable seniors to pull on the heartstrings. On the opposite end of the spectrum: child molestors, tax collectors and big banks are often on the most despised list.

Bring together a vulnerable grandma who’s been hoaxed, a robber, and a big bad bank, and you’ve got a top news story. Unfortunately for the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), they’ve become the wolf…err… criminal in this coverage. (wait... isn't that a lion pawing in their logo? I think we're on to something)

But that hasn’t seemed to prompt them into a well-thought out or even existent strategic reactive PR campaign. They’ve been thinking business the whole way, not relationships. Not customer service. Their communications were extremely limited, pretty much non-existent and have not been engaging online communication tools; they barely even acknowledged the incident or the issues surrounding it and that was only after being ‘outted’ by a media outlet.

Here’s the deal:

An 86-year old Canadian grandma was taken by a common fraud scam targeting seniors across North America, commonly referred to as the “grandparent scam”. The bad guy essentially telephones a grandma or grandpa and claims to be their grandson, asking them to send money for an emergency. Victims such as this grandma wire their supposed “grandson” money, in this case which she borrowed against her RBC Visa.

CBC Television ha s positioned it as the bank being the criminal and bringing their lending practices and customer relations into question, as well as the fact that the bank was initially not willing to forgive any of the credit card debt. Grandma sent two registered letters explaining her positions, and the Vancouver police department contacted the bank on Grandma’s behalf declaring her case legit, but nothing changed.

Click here for news clips:

CBC National News clip from April 6, 2010

and

CBC News commentary - Why her bank didn't protect her (April 6, 2010)

It wasn’t until CBC News got involved and began to question the bank did RBC communicate they sent a notice out to inform their staff of the scam, and finally they decided to give Grandma a bit of a break and waive the interest on the outstanding balance; however nothing was specified about the balance itself. They commented on how bad these people out there are who prey on grandmas.

On the RBC website, I can’t seem to find any positioning statements, notices for their clients or education about this scam, FAQ’s, Q&A’s, backgrounders, press releases or any sort of videocast or online social media tool related to this incident.

Their Twitter account has no mention of the incident; there have been no postings since March 29, 2010, which makes me question if they’ve blocked tweets coming in about the incident, and they certainly have not themselves communicated by tweeting about it or trying to provide helpful safe tips for clients or Canadians in general. What’s the point of having a Twitter account if you’re not going to engage with your audiences, defuse the situation a bit, and try to help things along by providing resources and information that can help people in scam situations and prevent more from taking place?

They do not have a Facebook account which is not surprising or expected. But they don’t seem to have their own account on YouTube either. They are obviously not highly engaged with online technology and social media tools and when they do, their strategy is highly controlled and are obviously withdrawing completely during a time of crisis, whether they are in the wrong or not. They are not communicating, period. Not exactly progressive for one of Canada’s largest organisations.

Is Technology Transforming PR? ...how much?

There is no doubt that Internet-based communication technology is influencing the practice of Public Relations.  The mode varies and opinions differ, however it is clearly expanding and changing communication and therefore our role in PR in some way. 

One of the models I have come across in my studies is that of Systems Theory, and it is a good example to apply to this discussion of technology’s influence on PR.

Systems Theory suggests we are all affected by our social environments and in turn we also influence those environments and societies. Within an organisation, the practice of PR involves internal and external audiences or stakeholders and social systems. The organisation, and our PR role within it, are influenced by these audiences or environments and vice versa. We have to consider different audiences when planning, conducting business, and communicating; and these audiences are broadly expanding with newer online social tools.

A key component to Systems Theory is openness; and the role of PR works to help an organisation communicate transparently, which involves two-way symmetrical communications, open public discourse and debate.

With new Internet-based technologies, open communication is much more possible, expected, interactive, and perhaps even forced, as organisations and online communities must communicate in both directions, and respond appropriately or else risk growing online negative public exposure.

Audience feedback is more important than ever and the Internet is certainly helping that along. In those cases where organisations and the PR role are not responding to feedback and engaging their audiences, they more often than not will fail in their campaigns and ultimately business overall.

I think many of us and our organisations are somewhat struggling with this newer style of communicating, trying to figure out our online “voice” and strategy.  While increasingly more organisations are coming on board and engaging online technologies and social media, I think a lot of us do not yet know how best to use them, and fully understand implications of doing so.  Really, does anyone know?  And while organisations seem encouraged to be more open now, are they doing so?  

Regardless, we PR practitioners have to be involved and engaged in newer technologies and online media, as a part of our role within a system-based model; therefore changing our role in some ways although similar communication patterns are still inherent.

With both traditional and newer online communication tools, we work to strengthen relationships between our organisations and environments, and manage issues and opportunities. We exchange information in targeted ways, as audiences are diverse, some are interactive, and all are interdependent upon one another. We must listen to audiences’ feedback and act on them to provide appropriate responses and help guide our communications' strategies.

Much of PR practice in light of Systems Theory applies even more so now with the advent of communication technologies; although things are done quicker and on more public platforms. There is a growing requirement for organisations to act responsibly and ethically, providing value, resources and information. Our organisations and roles are affected by societal trends and changing needs of audiences, environments and society’s standards at a rapid pace.

The role of PR must keep up with these changes while maintaining our core skill sets, expanding them with different tools and techniques and at a quicker pace.  We must provide strategic communication to audiences, whether online or with more traditional methods of communicating.  Research and anticipating needs and issues is part of our role, and that is now expanded with the growth of online technologies.

Stakeholder relations and reputation management will be a continued, if not more important, component of the PR role.  Being out in the public eye in this new way forces organisations to be more communicative, consistent, accurate, truthful and credible. Many of our role’s duties can now be applied online using these technologies, for example:

•    internal communications through email, online surveys, Intranet sites, blogs
•    media relations through posting of social media materials, multimedia clips, videocasting & webcasting
•    crisis communication by updating audiences with the most timely-up-to-date information in the event of a crisis using various social media tools such as Twitter
•    community relations through videocasting, interactive education, resources, tools, blogs, engagement within social media sites, encouraging feedback and providing timely and appropriate/helpful responses
•    investor relations by providing updates to shareholders on websites using interactive tools as above
•    marketing communication through online linking with partners, advertising and graphics on key websites, etc.

PR can encourage a more equitable balance of information in our environments, however it can be difficult under societal pressures, political interests and existing systemic inequities.  The nature of the Internet can in one way appear to encourage open transparent democracies, however on the other hand can isolate audiences and further create greater disparities between groups.  It can both liberate and constrain at the same time.

We need to pay careful attention to varying audience and societal needs and balance that with what technology offers and our organisations’ communication needs as well.

It is important for us to be engaged with our audiences and in various formats including online technology, while continuing our core communication strategies, planning, tools, practices and management. We need to incorporate online communities and social media tools into those strategies.

But I can’t help but think that many of us are not clear on how best to engage online and where exactly we will be going. It can add increased complexity to our roles as there are more fragmented yet active audiences as well as a sense of lack of control in the arena of social media.  Web gurus are telling us we have to be engaged or else risk isolating one of our key audiences – online communities of whom sometimes overlap with our other audiences and communities.  That is certainly something we cannot ignore.  We all have to be there, and although we will plan for some of it, I think there's still a lot we don't know and will have to figure out as we all go along.  A bit disconcerting, but necessary. 

For those of us who are self-confessed social media 'newbies', at least we're in the same boat.