Who's job is it to serve the customer anyway?

An astute colleague asked me recently: "How long before social media becomes customer service? Will we have to keep dealing with customer queries all day?" She had a point.

Once you get to the nitty gritty of it, social media work looks very much like a customer service job. Once someone tweets you: "Hey, my XXX just crashed on me! Help!" If you're the social media person representing the company, you'd better bet you'll need to respond with a "Sure, let us help you with this. Could you provide this information..."

And yet, would you entrust a regular customer service person to handle your social media aliases?

There's much to be said about the blurring lines between communications, marketing and customer service. In a perfect world, they shouldn't be separate entities. Unfortunately, that's not the way most companies are organised.

So today's social media practitioner finds him/herself on the firing line of customer service. Of course, there are ways to manage the flow of enquiries and information. Setting up a separate alias to handle customer service, and having that managed by the customer service folks is one. But customers still see whatever presence you have online as an official channel of communication with your brand.

And that means, your messages and tone need to be consistent.

And that the customer comes first.

And that it's not a good idea to piss of the customer by not responding, or responding in a generally unhelpful manner.

Unfortunately for us working on Social Media, this means we will HAVE to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty. At least every once in a while.

This is why I am not a social media guru...

... I'm a PR consultant.

Sorry sir, we don't spin.

I guess it takes silly statements from government officials to rouse this blog from its comatose slumber.

Our Information, Communications and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Rais Yatim today said that our country needs better "Spin Doctors."

The Star says: "He also proposed that local public relations practitioners use blogs to compete with local bloggers who spin stories on all sorts of issues."

Alright, what does our dear Minister know about Public Relations? Our job is to compete with bloggers?

I'm sorry sir, you've got the whole point of having a public relations department all wrong. It's about being transparent and truthful. It's about authenticity and genuineness. If you think PR is spin-doctoring, and you're representative of our whole government's mentality, then it's no wonder the government is the way it is. Flash not substance, perception not reality.

PR's job is to correct misconceptions, not create wrong perceptions that deceive people. Sadly, yes, there are those who get this the other way around. They think PR is a tool to cover-up their mistakes, hype their shoddy products and misinform the public. Those people aren't PR practitioners.

Another quote that really riled me was:

“The more influential they are, the higher their paychecks. It’s time for Malaysia to have public relations practitioners who are well trained and knowledgable.”

Well, sir, actually we do. I've met people who are really good, skillful PR people. They know how to bring up issues, and correct misconceptions with some really brilliant communications campaigns. They know how to change sentiments and build communities.

Oh, did you mean "political" lobbyists? Err...which kind were you referring to? The kind that (does whatever it takes) to push through a favourable resolution for the client?

Maxis & Rapidshare: Communications in the thick of real-time

In case you've not been keeping up, there was some (nearly) major drama that ensued with Maxis 3G / Broadband over the last 36 hours.

It all started with MyTechNewsInfo's post on Twitter:



And he continued to substantiate the claim with a couple more posts: here, here and here. In a matter of moments, the twitter-sphere exploded with @khawchiahui, @derekw, @ben_israel, @andrewkjs, @icednyior, myself and others starting to comment.

For those of you not in the know, rapidshare is a popular file-sharing site where users can post up big files for friends to download. It is also a popular way to distribute (for example) free maps from malfreemaps (ed: thanks MyTechNewsInfo). The common theory (for lack of a direct explanation) was that Maxis had started blocking Rapidshare downloads as the traffic was getting too heavy and starting to strain bandwidth.

The main sticking point was censorship. What right did Maxis have to censor the internet, regardless of whichever site it is? (In my own opinion, if they do want to block traffic-heavy sites, they should clearly state up-front in their Terms-of-Service and let the customer decide.)

Naturally, we netizens don't take kindly to censorship and Maxis had a mini-mob in their hands. Crisis-time.

At least four of us sent notes to Maxis' official presence on Twitter @maxiscomms asking for an explanation:



The first response was less than inspiring. Instead of taking the issue head-on with the main complainants, @maxiscomms posted a general tweet about Maxis Broadband's fair usage policy! Two mistakes here: 1. @maxiscomms did not address the issue to the concerned audience (in this case, @mytechnewsinfo et al). 2. @maxiscomms posted an irrelevant response. What does a Fair Usage Policy have to do with the simple question "are you or are you not censoring Rapidshare?"



People obviously weren't too impressed by the response:





In the following hours, @maxiscomms then adopted a different tact - getting people to DM (direct message) itself directly instead of putting it out in the open. This is a legitimate tactic, and at least addresses some of the concerns above, of ignoring the audience and broadcasting an irrelevant message:



So I DM'ed @maxiscomms a simple complaint: "Maxis broadband users can't download files from www.rapidshare.com, is maxis blocking the site? Answer appreciated. Thanks." It was 10pm that night already so I didn't expect an answer till the next day.

And as you would have it, the next morning, @maxiscomms got back to me with a simple message acknowledging the complaint and saying they would get back to me. Another couple of hours later, I was sent a direct message:


So I tested Rapidshare and, sure enough, it worked. This news deserved to be spread and so, a quick tweet out:



Was greeted with testing from @mytechnewsinfo and others, who found the same to be true. The conversation turned for the better (for Maxis) and the earlier audience that complained now went back to telling @maxiscomms "Good job".

I thought to share this case as its reflective of the communications (and I don't just mean advertising) industry today. There are a couple of things I'd have done differently from @maxiscomms:
1. I'd have avoided posting the first post in the first place - it just drew more ire from Netizens.
2. When asking people to DM directly, I would have DM'ed them directly first.
3. I'd actually preferred to follow-through with a proper explanation and clarification as to why Rapidshare was blocked in the first place (technical mistake, or policy mistake?)

To their credit, @maxiscomms kept a cool head and avoided hostile remarks and responses that would have drawn further anger from the Twitter-verse.

But the one question that's keeping me thinking now is the expectation of response time and what communications departments / agencies and even the entire company needs to consider as we shift into the world of constant-internet. Consider this summation from @mytechnewsinfo:



I'd argue to cut @maxiscomms some slack as most of the most scathing discussions took place after work-hours. Complaints actually flowed in at about 6 pm on 3rd December. My DM to them was sent around 10 pm. And, understanding the communications process, I'm quite certain @maxiscomms ended up needing to put in some extra hours after work to get responses approved and to get to the bottom of the issue.

He / she probably needed to wait a while for someone who knew the actual situation (policy maker in Maxis / technicians) to brief him / her and then to work out how to communicate and what steps should be taken to rectify. This is a time-consuming process - but the internet keeps on clamouring as you're working it out.

So maybe the process isn't good enough. In the age where mass communication is more real-time than ever, and more important than ever, companies need to rethink the entire communications flow to match the age we live in.

Arguably, the process should have begun before the crisis started. I'm not sure how the process took place, but if an internet-savvy communications person at Maxis was told about the decision to block Rapidshare and asked for his / her opinion before any action was taken, I'm sure the crises would have been averted - simply by Maxis NOT blocking Rapidshare.

Communications people should now be part of business decisions at the earliest possible stage and before any concrete action is taken - especially when those decisions affect customers. Why? Because communication is real-time. It gives you a chance to avoid a communications mistake before you make it. Because you'll face an up-hill battle trying to clean-up after.

In the aftermath of Rapidshare-gate, I'm sure some of us will be sympathetic to @maxiscomms, but the question surely lingers on - why did Maxis try to censor Rapidshare in the first place? And, was it a legal move?

Update: Corrected Malfreemaps example on downloading from Rapidshare. @derekw twittered a response that while whether blocking sites at ISP level is legal is up for discussion, it certainly contravenes the MSC's Bill of Guarantees.

Can you purchase conversation?

So Nuffnang's launched a new service called - appropriately - ChurpChurp. The proposition is simple: create a way for advertisers to easily propogate "word-of-mouth" campaigns whilst allowing top tweeters (not twitterers ok?) to make a pretty penny. But the question is: "will it work?"

I'm not the first to analyse this (heavy work day and all), so you should check out these posts by Shaolintiger's and Bytebot's for additional viewpoints. What I'm really interested in is the dynamic of introducing in-stream advertising into a medium such as Twitter.

Advertising on the web isn't new and it isn't bad. Websites and blogs cost money to host. And let's face it, a good blogger deserves to make some money from his content. But I've always maintained that there's a right way to advertise and then there's the wrong way. Google's probably the best example: Adsense is genius! And Nuffnang themselves are quite the revelation in our Malaysian market (You'll notice the Nuffnang banner ad at the top of my blog.)

But banner advertising, large-rectangle advertising, text advertising have always been tolerable because they are clear and distinct from the actual content of the blog / website. And the best kind are non-intrusive - large enough that you'll notice it, but small enough that you aren't irritated by it.

Then there's the other kind of advertising. Paid for advertorials, not unlike the kind you'd find in print. The modus operandi is simple: the blogger is paid a certain sum for writing an article. And the article is added to the site's content stream (blogposts, stories whatever). Properly disclosed, the occasional advertorial can be informative, and even useful. But here's the twist: Twitter isn't a blog.

Imagine: if half your friends whom you've been having awesome conversations with on Twitter suddenly joined ChurpChurp. Then suddenly, an advertiser purchases an ad campaign where half of them get included in the automated tweet list. And your Twitter stream gets filled with 20 of the exact same tweet from 20 of your pals.

The ideal situation (for the company that paid for the ad, at least) is you get all excited about these "tweets" you're seeing and you go and do whatever the tweets tell you. Or start a conversation.

The reality, I suspect, is much uglier. You'll get irritated, annoyed by the in-flux of ads and seriously have your respect for the offending tweeter damaged.

"Just unfollow them!" I heard you say?

Well, I've thought about it. But I still love having conversations and being connected to those friends.

"Use another platform? What about Facebook?"

Well, those 20 friends don't often chat on Facebook. The action takes place on Twitter.

"Well, why don't you just tell them you don't like that their allowing in-stream advertising?"

That's probably the most sane approach. But as I hope you'll start to see, it isn't about to be so cut and dried. And if they simply refuse, well... it's become a tough decision for you.

How would you feel about the advertiser that got 20 of your friends to post tweets about their latest products or upcoming event? I doubt there'd be much positivity. Not only do those tweet-ads irritate you, they also push you to making the tough decision to follow/unfollow some of those people you may have been enjoying a great deal of interaction with. Which makes me really question the value of advertising thru these means.

If you're a brand that's looking to reach out, Twitter seems to be the perfect place to facilitate two-way conversation between brands and customers or other interested parties. It's a great place to get a great story (or a quirky one) spread around thru re-tweets too. But instead of just buying tweet-ads, these tactics call for investing into a long-term plan to maintain a company / brand presence on Twitter. Dell's a great success story. And locally, there's MAS, AirAsia and P1WiMax too.

Conversations can't be purchased. Getting 20, 100 or even 10,000 people to re-tweet your ad isn't going to generate the kind of good-will, interaction and stickiness (marketeers love this word) that creating your own free Twitter account and actually interacting with people will.

Can you contribute others' posts?

Yesterday, the Malay Mail published both ShaolinTiger and my posts about "PR and bloggers" side by side in a contrapuntal article entitled "Battle for the Internet mind". Shaolintiger posted about this on his blog, attracting many replies screaming plagiarism, copyright-infringement or the like.



Technically, it isn't plagiarism, because its attributed to us. It's possibly copyright infringement, because we weren't asked or informed. But here's a slight loophole, that I've had at the back of my mind thinking:

The whole page is framed as a reader-contributed page where the Malay Mail asks readers to send in links to anything interesting they've seen on the Net. So technically, it isn't the Malay Mail that's willfully taking and publishing blogposts, right? Readers contributed them.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm really asking an open question about the legality of this?

Personally, I wouldn't even have needed to be asked permission (permission is over-rated). But it'd have been nice to just get an email from The Malay Mail telling me:

"Hi David, we loved your post on this and this, so we're going to run it in tomorrow's newspaper. Thought we'd let you know. Oh, and don't worry about running out to get a copy, we'll send you a complimentary copy."

It doesn't hurt to be nice, you know?

On another note, in today's connected society, is the culture of taking and re-purposing something that's become a norm? I can embed any YouTube video I want without asking the person who posted the video in the first place. Can the Malay Mail 'embed' my blog into their newspaper too?

I guess that's another discussion altogether.

PR people and bloggers: why engage in the first place?

First off, I'd like to remind you that I've got a disclaimer somewhere on this blog that anything and everything posted here is solely my opinion. This isn't work related, and does not reflect my employer's opinion. It doesn't even reflect my fellow PR colleagues opinion. Any similarities in opinion is purely coincidental.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I wanted to latch on to a timely post by Shaolintiger last week to put forward some thoughts on the matter of PR people engaging bloggers in Malaysia. And problems that subsequently ensue.

I believe the crux of the issue is that there is still largely misunderstanding on both sides to this core question: "What's the point of engagement?"

To the PR person:

It's no big secret that more and more clients today are asking agencies about engaging the blogosphere, twit-o-sphere or whatever "-sphere" you can think of.

Most clients don't understand social media, and I can't help but think the responsibility falls squarely on the agency to educate them. Both PR people and clients need to understand what social / peer media can and cannot do. Expectations, goals and objectives of any kind of engagement needs to be set right.

What's your goal in engaging the blogger? So that they can write a positive "write-up" about your client's products / services? If so, I'd say paying for the advertorial is probably the best way to go.

Let me give you an alternative viewpoint: what if your engagement with the social / peer media isn't so you can see positive blogposts, but so you can involve yourself and your brand in the conversation that's going all around you regardless of whether you take part or not, and add value?

What if the objective of holding a blogger event is to listen to what bloggers have to say about your product rather than having them go home and re-printing your press release?

Social media is about the conversation. Companies can participate, or they can pay some money and take an ad. Like what an editor once told me.

My humble advice is don't think the blogger owes you anything just because they attended your event. The onus is on you, the company and the PR person advising the company, to make sure what you've got to tell the blogger is worth the blogger re-telling, if coverage is your goal.

To the blogger:

Here's what PR people can do: pre-release scoops, direct contact with some top people (CEOs?), connect you to in-depth discussions with experts from client companies, get you product samples, previews of upcoming products, and ensure your feedback gets listened to and acted upon.

Here's what PR people don't do (generally): place advertorials or do advertising. This function is the media-buying agency, whom the client pays to insert advertisements / advertorials in the right places.

PR people shouldn't be out there to get free publicity. Many are (I won't deny that). But they shouldn't be. Bang them on their head if they try that stunt on you.

PR people are not out there to con you so that you write good things on your blogs about their clients, for free. If their goal is deception, they should be hung out to dry and rightly so.

PR people are there to facilitate conversations between a company and its interested audiences.

If you're a blogger who's heard about the upcoming cool new phone and think its worth your time and space to blog about it, the PR person is your best bet to get you that hands-on with the device before its even launched.

If you have a grouse against a certain company, the PR person is the person that should be listening and taking the feedback back to the company and making sure there's follow-up. Even if its to tell you they can't do anything about it.

If you're not interested, tell them and the PR person should go away.

This doesn't mean clients shouldn't advertise on your blogs and pay PR people to get free publicity. Advertising still exists and will continue to exist. It just isn't the purview of the PR agency. Rather, the right people who should be placing advertisements on your blogs are media buying agencies who might work for the same client as the PR person. Of course, this doesn't stop you from proposing an advertising package to the PR person you're working with if you think its something that will add value to the client.

So what's the root of the problem?

I can't help but think its the PR community's fault for bringing this onto ourselves in the first place by setting expectations wrongly when working with the blogosphere.

ShaolinTiger is right when he says:

...the sooner YOU poorly informed PR hacks educate yourselves the sooner you will reap real benefits from engaging bloggers and forming relationships with them.

The key word is understand. Social media is not as simple as the one event = 8 write-ups formula many 'PR' agencies peddle to clients. On second thought, even your traditional media isn't as simple as that. We could all do with a little more thinking, research, and just asking ourselves: "Would I do this to myself if I was on the other end of the stick?"

Please feel free to discuss if you've something to add. Comments welcome.

Ryanair is the talk of Twittertown

It's 6:05 p.m. in Malaysia. Over the past hour, tweets on Ryanair seems to have just shot up. See the chart below from Twitscoop.



So did Ryanair stir the hornets nest just to generate social media publicity? Is all publicity, good publicity?

Don't let your staffers run wild...

Like kids in a supermarket running amok while mum's busy, Ryanair staffers posse roughed up Irish blogger Jason Roe over a simple mistake posted on the latter's blog.



What I find really interesting from Wired's story is that later on, a Ryanair spokesperson confirms that the comments did indeed come from Ryanair staffers and unapologetically added: "It is Ryanair policy not to waste time and energy in corresponding with idiot bloggers, and Ryanair can confirm that it won't be happening again. Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves, as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel."

I'm wondering what's Ryanair's strategy here - cheap publicity by infuriating the (local) blogosphere? It's not like the budget airline hasn't done outrageouspublicity stunts before.

Ryanair's own attitude aside, this incident also highlights the case for a proper, well-communicated social media policy for companies. Clearly, Ryanair staffers had taken it upon themselves to "educate" Mr. Roe out of their own initiative. In this day and age, with every white-collared worker spending their day sitting in front of the computer, and accessing the internet all-day, the chances are high that your staff's social media activity might run contrary to your organisation's objectives.

So should you just ban everyone in the company from blogging? Of course not.

Just lay out those rules. Share the game plan (if you don't have one, time to write one). What's the company's position of social media? (do we decide not to respond to criticism? Should only one person respond? Do we respond politely or arrogantly? etc. etc.) Define what your staff can do and cannot do, remembering that as individuals, they are entitled to some rights (blogging is still your private business, just don't do it on company time). And make sure people know these rules.

This is still oversimplifying it. But as it stands, I don't really have the time in the world to write a manual on this right now. The bottom-line is: don't let your staffers run wild... unless you're Ryanair.

Just common sense: your customers have brains too.

The golden rule for communications /PR/ customer service / anything related in this day and age has got to be: "Treat your customers with respect. They have brains." Simple thought, really, if you bother to think about it, but something I see lacking in many companies.

The latest in this trend has got to be AirAsia. See this post by KY. To avoid bad publicity, all AirAsia would have to do is act with a little intelligence and not let two people, who purchased their tickets together, with the same credit card (I'm told), checked in at the same time - be seated in different rows! What's worse is the cool, calm, collected "No" the customer service lady gives when asked if they could be seated together. Seating, apparently, is randomised.

Oh, there's more. For RM 25 a person, you could select "Hot Seats" and then you can sit together.


Given the facts, what do you, my dear thinking reader, make of AirAsia's intents?

Let me be very clear, AirAsia isn't the only company treating their customers this way. Too many other companies are. And it isn't one department's fault all the time either. Sometimes its a business decision. Sometimes, it's over-marketing. Sometimes, it's customer service treating you like an idiot ("Sir, could you please reset your modem?").

The truth is, customers aren't brain-dead. In fact, the most attractive customers, that fabled PEMB group that every client briefs you as the target audience, are savvy, thinking individuals.

They'll see through a thinly-veiled ploy to make more money. At the same time, they'll respect you giving them deep, honest, factual and frank answers and explanations. It's not like this is an overnight trend (well, I guess it is given education and literacy rates are much higher than 50 years back), but the big point is that today, just about every dissatisfied customer has a megaphone.

That's what social media is. Make the mistake of insulting their intelligence and they'll post on blogs. Grumble on forums. And tell all their friends on Facebook about your company's boo-boo. It just takes that one spark of influence to get the ball rolling down the hill.

In short, if you're planning on making a business decision, embark on a new marketing campaign or something of that sort today, please give a thought about what your customers might think of it. Don't delude yourself that your customers don't think (enough).

Random things about 2009

Let me tell you the truth - I started writing this post about three days ago and over the past three days, it's morphed from "top ten tech things in 2009" to "10 things I want in 2009" to "[insert random topic here] in 2009."

Yes, I've lined myself up right behind the 2009 post bandwagon. But not fully. I'm going to keep my list random with no set topic and no set numbers. How's that?

1. Expanding ministries and new responsibilities
It's a really exciting time for me personally at PetraYouthProductions. It's been 15 years since I grew up in this youth work and now, at my age, I'm seeing youths coming through the programme just like me. I like this year's theme: IGNITE, simply because it tells us that we're on the cusp of something awesome. The moment. And I think there'll be more than once that I'll look at the verse we chose this year: "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength." Philippians 4:13.

2. A brand new timekeeper.
My Swatch died on me ironically 5 minutes to midnight on New Year's Eve and for two days, I was looking at my wrist blankly. The replacement: a Tissot PR50. It's a pretty cheap watch too.

This is my first man watch. Yes, I'll admit, Swatch is kiddy, despite my ardent arguments the other way in year's past. Wearing this new timekeeper makes me feel all grown up. Is the new year really making me grow up?



3. Exciting times this year in the job
The PR industry is going to change big time this year. You might read some pretty good opinions here, here and here. The great thing, reading this as someone who's not based in the US, is that a lot of these sentiments reflect what's going on in the US but not necessarily Asia. Take Malaysia for example, we're looking at a media scene that's fast embracing online media, urban youth embracing social media, but at the same time, facing a big disconnect between the rural and the urban where rural people don't have internet access (nor do they want it).

That's a communications challenge. And the fact that only 15% of Malaysians have internet connections (and much fewer on broadband) points to the fact that social media will develop in a much different way than in the more matured western markets.

But I've got another point to make. This low internet connection rate has not stopped Malaysia from being one of the biggest blogging nations in this region. And I'll be one of the first to tell you that we do have a very active blogosphere that's worth communicating with. But I'll also tell you that the rules in our blogospheres are different from the ones in other markets.

Imported wisdom will only go so far, and I'd like to think there's still a lot of moulding that will take place in the Malaysian blogosphere before communications gets formalised in this space. The expectations you had working in the US, might not ring true in this local arena.

4. Stable internet, please.
You might have read my public whining on the NST this past Monday. I did not overstate it. I've simply felt that in 2008, both wireless (3G) and wired (Streamyx) internet connections have been a let down in Malaysia. If there's one tech wish I have it'll just be to get good, stable internet and better speeds.

We were promised Fibre-to-the-Home roll-outs in 2008 but that did not materialise. Well, try again this year, please.

5. Move into my new home?
Some of you might have heard of my home-building woes. I had intended to move in sometime in 2008. That didn't happen. I'm hoping it'll happen in 2009. Oh, and the early part of 2009. Please.

So there you have it. A random list of random things that matter to me in 2009. Happy New Year.

PS. Oh yeah, Robb, I want to watch 'The Rise of the Lycans starts Jan 09' can?

Talk about competitors

The cardinal rule in public relations is not to comment on your competitors, whether good or bad. If you must, at least praise them. 

So while Microsoft is going off and talking about why Vista is still a decent operating system, Apple decides to go poke fun at Microsoft's attempts by releasing two new advertisements last week.

Will this sort of "dirty" tactic drive consumers away in disgust? I guess it should, but I doubt anyone will bother. But don't worry Vista, you have my sympathy.

So you want a job in public relations...

This post is dedicated to Ya Hui, who baffles me that she'd ask me for advice on working in PR. Nothing in this post is sanctioned by my agency, Text 100. It's totally and completely, my opinion. Here goes nothing.

1. It's not about meeting people

A very popular question you ask interviewees is "Why do you want to do PR?" A very popular answer is "because I love meeting people." Don't use this answer. As often as you meet people and work with people, the PR job requires much more than that. It's about thinking, analysing information and delivering good advice to clients, then actually executing on it. That's a lot of hard work and a lot of tip-tapping on the keyboard.

2. Currency, currency.

And I don't mean money. One thing you need as a PR consultant is to be current with the news. You need to know what's going on in the country, the industries your client works in and what happened in last nights episode of Lost. Then be able to turn that into solid advice. Nope, you can't live in your own world anymore.

3. See the big picture

Context is a big word nowadays and this is something I've obsessed about in previous times past. "Thinking in the meta" is what I called it, but that's usually what (to me) makes a stand out potential hire and someone to pass by. What this means is you can see how one action can affect the situation in such a way that it creates an opportunity for the next. "If I do this now, then my competitor will do this, and I'll be able to do that." This is also what CEOs are hired to do.

4. Work responsibly

There's nothing worse than an irresponsible consultant or colleague. PR work is full of follow-ups and deadlines. And it doesn't help that one little mistake can cost A LOT. So, more than ever, to work in PR you need to be trustable, responsible and resourceful, so people know you'll get the job done.

5. Scruples

If you don't understand the word, click here. Solid principles are a yes, yes for PR work as you will deal with a lot of people and God forbid that one unscrupulous act comes back to haunt you for the rest of your career. Besides, integrity is the number one requirement for any top job - like the president of the United States.

PR people smile too much?

Was just having breakfast with an editor friend this morning and somehow, the conversation turned back towards work. My friend (let's call him D for dude), said something about PR people being all the same that kind of struck a chord with me.



As best as I can recall, that part conversation went like this:

Me: So how's are you finding the PR agencies in XXX country?
D: Well, they are all the same lah.
Me: What do you mean?
D: Haha... all PR people always come across as happy, chirpy people who smile too much and sound too cheerful.
Me: Ya what, what do you expect them to do?
D: Well, it does make sense as its part of their job, but this means everyone sounds the same.
[Me, thinking: This is food for thought]

Which is what got me to this point. Are all of us PR people just too generic-smiley? Should we throw a dash of a frown somewhere? Or a bit of a consternation-type look?

In truth, there are off-times when you can catch PR people in their most honest of expressions. By far, the best comment I got from a journalist about another PR person, was: "Why does (he / she - gender unspecified to protect the innocent) always look so constipated?" See... we do know how to have another expression other than "smile."

So here's another leaf to go into my retirement plan, one day once I'm out of this industry, I'll write a book titled "Wipe that smile off your face - how PR people can use facial expressions other than smiles to communicate."

Say hello to Singapore's newest PR / Digital media outfit

Got word this morning that my ex-colleague Karen Ho has just gone and started her new PR outfit, together with (surprise, surprise) my other ex-colleague Gavin Foo.



I must say Karen's face looks smoother than I remember :p! Check out the website here.

Two-cents worth: I think XPR is headed in the right direction and the focus on tech / digital media underlines what I see as the transformation of the industry as it adapts to the new ways people get their information, and more importantly, start conversations. The future looks bright.

Number one question to ask PR interviewees...

A thought just occured to me that I could possibly start a sideline career as an artist (besides being accused of, racketeering, amongst other things - haha). Here's an idea that's stuck in my mind for a while, of the all time best interview question to ask potential PR people. See doodle below:

Health issues and CEOs

I used to subscribe to the school of thought that CEOs were possibly the most powerful tool for any communications programme. When you look at icons like Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Jack Welch, you can't help but imagine how wonderful it would be to work in their companies or to be led by such a powerful leader. Respect.

Of course, my first client - a big name automotive brand - held the exact opposite philosophy. The CEO talks only when its appropriate for him to talk and his wardrobe is certainly not going to be pitched as a news story. I questioned the wisdom of that - isn't it pretty incredulous that you don't make your CEO out to be a thought leader and visionary? I mean, he is, after all a pretty smart guy.

My views today are much changed and I see the wisdom in my client's PR guidance toolkit. Especially when seen in the light of this story about speculation on Steve Job's current health.

Really, when your CEO is seens as that critical to the company, it's not wonder shareholders and pundits would be very concerned about the company should anything happen to him.

About PR people dealing with bloggers

Sometime ago, Text 100 (that's the name of the agency I work for...there, it's out) conducted a survey in Asia Pacific amongst bloggers. Today, the survey results are out and if you're interested in reading the results, click on here.

I'm going to cop out, be a bit lazy, and post the below points taken from the Text 100 Social Media Release (click to see videos, pictures etc.) that's going out along with the survey:

• In what is believed to be the first survey of its kind conducted in Asia Pacific, this survey highlights the similarities and differences between bloggers across APAC and their preferences for working with corporations and PR agencies.

• In a positive sign for the communications industry, 84% of respondents welcome contact from public relations practitioners and the corporations they represent.

• Electronic communication is king for APAC bloggers: 58% preferred email, followed by online comments on their blogs, as the preferred means of contacting them.

• Similarly, emailing of press releases and interviews or discussions ranked in the top two as the preferred formats for receiving content (67% and 60% respectively).

• APAC bloggers are not particular about who they engage with, but prefer to talk with active bloggers and whoever is closest to the story – not necessarily the traditional spokespeople.

• Two thirds (67%) of respondents spend less than 8 hours of their working week on blogging.

• Bloggers concerns included receiving unsolicited spam from PR agencies, and were frequently critical of the content they received, feeling it was inappropriate and unusable.

• While most bloggers ignore traditional press releases, 88% were aware of so-called Social Media Releases and indicated they were in favour of using elements such as videos, quotes, pictures and links from these releases in their posts.

• Text 100 surveyed bloggers it knew and those referred by friendly bloggers, not wanting to spam people it didn’t have a relationship with. Text 100 feels the views of the survey’s sample pool are a fair reflection of influential news, technology and bloggers across Asia Pacific.

My personal two cents on the survey and its findings goes like this:

• The survey is not conclusive and it doesn't claim to be. But it provides a useful and interesting perspective on communicating with the blogosphere. Personal experience tells me that personal experience is still king. Different bloggers vary vastly in how they'd like to have you communicate with them - if you're a PR person like me, its your job to figure what's the best way.
  
• There are a lot of the opinions in the survey shared verbatim - they could be from one, two or ten bloggers. You cannot generalise these opinions, but you should make note of them as there will be bloggers you meet who may share or disagree with these opinions. Again, I personally think the fact that the blogosphere is vast, varied and plural means that there's definitely going to be difference of opinion, and often, a very sharp difference.
  
• What Shaolintiger said is useful. Above all, bloggers are human beings and the best way to treat a blogger (like myself and yourself) is to ensure you do so with a good dose of respect.
  

Let's start a conversation about Rakan Cyber.

This bit of today's page two story in the New Straits Times caught my attention:

[Besides that], said Ismail, a new arm called Rakan Cyber, would be added to the seven others in Rakan Muda soon.

One of the main reasons was to reach out to the new generation through cyberspace - a sphere in which the Barisan Nasional government has admitted it was lagging behind.

"A lot of blogs these days paint a negative picture. That's why we are coming up with these positive blogs," he said.

To counter blogs that are "negative" let's bring out some "positive" blogs?

In the age of the conversation, I can't just help but feel that these steps are anchored in the age where "media is propaganda."

Let's have a conversation. Your thoughts please?

Say hello to the new Malay Mail

Were you Malay Mail readers welcomed by this new masthead today?



Just got back from the launch (or re-launch) of the Malay Mail - that well-loved tabloid with a 112-year history.

As background, in case you haven't heard, earlier this year, The Malay Mail was sold to publisher BluInc by the Media Prima Group. Tonight's event is the the second time the paper is reinventing itself in the space of two years, but I'm glad to report that under the hood, it's the same, familiar faces (with new notable additions) pushing the paper along.

The big change: The Malay Mail is going back to becoming that afternoon paper we all know and love. The key operating word being afternoon.

Getting to the venue, I was pretty impressed with the setup - a corridor muraled by previous editions of The Malay Mail. Sort of a mini-history lesson for me.



And the hall was packed with people:



But getting to the content of the evening, the person sitting next to me could not help but mention to me: "Why is Mr. Ibrahim mentioning "bloggers" and "internet" so much in his speech?" Actually, I couldn't help but notice that too. In my humble opinion, that's a good thing.

I sorta picked up that Mr. Ibrahim also talked about how The Malay Mail's heritage as an afternoon paper meant they were delivering people more current news than the rest of the market (remember reading yesterday's World Cup results off The Malay Mail because The Star didn't have any?) According to the man, The Malay Mail's emphasis on its online site to deliver current news was going to mirror this role it used to serve.

Flipping through the actual printed paper, the changes are quite apparent. There are quite a number of new columns - one even covers the blogosphere - from fairly opinionated people (I think I spied Amir Muhammad on the list). My favourite section - the complaints section - is back with two full pages. What's The Malay Mail, after all, without customer complaints?

Overall, I'm going to have to say that I'm slightly disappointed with the lack of lifestyle pages. Still, the focus on commentary and news is certainly welcome - if the paper can deliver on Mr. Ibrahim's promise to give us the "alternative opinion / viewpoint" that Malaysian readers today crave.

On a totally un-related matter, I also realised at the event that if you stick a huge enough logo anywhere, you can get people to camwhore in front of your logo. I'm just wondering if this is an idea that could be turned to a stunt:



On another TOTALLY unrelated matter, did I mention that the SWAG bag was stuffed with goodies. I think it puts some of us PR people to shame the sort of SWAG we give out. Here, have a look -the silver box is a 1GB USB drive: