The Articulate CEO

2012's Worst Corporate Twitter Blunders

Ryan Holmes, CEO at HootSuite has come up with his list of 5 of the year's biggest corporate Twitter blunders and some thoughts on how the right technology and some basic training could've helped. 2012 may have been the year big businesses finally took the big leap toward embracing social media but it’s also produced some of the most disastrous tweets in corporate Twitter history.

Here then, is Ryan's top 5:

1. Insensitive employee tweets a presidential low-blow

On Oct. 3, in the course of the first US presidential debate, President Barack Obama mentioned his grandmother, who died just days before he took office. Moments later, this tweet went out to KitchenAid's 24,000 plus followers. As outrage flooded in, KitchenAid went into apology mode, explaining that an employee mistakenly sent the offensive remark from the corporate handle, rather than his or her personal account.

Sadly, this kind of account mix-up happens all the time. Heavy Twitter users often post to multiple accounts, switching back and forth on the fly. Mistakes are inevitable. That’s why leading social media management systems like HootSuite now prompt users with a special window before they publish to designated, high-profile accounts. Setting up these so-called secure profiles is often all it takes to avert a Twitter meltdown. 

2. Major supermarket chain tries to cash in on Hurricane Sandy

There were an appalling number of  insensitive tweets surrounding deadly Hurricane Sandy. Gap, for instance, encouraged followers to weather the storm by staying inside and shopping on the store's website. But the most spectacularly inappropriate tweet comes from Canadian supermarket chain President’s Choice. The above message linked to a Halloween recipe for marshmallow bloodshot eyeballs, made by slicing marshmallows in half and placing a grape in the middle.

This comes down more to a lack of common sense than a lack of Twitter savvy. Joking about death and tragedy - or using it as part of a sales pitch - isn’t acceptable in normal conversation. It’s certainly not acceptable on Twitter.

3. Fashion retailer riffs on Batman shooting

Hours after the deadly theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., during a Batman movie, UK-based CelebBoutique sent the above tweet. It was left up for an hour before being hastily deleted in a hail of angry comments. According to CelebBoutique, their PR people were totally unaware of the shooting when they sent the tweet. The Twitterverse, however, was not sympathetic.  

When delegating tweets to outside agencies, contractors or even junior employees, assign them limited permissions. Drafts can be fed into an approval queue to be vetted by senior management before publishing, avoiding this kind of PR disaster. 

4. A CFO tweets too much, too soon

Francesca’s, a clothing retailer with stores in 44 states, started the year on the wrong foot when its CFO sent out this tweet after a confidential meeting on March 7. The problem is that Francesca’s is a publicly traded company. The CFO disclosed company info to his followers before it went public, thus sharing inside information - a violation of long-held SEC regulations. He was promptly fired.

Regulated industries - finance, healthcare, insurance and many others - face strict rules governing what they can and cannot communicate to the public. Social media is not exempt. Every firm should have a social media compliance policy and a social media management system that can archive all messages in the event of an audit.  

5. A fashion model posts racist photo, then follows up with ignorant tweet

While in Korea on business to celebrate a new store opening there, a male model for Abercrombie & Fitch clothing label Hollister tweeted a picture of himself smiling, squinting his eyes and giving the peace sign. To top it off, when followers called him out on the offensive gesture, he responded with, “Hahahaha they ruhhvvvv ittt!'.” Korean media picked up the story and furious locals initiated a campaign to boycott the store.  

We must all accept the reality that social media is a public forum. Nearly everything posted on Twitter and Facebook becomes part of your digital footprint - potentially viewable not just by friends but by employers and the public at large. In this case, it’s crucial that companies have a social media policy and share it with employees. First and foremost, emphasize that tweets are public by default and messages sent over Twitter - even on private accounts - may ultimately reflect on the company.  Many social media management systems for businesses include online tutorials that hammer this point home.  

The tragedy is that all of these embarrassing and damaging tweets could have been avoided with a little social media 101 and the right social media management system. Some simple preventative measures would have spared a lot of apologizing, not to mention angry customers and possible lost revenue.

Are We Over Being Over-Connected?

The backlash against 24-hour connectivity is gathering pace around the world amid concerns that the lines between work-life and personal life are becoming more and more blurred.

Workers who find themselves answering work emails on their smartphones after the end of their shifts in Brazil can now qualify for overtime under a new law. The new legislation was approved by President Dilma Rousseff last month and basically says company emails to workers are equivalent to orders given directly to the employee.

Brazil is one country that is well and truly over-connected. Brazil has a population of 195 million people but the number of mobile subscribers exceeded 210.5 million in August last year, according to the Brazilian National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel).

Subscriptions were growing at about 3 million a month, mostly from internet-enabled phones. There were more than 25 million internet-enabled mobile phones in the country last year.

Labor attorneys told the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper the new law makes it possible for workers answering emails after hours to ask for overtime pay. I'm not sure how successful such a request would be but it is probably only a matter of time before we see it tested in the courts.

This issue of over-connectivity has now started to pop up in several corners of the world.

In May, Chicago policeman Jeffrey Allen filed a class action suit against the city, asking for unpaid overtime compensation. He argues his connection means the city of Chicago owes him lots of overtime. His attorney Paul Geiger says it's a simple case.

"What we are saying is he's using this mobile device at the behest of the Police Department very routinely and very often off duty and not being compensated for all the time spent on the device doing the city's work," Geiger says.

The city gave Allen a BlackBerry when he worked in a unit determining which assets of criminals police could seize. Susan Prince, an attorney with Business and Legal Resources, says the deciding factor in this dispute is likely to be the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs wage and overtime provisions for American workers.

"Basically, it comes down to whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt," she says. "Exempt employees, they make the same salaries no matter how many hours they work during a week, so using a BlackBerry from home at night is not an overtime issue for them. But when you're dealing with non-exempt employees, they have to be paid for all the time they work."

It is a case that will be watched very carefully in the US and around the world. Regardless of the outcome we are already seeing an impact. In December, German carmaker Volkswagen agreed with labour representatives to switch off Blackberry emails after hours. The move came after French IT company Atos announced plans to eliminate company internal emails by 2013.

German telco Deutsche Telekom and consumer goods maker Henkel have also introduced measures to curb after-hours emails to reduce the pressure on workers to be always on call.

Are we truly over over-connectedness or is this a convenient way to excuse our own mobile addiction... after all we can always switch off can't we?

 

 

Steve Jobs - So Close and Yet So Far

In finally losing a brave battle with cancer Steve Jobs has been the subject of an outpouring of grief not unlike that seen when Princess Diana passed away. He has been eulogised exhaustively and the Apple faithful have lit candles and laid flowers at the foot of many a retail store. Most of the copy written about Steve Jobs since his death has been extremely positive with many hailing him as one of the world's great communicators but much of this commentary is hubris and more an acknowledgement of his undoubted success than a realistic appraisal of his legacy as a communicator.

He certainly left behind a dominant Apple, fulfilling his original promise to save the company from the brink when he returned in 1997. It has enormous strength in both music sales and mobile devices, and more power than at any time in its history. It has come a long way since its early days as a maverick company with pirate boxes and open schematics

But that success was built on almost machiavellian communication techniques. Apple may have been created on principals like freedom and openness but Steve Jobs didn't practice them. He was intensely private, defensive and litigious. If you are an Apple user then your experience under the reign of Jobs became less free, more locked down and more tightly regulated as the years went by. All of Apple’s iDevices — the iPod, iPhone and iPad — are shrouded in secrecy and are designed to stop users having access to their workings. Faced with criticism such as that over the effectiveness or otherwise of their iPhone 4 antennae, the standard Apple response was to deny, obsfucate and obstruct. Much of Apples growth is attributable to its brilliant design but it is also attributable to its ruthlessness in driving down costs by outsourcing manufacturing to China with factory conditions that see its workers commit suicide on a regular basis. Jobs was often hailed for his ability to reinvest profits back into the company but this also ignored that one reason this happened was that Steve made a point of banning any form of philanthropy. You look at what Apple has become and how it got there and you have to ask: Is there any tech company today that looks more like the Big Brother from Apple’s legendary 1984 commercial than Apple itself? In my opinion, Apple and Jobs are more evolutionary than revolutionary.

There is an oft repeated anecdote about Jobs that kind of sums it up - the CEO, in search of a space in the company's crowded parking lot, regularly left his Mercedes in a handicapped space, sometimes taking up two spaces. The pattern became so noticeable that employees put notes on his windshield that read, Park Different. The message was obvious - standard rules didn't apply to Steve. The rhetoric just didn't match the reality.

We can admire the design perfection and business acumen Steve Jobs possessed but I'm not so sure that, ultimately, there is all that great a legacy here. With all of Apple’s immense resources at his command if Steve Jobs had been truly committed to "thinking differently" who knows what he could have achieved. As it was, beyond some cool products he, and his company, ended up looking pretty much like everyone else in the corporate world.  Perhaps he didn't have time. Perhaps he was taken too soon. I hope so, otherwise a great man who demonstrated enormous genius in design, showmanship and stewardship of the tech world fell desperately short of his true potential.

Facebook - The Communication Tool That Can't Communicate

Why is it that every major Facebook change seems to also be a major public relations disaster? With Mark Zuckerberg, the darling of mass media, considered some sort of business guru, you would think that there would be a little more thought that goes into the company's approach to privacy, major user interface changes, and how those are communicated to the very people those changes affect.

When it comes to innovative ways to enhance or expand the Facebook experience, Mark Zuckerberg and team seem to be well ahead of the curve. But when it comes to communicating what it’s doing, Facebook seems to stuck in the stone age.

Admittedly, they do a good job getting news and information to members of the press and blogosphere who can share details of announcements to broader audiences but why isn’t anyone at Facebook talking to the members themselves? Why doesn’t anyone at Facebook ever send an e-mail to inform members about problems and how they are being fixed? Why doesn’t anyone at Facebook write up some guidelines on how to address changes to things like privacy settings? Why doesn’t anyone at Facebook post an alert on members walls to let them know that something important needs their attention?

Instead, what seems to occur is that you have to rely on your 'friends' to post information about any problems or changes and, inevitably, some of that information will be incorrect or incomplete. That makes for a very frustrating experience

Too often, Facebook fail to provide documentation on how to use new features and turn everything on by default without notice. The company posts something on its fan site and assume that every member will see it. It needs to treat its members with a lot more respect. It should be sending each of its members a link to information - either in their walls or in their inboxes - so they can easily find it and, more importantly, so that they get the correct information.

I am not a user, but the fact is that Facebook is a communications platform and the changes that are made to their interface immediately and drastically affect millions of people - people that don't have a choice in those changes. That kind of impact requires complete and deliberate transparency when communicating with your customers not the 'guess-what-we-just-did' approach Facebook appear to favour.

What Does Your Digital Footprint Say About You?

Just as consumers are becoming more and more aware of their environmental footprint so too are they becoming increasingly aware of their digital footprint.

And with that awareness comes concerns about the lack of controls available to manage it. We’re realizing that as society grows more comfortable using the web to learn about each other, our public records, data, photos, videos, and blogs may paint a picture that is less than safe, accurate or flattering.

In a recent survey by Harris Interactive around 90% of Americans indicated they wanted more control over the information that is available about them online. I suspect that, in this case, Americans are speaking for all of us.

Because people use websites and search engines to find out information about others, the fact is that our online identity is now as important as our “offline” personal or professional reputation.

It is starting to dawn on us how much information about ourselves is online and that this information is impacting how others view us. In the survey:

* 78% said they believe it is very important to look up information about people and/or businesses online before deciding to interact or do business with them;

* 74% claimed they would most likely refuse to interact or do business with a person or company if they found negative information about them online;

* 69% stated that they would be much more likely to interact with someone on a personal level if they found positive information about them online.

It means that every company and every individual must participate in the online world if only to present their side of the story. Increasingly, our online reputation is becoming the means by which we are judged and potentially the major determinant of our future success. That online reputation cannot be left to chance nor can it safely be left in the hands of others.

 

 

 

 

 

Build A Better Vocabulary

Improving your vocabulary can be done at any age and any level of education and everyone can benefit. An enlarged vocabulary has the potential to enhance spoken and written communication as well as providing a deeper grasp of any language. What's more there are a variety of ways to improve your vocabulary, most of which are interactive and easy.

One of the best ways to improve your vocabulary is to read more. Reading is clearly linked with a larger vocabulary, especially if you seek out books in unfamiliar genres or about unfamiliar topics. Either non-fiction or fiction in a wide variety of fields can improve your vocabulary and general knowledge. As you read, make a note of unfamiliar words, look them up, and write down the definition.

Another way to improve your vocabulary is to play word games. Games like Scrabble and Boggle will encourage your brain to play with words and letters, as well as learning new ones. If you play Scrabble with an open dictionary you can encourage people to try out words they might otherwise be afraid of using.

Another way of improving your vocabulary is to do word puzzles. Most newspapers include crosswords, simple cryptology puzzles, and jumbles of varying degrees of difficulty. You can also purchase books of word puzzles that become increasingly difficult as you progress.

A simple way to improve your vocabulary is to use the dictionary. Create flash cards of unfamiliar words and practice them in the train, on the bus, or when you wake up in the morning. Try to practice words in a variety of environments so that you really learn them, and make sure to use the words in daily sentences as well so that you can grow accustomed to using them correctly. If you hear someone using a word you don’t recognize, look it up!

Many websites are dedicated to improving your vocabulary, and you can subscribe to word of the day features, word games, and other fun activities which will improve your vocabulary. In addition, you may find a community of individuals with interests like yours. If you are a twitter user then follow me on @simplydefined as we try to define the world in 140 characters or less.

PowerPointless

There are three main reasons people use PowerPoint in their presentations and all three are good reasons not to!

The first reason most people cite is that it helps them remember what it is that they want to say. They can look at the slides and use them as a prompt for their presentation. The most obvious manifestation of this are the presenters who helpfully read the slides to their audience and then wonder why people are losing the will to live. Problem is I can read silently quicker than you can read out loud and the repitition isn't helping it stick. The less obvious manifestation is that the PowerPoint system becomes the entire template for the presentation. We are stuck with having to listen to someone speaking in a sequence of Titles and Bullet Points and storytelling (which is fundamental to effective human communication) goes out the window. If any of this is the reason you use PowerPoint then either start talking about things you actually know about or prepare better. As an audience we are disengaged and convinced you have a surface understanding of your subject.

The second reason people use PowerPoint is because they think it makes their presentation more interesting and engaging. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the visual source of information is different to the auditory source of information the human brain can't effectively process the two at once. The result is that one will take precedence over the other - usually the visual over the auditory. In other words, I am looking at your slides and I am not listening to you so you might as well not be there. Same thing applies beyond PowerPoint - never go through a proposal with a client. Either give it to them well in advance and then discuss or discuss it first and then leave it with them when you leave. When it comes to PowerPoint it is a case of Show OR Tell not Show AND Tell.

The third reason is perhaps the most common and by far the worst. Most people use PowerPoint because they think they have to. Everyone else does it they think so I guess I better do it to. It's just not a good reason to do anything. The bottom line is that PowerPoint is a form of electronic wallpaper and like wallpaper its primary purpose is to look pretty. Beyond that it really serves no practical purpose.

 

Google Says…

Google Suggest offers you real-time suggestions to complete your search query as you type. 

One of the factors that determines what those suggestions might be is the overall popularity of searches by other users who might have gone before you.  As a result Google Suggest is a sometimes illuminating, sometimes entertaining and almost always scary insight into the collective search psyche of our fellow human beings.

For example, type in “Tom Cruise” and the inference is that people think Tom is a high Net-Worth Movie Star Scientologist with Height issues who, despite being Gay, has been known to be involved in Risky Business with Katie Holmes.

Type in “Why my g” and you can quickly see there is a preponderance of problems with Girlfriends, Guitars and Gums… not necessarily in that order.  Replace the “g” with a “p” and the problems change to multicoloured Periods or Poop and Printers and PS3’s that just can’t get their act together.

Fun as it is, perhaps Google Suggest also offers some interesting insights into what people may think of your brand.  Simply try typing in “Your brand is” and see what suggestions are thrown at you.  It may well be the fastest way to see what people are thinking about your brand right here, right now. 

I tried it with a few well-known ones and some of the results I got were surprising:

Not looking good for re-election at this early stage is it Mr President?  Try this one…

Perhaps 3g is not the technological saviour the Telco’s would have us believe… then again maybe the public have more faith in beleaguered GM than the media…

And I think it might be safe to assume that the Mom and Pop investor won’t be heading back to Wall Street anytime soon either.

Try it yourself and try it on your own brand if you dare!