Also interesting to note is which departments have control of the initiatives. For internal initiatives it’s the IT function; for customer-oriented initiatives it’s Marketing.

Twitter has met all three of these, with a newspaper report today revealing the ‘Twitterscape’ of London – a map with contours corresponding to the density of Twitter posts – or ‘tweets’. On the map, mountains represent the busiest areas with valleys showing where the fewest tweets originate. The map was created by a ’Tweetographer’ from UCL’s Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, who has undertaken similar studies in New York.

What this does show is the degree to which Twitter has taken hold, with Londoners posting 430 tweets a minute on average compared to 670 per minute in NY. This research should dispel any doubts we may have about the growing influence of social media tools such as Twitter – a tool that all PR people should have in their toolbox if they are to successfully reach and engage young people, especially those in our major cities.

For those who didn’t see it: following the outcome of the general election, but before the creation of the coalition government, Campbell and Boulton were, somewhat unusually, interviewed standing side-by-side by another interviewer. Provocative as ever, Campbell put the case for a Liberal/Labour alliance of some sort, given that the Tories did not achieve an outright majority.

Increasingly irritated by this, Boulton begain interrupting, prompting the totally unflappable Campbell to suggest Bouton was upset because David Cameron had not (at that point) become Prime Minister. Unable to step back from the argument, Boulton instead went head-to-head: “Don’t keep telling me what I think” he demanded, becoming seemingly oblivious to the camera and the attempts by his Sky colleague to intervene and restore some order.

So was this compelling? If it had been two politicians hammering away at each other, the answer would almost certainly have been yes. After all, that makes great TV, and was one of the main reasons so many people tuned in to the presidentrial style debates in the run up to the election (only to be, in the most part, disappointed).

But a broadcaster’s political editor getting into a slanging match live on air? Frankly, I found it embarrassing. As my former colleague Justin Crosby writes in PR Week: “He showed he lacks the gravitas of Dimbleby…and looked out of his depth.” Aggressive interviewing in an attempt to force an answer from a politician is one thing, but getting drawn into an argument, is another thing entirely. The point at which an interviewer allows it to become personal and ends up becoming the news, rather than reporting it, I believe they have crossed the line. My view is that Boulton crossed that line, losing his dignity – and credibility – in the process. But what do you think?

There have been a number of such incidents of late, from the now infamous ‘Duffy-gate’ affair to scribbled notes passed from one (now ex) government minister to another complaining that they were being sidelined in the election campaign. And back in the news yestarday was the mistake made by former Metropolitan Police anti-terror officer, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, who was pictured carrying highly sensitive documents relating to a forthcoming police raid, as he stepped from a taxi.

What all these people have is that they are “ex” ministers and “former” top police officers. What they also have in common is that they were all recorded or pictured saying or doing things they came to regret. Any PR adviser or media trainer worth their salt should be advising clients to think very carefully, not just about what they say during an interview, but what they say and do on their way there, and immediately afterwards.

Senior business people and politicians today are under scrutiny like never before, with their every move captured by live microphones and telephoto lenses. And as the media converges, radio broadcasts are increasingly being filmed and broadcast live on TV, making body language just as important in a radio studio.

Likewise, although people are far more nervous about three minutes on TV compared to two hours with a journalist over lunch, the latter is generally far more dangerous, while a drink at the bar at the end of an industry conference is a great place for jounalists to hear much “careless talk”, which can be published within minutes. If in any doubt, take the advice of Calvin Coolidge, the US President from 1923-29, who was nicknamed ‘Silent Cal’. He once said something along the lines of: “I learned early in life that you never have to apologise for something that you haven’t said”. Wise words indeed.

Of course, there are times when the media hears every word loud and clear, often when you don’t want them to. Off-the-cuff remarks or off-hand comments are almost always picked up and inevitably end up leading the news schedules. It’s normally much harder to make yourself heard, either above the general noise, or above the critics in a time of crisis.

And in a crisis, the only way to be heard is to act quickly but calmly, with senior spokespeople from the beginning. First impressions count in a crisis and it’s essential to engage both promptly and positively from the outset. It’s also important to be seen to keep your promises. BP’s CEO Tony Hayward was criticised in the news pages yesterday for apparently flying home, just days after saying he would remain in the US until the oil leak had been successfully tackled. In any situation, if you lose the trust of the media, you are also likely to lose the valuable third party endorsement you need to maintain credibility with key stakeholders. And then you will not be heard, no matter how hard you try.

Firstly, they (the media) cannot print what you don’t say. If you don’t want it to make the headlines, then don’t say it in the first place.

Secondly, you never have to apologise for something that you haven’t said. History is littered with people who should have known better, and who end up desperately backtracking, apologising or making a last-ditch attempt to save their company/brand/career/reputation (delete as appropriate) having said something for which they later have to apologise.

Why am I telling you this? You’ve guessed it; Gordon Brown’s unfortumate comments in the back of his limo after a walkabout while on the campaign trail ahead of next week’s general election. As he was driven away from an encounter with a voter, and with his microphone still live, he made those comments, for which he first apologised live on national radio before returning to the individual’s house to apologise in person.

While some gave credit for the apologies, the damage was done. My advice to anyone in the public eye is to assume you’re live and on air, all the time. And that advice is not just relevant to politicians; a conference can be one of the most dangerous situations encountered by a senior person in any industry, especially in the evening over a glass of wine at the venue’s bar.

You should always be ‘on duty’, never let your guard down, assume everyone’s a journalist and that everything you say will be written down and used in evidence against you. If you live by those rules, you stand a fighting chance of having a desk to return to the following day. But if you do insist on saying it, then remember to turn your radio mic off first.

But it’s a dark art. Is it even possible to stimulate or manage word of mouth? A McKinsey study out today gives some insights into how to measure it, at least.

One point in particular got me thinking. The dominant form of word of mouth is “experiential” — i.e. 50-80% of the time, when people talk about an organisation, it is to describe an unexpected experience. Not just good or bad, but unexpected.

Consumers rarely complain about or praise a company when they receive what they expect. Complaints when airlines lose luggage are a classic example of experiential word of mouth, which adversely affects brand sentiment and, ultimately, equity, reducing both receptiveness to traditional marketing and the effect of positive word of mouth from other sources. Positive word of mouth, on the other hand, can generate a tailwind for a product or service.

This means that generating word of mouth is less about what you way than about managing expectations, understanding what stakeholders think and know already, and what they will find positively surprising (echoes of Made to Stick).



Source: McKinsey Quarterly

A few key ideas about what contributes to “word of mouth equity”:

1) Content of the message. Functional messages (e.g. what does it do) are more effective than emotional messages (e.g. how does it make me feel)

2) Identity and credibility of the speaker: 8-10% of consumers are “influentials” — trusted as competent.

3) Environment: where does the word of mouth circulate? “Messages passed within tight, trusted networks have less reach but greater impact than those circulated through dispersed communities”.

This simplifies the dynamic enough not to bend the brain too much…

Trawling back through a month of neglected RSS, I came across this study from Pingdom (via Brian Solis) finally giving some hard data to compare the age groups that use different social networks.

We all know the importance of segmenting audiences and choosing targeted channels to engage with particular groups, and it’s great to be able to quantify that old gut feeling that bebo and myspace are for kids and linkedin is for grownups.

Lots more interesting stuff — including how skewed the age distribution is towards older users. This keeps coming up in web stats so it shouldn’t be surprising, but somehow the notion of social media being a youth phenomenon just persists.

Check out the original study:

http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/02/16/study-ages-of-social-network-users/

…and Brian’s insights

http://www.briansolis.com/2010/03/the-age-of-social-networks/ ]]> http://www.pinnaclepr.net/blog/2010/04/social-media-demographics/feed/ 0 http://www.pinnaclepr.net/blog/2010/03/tears-before-election-time/ http://www.pinnaclepr.net/blog/2010/03/tears-before-election-time/#comments Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:19:00 +0000 Duncan Hart http://www.pinnaclepr.net/blog/?p=193 We have recently witnessed a new phenomenon; influential men (and Peter Andre) breaking down on TV, showing real emotion and revealing the ‘inner man’.

Gordon Brown on Piers Morgan’s show, and Alistair Campbell with Andrew Marr have both been overcome, and who can forget Peter Andre shedding tears as he spoke of how he would fight for custody of his children? While I have no doubt about the authenticity of these emotions, the appearances must have been carefully calculated, especially Gordon Brown’s appearance on a pre-recorded show, the very aim of which is to show the real face behind the celebrity mask. The Prime Minister, under fire on a number of fronts, must have decided that it wouldn’t hurt to appeal directly to the electorate. Anyone would think we’re in an election year.  

What’s interesting though is that I saw the results of a survey published in a newspaper recently, following his appearance. It showed that, while people empathised more with the PM than they might have done previously, and perhaps understood him better as a person, most didn’t feel more inclined to vote for him than they would have done before. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s PR people underestimated just how savvy and sophisticated the British public have become, and how wary people are as to what they perceive as ’spin’. Shedding tears on TV may be good for the soul, but may not result in additional support at the ballot box. Successful communication today needs to focus on substance and sustained engagement, not one-off, one-way communication – even when it tugs at the heartstrings.