Pulling Employees: Five Es For Internal Audiences

As much as people talk about pull communication for customers, there is another audience that needs it. Employees.

Even when I speak to public relations students, I always include at least one class that reinforces just how much impact external communication has on internal audiences. My concluding point is always the same — the best communication happens from the inside out. Today, this concept is especially true as the barriers between the two are largely non-existent.

Five Es For Better Employee Communication.

• Engagement. Ongoing and open two-way communication that travels from the bottom up as much as the top down. Employees who feel connected to top management tend to outperform companies who feel disconnected, especially in an environment where more CEOs seem accessible to customers. At minimum, employees deserve to know first.

• Education. Ongoing education, training, and information that goes beyond company updates or departmental functions often provides a context greater than the confines of a single job description. One of the best internal communication pieces I had ever read for a utility was a five-part series on the history of natural gas. The employees thought so too.

• Empowerment. Setting goals and actions for employees is always important, but communicating that employees can make recommendations helps establish their ownership of a particular job function. The concept is what put Dana Corporation on the modeling map years ago.

• Encouragement. While leading by example is critical, demonstrating that an employer is capable of performing specific duties (if not already engaged in them) can invigorate teams. I saw an example firsthand when the general manager of one of the premier hotel brands in the world paused to "fluff" a chair cushion.

• Exemplification. Recognition for individuals, teams, or specific actions that go beyond the privacy of personnel reviews set precedence and help create corporate culture. One of the most successful campaign launches for a new health care program we developed for one company included visible incentives for those who enrolled early.

When you really stop to think about it, the same companies that have successfully developed social media programs are the same companies with internal communication programs that range from better than average to the best in the world. In fact, when looking back on the top ten list shared from EngagementDB last Monday, I'm a bit remiss that there was not more emphasis on the work behind the work that helped make these companies successful online. That work is internal communication.

Picking Channels: Amazon And Zappos

Not everyone understands why Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos chose YouTube and Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh chose a blog post to break yesterday's $807 million* acquisition while reportedly ignoring mainstream media on the front end, but I think I do. Hsieh all but says it in his post.

"Over the next few days, you will probably read headlines that say 'Amazon acquires Zappos' or 'Zappos sells to Amazon'. While those headlines are technically correct, they don't really properly convey the spirit of the transaction," Hsieh wrote.

Less obvious in the statement but demonstrative in example, the Bezos video is even more telling. Take a look.



Still unsure? Both Bezos and Hsieh have a story to tell. And neither of these stories would overshadow whatever the mainstream media might happen to ink about the deal. In effect, intentional or not, Amazon and Zappos may have demonstrated why social media sometimes means more message control, not less. Or did they?

Social Media Meets Message Control?

Sure, there absolutely were news releases sent out and none of them include the more colorful quips about home-based power grids and purchase ding dongs as seen on the Amazon video. They do, however, carry quotes aligned with the direct communication via the Zappos blog and Amazon's YouTube video.

Ironically, while both the reflective and visionary are apparently confined to singular sound bites, the details of the purchase price are all over the map. Amazon released $807 million. Most reported $847 million. And TechCrunch estimates $920 million. Some of the numbers can be easily attributed to stock fluctuations. Some cannot.

Much more interesting than the numbers is the simple idea the mainstream media was initially left out. In doing so, the companies seemingly have more control over the message as most mainstream media seems content to run with what was provided.

ZD Net seems a little less impressed, taking the time to answer its own questions since nobody else is willing to. Fast Company has written all sorts of amusing things about the communication, which means they may be less than amused. Meet The Boss even sent out a news release that it had some sort of exclusive interview with one of the elusive CEOs. The story, however, doesn't really seem to measure up to what it was reported to be.

Even The Wall Street Journal has a mash up of what everyone else seems to be saying. All the while, no one seems to have direct contact with the sources.

Social Media Tends To Be Messy.

Do people really think the initial story, broken on public channels, was designed as an externally transparent internal communication to the employees of both companies? Weird.

It seems more likely this was a public communication designed for anyone who was interested in hearing it (with Bezos and Hsieh being the most interested) while establishing what Amazon and Zappos want the message to be. Is that a good thing?

I haven't decided. I like both companies well enough. We have good enough relations with Amazon, and its nice to know Zappos will still keep its home in Las Vegas (for now, anyway). I also have to admit that both the notion of internal communication shared with the public first or the idea that corporate posturing without probing questions from the media gives me goosebumps.

After all, this bit of communication clearly demonstrates that social media, for all its praise of being open, two-way communication, could take a turn to being completely closed if the public allows it. Given that the public doesn't really care about the deal (not until it affects purchases) and those who did mostly offered a quick "congrats" and moved on, it seems like the public absolutely will.

Choosing Spokespeople: Social Media

Two posts, one by Doug Meacham, multi-channel retail consultant with IBM, and another by Chris Brogan, president of New Marketing Labs, struck a chord with me this morning. It seems to be a reoccurring conversation offline: communication folks, marketing professionals, public relations pros, and executives keep asking how they might keep their personal lives personal as their companies enter social media.

The short answer: you can't.

Once you are a semi-public or public figure, there is little chance of going back. As Brogan points out, it's a commitment. Part of the unwritten contract is that as a representative of a brand, you are always on and more people will want to connect with you.

It's also one of the reasons I took exception to the company attempting to sequester all of its employees into a social media marketing effort. Aggressive, disrespectful nature aside, not everyone is suited to be a spokesperson. And even those who are don't appreciate the consequences of being such.

While being semi-public or public might be part of the expectations for anyone in public relations or communications or leadership or any other job skirting the confines of celebrity, it's just not so for the greater portion of the population. Even among teens, who freely share personal information, they still maintain some semblance of privacy because their accounts have yet to be dialed in as a de facto company spokesperson. Their openness is often relative to association.

Choosing an online company spokesperson.

Choosing spokespeople or online representatives for a company is not all that dissimilar from choosing who might appear on the evening news, assuming they understand up front that the camera is on all the time. Here are a few quick tips:

• They have some authority with the company (even if outsourced)
• They are presentable, with better-than-average writing skills
• They are knowledgeable about the company and industry (or learn it)
• They are compassionate and make emotional connections
• They can write tight, without too much industry jargon
• They are familiar with the tools, communities, and customers
• They can establish positive experiences and remain steadfast
• They need to have a sense of what boundaries to set for some privacy

They do not always have to have the title of CEO nor do they have to be a recent college grad granted the title of social media director as opposed to public relations assistant. (I'm often amazed how many companies assign social media titles to new hires that the same company wouldn't trust on a television interview, but that is not to say some won't surprise you.) Above all, they need to understand communication from a strategic perspective while being able to execute that communication as a community developer who is willing to be semi-public if not freely public (even if they operate a team account).

Amber Naslund has been contributing a few posts on the subject of community. I would encourage anyone to read them. But there is something else I might add.

Two-way communication doesn't stop between a representative (in-house or outsourced). The information they glean from the community or customers can help shape other communication efforts and sometimes the products or services themselves.

Making Myths: Public Relations On Social Media

There are a couple of public relations firms in my market that have mistakenly adopted the notion that social media is free, much like a shrimp cocktail, hot dog, or breakfast buffet used to be in Vegas. As the old adage goes, you get what you pay for. And in this case, the only thing their clients get is indigestion.

Case in point, I was recently forwarded an internal e-mail sent to all the employees (and ex employees) of one company, which was recently advised to adopt social media because it's free. The pitch presented the myth: social media is free because you can require your employees to market for you. In fact, they concluded, the more employees, the better the reach.

How Do Executives Interpret A Free Lunch?

The executive not only bit, he sent an e-mail that smacks of astroturf in the making and might be illegal (which is why we omitted the offending company's name). And instead of a free lunch, all he received was an internal crisis communication situation of epic proportions. How do I know? If it wasn't epic, someone would have never forwarded this to me...

This is not a request.

If you are receiving this email, you are part of the acme company and we all need to participate in these marketing efforts.

By the end of the week, we will audit the sites and if you have a facebook page and did not sign up, you will be written up.

Participation in making our company better is never an option.

SIGNED

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

While it would certainly be easier to illustrate what is right about this e-mail (um, nothing), there are dozens of reasons to reconsider the free lunch concept. Here are the top ten reasons why marketing executives cannot eat for free, especially when they are really asking employees to pay for it on the backs of their friends and family...

• Requiring employees to turn personal accounts into mini-marketing vehicles is wrong.
• Asking employees to work overtime without compensation is wrong and could violate federal labor laws.
• Not every employee is suitable as a customer service spokesperson, especially if they're sequestered.
• Most employees are already overburdened with work and don't need online marketing distractions.
• Some employees share painfully vivid personal information about themselves online, better left unshared.
• Most social network accounts are personal; asking people to blast family and friends is futile.
• When employees leave, and one day they will, they will take those customer connections with them.
• Launching a social media program without a strategic communication plan increases company risk.
• Customers feel overwhelmed visiting Facebook pages or groups with a 10:1 employee-to-visitor ratio.
• Participation in making a company better is ALWAYS an option; it has to be earned by an employer.

Whereas no one can blame the executive for hoping employees might give the business a boost, the launch and entire program is fundamentally flawed. And, after the e-mail, even those employees who might have been inclined to promote the company were turned off by the apparent lack of mutual respect.

From what I've seen, a second marketing person tried to save the day with cheerleader follow ups, but the real kicker was the second e-mail from the marketing executive. It wasn't an apology nor did it exhibit any sense of empathy. His next e-mail retracted the threat, conveyed desperation (but we'd still like you to be our friend), and concluded that "open communication between all levels of our team is important in maintaining long-term success and a happy work environment."

As for those employees without Facebook accounts? They are not required at this time. (Seriously.)

Bad Communication Is A Sign Of Bigger Problems.

So how did this all start? Simple enough. The company is in trouble. And as a solution, its public relations firm offered up the notion of social media as a free lunch. While we don't know if they suggested it as an added value service (free) or for an additional monthly consulting fee, we do know the why behind the lie. If all the employees had signed on to spike the social media reach of this company, the public relations firm could have added the outcomes to its column inch counts. Sick.

Sure, digital communication is moving forward. Social media presents some compelling case studies. It can augment other communication efforts for a fraction of the cost.

However, not all public relations firms can make it work. Most lack the skill sets. How can you tell? If they open with the notion that social media is free, run away. If they fit somewhere on the carpetbagger list, find a new firm. And if they boast about taking seminars for six months to become experts, they are the furthest from it.

As the above e-mail illustrates, a little bit of knowledge about a subject doesn't make someone an expert. It makes them dangerous.

Engaging Customers: Top Brands Online

Wetpaint and the Altimeter Group released a study today that confirms what seasoned communicators with several years of experience already know. Deep engagement with consumers through social media channels correlates to better financial performance. How much?

Companies engaged in social media grew company revenues by 18 percent over the last 12 months. The least engaged saw revenues sink 6 percent over the same time period.

"The closer any company is to its customers, the better, and it's hard to argue with the ability for social media to create such proximity," said Ben Elowitz, CEO of Wetpaint. "In this day and age, companies should feel much more comfortable investing in social media -- the correlation to results is so clear."

The study also concludes that companies which only establish an online presence — present in a few social media channels (Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) that push messages and seldom engage customers or those spread too thin across dozens of channels — tend to see lackluster returns on investment.

Who are the top ten brands engaged in social media?

1. Starbucks
2. Dell
3. eBay
4. Google
5. Microsoft
6. Thomson Reuters
7. Nike
8. Amazon
9. SAP
10. Yahoo!/Intel (tie)

You can find the entire study via an interactive Web site. Starbucks, which has one of the most prominent engagement strategies demonstrates it understands all strategies require central coordination, each social media channel requires different engagement, and leading company participants understand and can mitigate risk.

Companies often implement technologies without a clear view of how they fit into and support corporate goals. They thus end up with a bunch of point solutions, but no strategy — and worse, no results, with increased internal and external risk.

What does the study mean for smaller businesses?

Companies, regardless of size, need to move beyond tactical considerations and realign their communication plans to fit strategic goals with measurable results. All of their communication decisions need to be grounded in research before companies launch any number of social networking accounts, blogs, and other online technologies.

As mentioned last week, we recently conducted a market intelligence study on a niche industry that should be outperforming despite any economic constraints. However, as this niche tended to rely exclusively on traditional marketing and tactical communication, we were not surprised to find that 15 percent of these businesses had closed in the last six months.

Ergo, even small business needs to reevaluate its communication plans from the bottom up, with those including social media being the most likely to succeed. However, keep in mind, simply entering into social media — creating a fan page or Twitter account — is hardly enough and may even be detrimental. How detrimental? Come back tomorrow.

Changing A Down Economy: It's Psychology

At least once a week in this market, someone tells me their company is holding off on advertising, marketing, or social media until the government can fix the economy and the market improves. And every week, I give them the same advice to think about.

The economy is not your company's problem, it is your company's psychology that is a problem.

As part of what our company does every day, we research specific industries in order to find strengths and weaknesses within specific niches. We do this for many reasons, ranging from our own market intelligence purposes to specific research, forecasting, and communication recommendations for an assortment of clients in this market and elsewhere.

One cursory research study we recently completed tells the story aptly enough. According to research, this particular niche outperforms in a down economy. And, sure enough, in most markets across the country, this particular niche does excel. Except in this market. In this market, 15 percent of businesses operating in that niche have closed. Why?

Localized, national, and global markets behave differently, but with similar psychologies.

Jeanne M. Liedtka, faculty member at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, knows. Writing for The Washington Post's leadership blog, she suggests that many businesses have adopted the same strategy as Goldman Sachs — "hunker down, cut costs, batten down the hatches, play it safe, and wait for the economy to turn around."

Her advice? Change your psychology, followed with four solid tips for businesses on any playing field (paraphrased below).

• Conduct some research to help you understand your company and its place within the market.
• Do something, even if it is small, to demonstrate the value of an idea that can propel the company forward.
• If your company has to lay people off, resist any temptation to cut across the board and focus on keeping performers.
• Learn to embrace uncertainty rather than allowing it to immobilize your company with fear.

The economy is not your company's problem, it is your company's psychology that is a problem.

There was some cautionary advice left in the comments of Liedtka's post too. Several stood out, but one worth mentioning came from Giancarlo Newsome, who works with Clockwork Solutions.

"The advice is reasonably sound but there are some significant mines in this field of approach that have been laid that must be exposed... the HOW is critical," wrote Newsome. Hmmm ... how indeed.

While it's always prudent to ensure that internal ideas have not descended into what Kurt Vonnegut once described as badges of friendship or enmity — Their content did not matter. Friends agreed with friends, in order to express friendliness. Enemies disagreed with enemies, in order to express enmity — the how is useful as long as it doesn't immobilize the do.

Sometimes the how needs to come from the first bullet rather than an internal vote on the individual popularity of various people and badges of friendship or enmity (or worse: entitlement, rank, and position) within the organization. If it doesn't, then the organization stands to go the way of Goldman Sachs' thinking.

For that one niche that ought to be over performing in this economy (mentioned earlier), 15 percent have already proven the outcome of that thinking. As the old saying goes, one definition of insanity is someone who does the same thing over and over, and expects a different outcome. It's time to change your organizational psychology. Or has it changed already?