Virtual Reality is the New 3D Frontier for PR

It’s become a truism that new technology can spark dramatic changes in business and society. In recent years, a confluence of new social, digital and mobile tools has totally changed how people access, create, track and share information. Communication disciplines like PR and journalism have been irreversibly transformed, though many are still struggling to adapt to the new reality. Well, the laggards better hurry because the next wave of change may be here, and it is virtual reality.

I recently had the opportunity to join a webinar by The Gronstedt Group that positioned virtual and augmented reality as a potential game changer for many industries, including public relations. The Gronstedt Group has been working with clients on the cutting-edge of technology for years, notably using 2D virtual environments like Second Life as interactive platforms for employee training and collaboration. But the emergence of new and affordable 3D virtual or augmented reality devices has changed the game – again.

There are obvious reasons why virtual and augmented reality has huge potential as a communication platform. The 3D environment is an immersive, powerful multi-sensory experience that goes well beyond 2D content like video or computer games. It’s the ultimate 360 experiential media. As such, it can carry more emotional and dramatic weight than video.

The other key development that will drive adoption and usage is the increased affordability and variety of VR tools, with the best example being the Google cardboard viewer ($15) which can be used with a smart phone and a special app. That’s a far cry from Facebook’s Oculus Rift (which requires a headset and special PC bundle) or the even more advanced HTC Vine – which allows for positional tracking. So the barriers to entry for both users and producers are getting lower every day. On the augmented reality front (which combines digital content on virtual screens with the real environment) the introduction of Microsoft’s HoloLens opens the door to broader corporate and consumer use.

Early examples of VR content demonstrate the huge potential for this technology. Though initial efforts focused on interactive gaming and specialized training (like medical training, flight simulation and even an NFL module to train quarterbacks) we’ve seen a range of exciting VR applications in journalism, marketing and entertainment. Notable examples include a ground-breaking virtual video story by the New York Times in April 2015 (distributed via free Google VR headsets) and a gruesome VR film shared at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January to dramatize the Syrian refugee crisis. (The director of “Clouds over Sidra” called his VR film the ultimate empathy machine.) In fact, the New York Times now provides a wide range of content in VR through its website, making a big play for what is calls “virtual reality journalism.”. Google’s Expeditions VR program has allowed half a million students to go on virtual field trips to global landmarks like Machu Picchu and the Great Barrier Reef. It’s now possible for home buyers to visit virtual open houses through VR content. Just this week the New Yorker magazine produced its online issue with augmented reality digital cover featuring the NYC skyline.

You can also imagine some fascinating applications for VR with the employee audience – my personal passion. Imagine a virtual onboarding session featuring video interviews and 3D brand visuals, or “micro” learning sessions with Google cardboard viewers. VR also opens the door to much more engaging, immersive digital training sessions (perhaps to introduce new products) or even virtual exhibits – like a 360 corporate museum. There are of course also huge opportunities to leverage VR technology for core business applications, like product development, data visualization or collaborative brainstorming. (Check out the Google Tilt brush application, which allows users to create 3D paintings.)

Virtual reality essentially opens the door to a new art or communication form. This is important not just for the sake of creative license or technological progress, but because the virtual outcomes will be more compelling and immediate, and the communication process itself more effective and impactful. This is a new frontier for communication disciplines like PR. Let’s hope communication professionals are paying attention and proactively take advantage of the VR technology.

The Employee Journey – Towards Advocacy or Attrition?

The folks in marketing have long sought to define the typical customer journey, detailing key ‘touch points’ where content, advertising and other activities impact the sales process – either for good or bad. This practice has become more sophisticated, and useful, as social media and mobile technology has dramatically altered how consumers make their purchasing decisions. In this infographic I tried to demonstrate a similar construct for workers in the typical employee journey. This example is generic, but I believe it can be serve as a useful foundation for strategic planning.

I tried to highlight a few key points in this visual:

A wide range of factors influence employees on their work journey: workplace programs and policies, company vision and strategy, corporate reputation, internal communications, external influencers, peers, management style, workplace environment to name a few. Needless to say, the formal communication process is only one part of the equation, albeit an important one.
There are several key players in the employee journey beyond the internal communication team, notably core functions like HR, IT, Marketing and the C-Suite. Too often companies fail to integrate and coordinate the efforts of these teams to execute a holistic and strategic engagement strategy. For example, many companies struggle to present a consistent, compelling message (and image) from recruitment through the interview process to the first day on the job.
Much like in marketing, there are usually a few ‘moments of truth’ for employees that will help determine whether they are/remain engaged fans of the company or become disenchanted and critical, becoming either dead weight or leaving altogether. These inflection points include obvious landmarks in the employment journey (e.g. orientation, annual performance reviews, compensation changes) but also important announcements and multi-audience events, such as mergers or major change efforts.
I didn’t try to detail specific communication tactics for each stage of this employee journey, but clearly an important objective is to match the right content and channel for each of the key ‘touch points’ in this journey. There are some helpful best practices for developing a cogent communication program that targets key situations (for example, boosting face-to-face outreach during difficult or complex change efforts) but I would argue each company needs to define its own roadmap based on their employee preferences, workplace culture and other variables.
What is the typical employee journey for workers in your company? Perhaps there are several distinct paths based on different roles and profiles. Whatever the case it is useful to understand this path from the employee perspective, which will help those managing the process – be it HR executives or communication professionals – to be more responsive, relevant and effective. Ultimately, the lesson here is parallel to the marketing model – to truly be effective we need to put ourselves in our employees’ shoes.

Does Truth Matter Anymore: The Corrosion of Public Discourse

Last week I read the ‘What was Fake’ column in the Washington Post, designed to uncover and debunk hoaxes on the Internet, was shutting down. The reason: a combination of too many hoaxes and too little impact. In effect, nobody seems to care about the truth anymore. In fact, there is a growing cottage industry of websites generating a stunning variety of incredulous stories, the more outrageous the better. At the same time, there seems to be decreasing returns in trying to set the record straight. Debunking appears to have lost relevance in this age of hyper-partisan politics and media echo chambers. The article suggests that “ institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake.”

This disregard for truth is being played out prominently in the political realm. One end of year report by PolitiFact tallied up a list of the least truthful politicians, which detailed a percentage of exaggeration and lies shocking even in a political campaign context. (Ben Carson wins the dubious crown.) But Carson, Trump and others seem to care little about these third-party assessments of their credibility. In fact, rather than being embarrassed or admonished they almost seem to relish the controversy, and use the occasion to vigorously attack the credibility of the ‘mainstream media’ and claim the findings are politically biased. Any contradiction or question is angrily (or sarcastically) dismissed as an adversarial personal attack. Carly Fiorina has developed a refined model of this response: she stubbornly, defiantly repeats her dubious claims (such as the discredited abortion video story) in spite of overwhelming evidence her story has no merit. In this context opinions, policy positions and arguments are often trumpeted as facts – as if repetition and conviction obviates the need for actual empirical evidence.

This trend spans across the political spectrum, and damages the quality and relevance of public discourse for all politicians. There are no winners here in the long-term. For while provocative statements may excite a small group of voters in the short-term, all politicians will ultimately suffer in an environment where arguments (and accusations) can be made without corroboration, objective vetting or third-party analysis.

Perhaps most troubling is that the most ardent followers of these politicians-in-waiting seem immune and uninterested in any fact-finding or evidence that contradicts their favorite pols. Even if they acknowledge a story might be a stretch, they admire the fact their candidate isn’t afraid to rock the boat and share his/her real views. In essence, facts don’t seem to matter much anymore, at least in public discourse. There is information on the Internet available to back any claim, no matter how outrageous, and standards or probity have become largely subjective. Fact-finding sites and third-party sources are often dismissed as biased or elitist. The result is a population that is dangerously misinformed, or at least willingly misguided, on a range of issues. They believe what they want to believe, and nothing will change their mind.

Trying to subvert or ignore truth is nothing new, of course. In recent years we’ve seen this on a grand scale, notably the attempts by the tobacco and gas industries to bury evidence and create their own narrative to suit their business interests. But what may be new is the prevalence and prominence of hoaxes and half-truths in the public realm, and the realization that many citizens don’t seem that alarmed. The result can be disastrous for the public good, as in the case of the tobacco lobby activities.

It remains to be seen whether the majority of citizens will push back and demand that their leaders be transparent and truthful, or at least responsive to legitimate questions. Either way, the erosion of truth and objective analysis raises critical questions for the PR industry. It’s an easy temptation to join the parade and counsel clients on crafting and promoting their own narrative without consideration for evidence or credibility.

But this is an opportunity for serious professionals to focus on their core values and principles (which likely feature honesty and ethics) and provide a grown-up perspective to their clients. Think of reputation as a long-term game. Don’t just say the key message, but do the right thing. The emergence of social media ushered a welcome premium on authenticity, transparency and respect for consumers. It’s my sincere hope that the PR industry can help reinforce this spirit and ensure facts remain an integral part of our public discourse.

 

The New (and Improved) Role of Internal Communications Professionals

The Internal Communication function is changing dramatically, largely by necessity. And that’s a good thing. Much like peers in other communication disciplines (as well as more distant professional cousins in marketing and advertising) IC pros are reinventing themselves in the face of tectonic shifts in technology, communications and consumer behavior.

The trends driving these changes are powerful and inexorable: pervasive social communications; ubiquitous mobility; popularity of digital (and immersive) content; 24/7 data analytics; and the growing influence of consumer advocates, citizen journalists and user-generated content, among others. With regard to the workplace itself, communicators face additional developments and challenges – including chronically low engagement, generational clashes and seemingly endless transformation and downsizing. Collectively these trends are causing deep soul-searching about the relevance and value of traditional HR strategies (i.e. performance management, reward and recognition, training programs.)

Given these dramatic changes, internal communicators need to play a very different role than a few years ago to remain relevant, credible and effective. Here are the key components of this new communication role…call it Internal Communications 2.0:

Integrator – By virtue of their unique position at the nexus of internal and external communications, leadership outreach and internal support functions (e.g. IT and HR), IC pros are in the best position to facilitate coordination across teams and regions to ensure goals, activities and messages are aligned and coordinated. This is particularly true with major cross-company programs like internal branding or M&A outreach that lack an obvious leader. This critical integration role is more than being an enabler – which is more passive – and assumes the IC pro will stretch beyond his/her functional mandate to fill a role that often isn’t well defined or staffed. Without this integration, however, most company programs will probably fail.

Data Analyst – It’s become a truism we are drowning in a sea of data. Big data. Small data. Consumer data. Even employee data. All communicators need to become educated, if not resident experts, in the gathering, analysis and communication of this information. This area is particularly ripe for leadership inside organizations, where many HR teams (traditionally the keepers of workforce data) lack the expertise of marketing/PR teams and are struggling just to update their surveying models. And relegating this role to IT teams, who often manage intranet and platform statistics, isn’t good enough, since those teams usually lack the skills the review the raw numbers for analysis and insights. IC pros should lead the process of collecting, aggregating, assessing and responding to the rich data available on their employees.

Content Curator – IC professionals use to be the primary authors of content in their companies. That role is still important, but it’s become even more important to act as curators of content, helping to blend and share news and information from leaders, external sources and the employees themselves. Some of the best stories and ideas come from employees, so IC pros must ensure there are channels to collect and post this content. There is still an important role to provide editorial guardrails to ensure all shared content is ‘brand safe’, but that’s where communicators need to be more curators than gatekeepers. There is also an important role to play in acting as interpreter for leaders, who are sometimes well intentioned but ineffective and reluctant communicators. Whatever the source of content, the emphasis on authentic, compelling and timely information has made the traditional one-way communication model irrelevant and ineffective.

Listener – One of the most valuable roles IC pros can play is simply to listen to their internal stakeholders; to uncover, understand and respond to the concerns and preferences of employees. Though many inside the typical organization are responsible in some way for listening and responding to employees – notably front-line managers – most usually focus on sporadic, face-to-face interactions and don’t strive to pull the input together into a coherent, actionable narrative. Internal Communication pros can and should play this role, and also steer the company’s response to the input (perhaps through new policies or programs.) This listening role can be formal (gathering data through internal surveys and audits), part of the daily role (community manager for internal social platforms) or mostly informal (lunch meetings with staff or local in-house reporters.) Whatever the approach the IC professional becomes the most accurate and current advocate for the employee community.

Innovator – In many companies no department has the formal responsibility to foster innovation inside the organization, save perhaps a small strategic planning function. Often, the marketing or PR function take on the mantle, but their efforts are usually narrow and may not consider issues like workplace technology and business or entertainment trends. Conversely, most HR and IT teams lack the desire and/or bandwidth to drive innovation inside their organizations. This innovation gap is an opportunity for IC professionals, who have visibility and impact across the organization. Even small innovations like new social platforms or communication content (interactive infographic) can send a strong message and spark more ambitious planning across departments. Two examples of how IC teams can drive innovation across the enterprise is through employee advocacy programs and virtual employee ‘jams’, which often spur the adoption of social technology across the company.

Expert Counselor – Many IC pros have garnered reputations inside their organizations as ‘go to’ experts on not just communication, but a range of related issues like employee engagement, corporate reputation and emerging technology. Given that IC staff frequently brief, interview and/or counsel leaders as part of their work, they are perfectly positioned to share their insights and counsel. The role of wise counselor is not easy to gain or keep, but it’s well worth the effort. Leaders today are looking for smart analysis and cogent guidance, particularly on emerging business trends, and those who provide that will gain in profile and credibility. A caveat: this counsel should be strategic, not just focused on tactical execution – a shortcoming which has eroded the credibility and standing of the IC function in the past.

Trainer – IC pros that gain expertise in new technology and current workplace trends can train leaders and peers to raise the acumen and strategic agility of the organization. Much of this work typically involves working with senior leaders to help them communicate and lead more effectively, but the mandate need not be so limited. Many leaders yearn for guidance in areas as disparate as blog writing, social interaction and cultural events – all areas where IC staff can lead. Companies with social platforms often rely on IC staff to facilitate the training on relevant policies and platform use. The training itself should be as contemporary and dynamic as the information (think e-learning and gamification rather than traditional face-to-face sessions or death by Webinar.)

Multi-Media Storyteller – It’s well documented that often the best way to share information is through a compelling, episodic narrative shared across media formats. Internal Communication teams are ideally positioned to drive this process internally, pulling together capabilities like writing, design, promotion, video, social technology and executive outreach. As noted previously, communication staff should be the ones who uncover, shape and help share the internal stories. IC teams also usually manage their company’s intranet, which can be a powerful multi-media delivery channel if used effectively – the Swiss Army knife of internal tools. Conversely, teams that stick to outdated communication channels (email) and styles (formal text) are missing an opportunity to break through the clutter and truly engage their audience.

Culture Ambassador – Though HR has historically taken the reins to promote culture inside organizations, IC pros are probably better positioned to help define, celebrate and promote a company’s distinctive culture. IC teams often have strong capabilities in marketing, messaging, social dialogue, digital content and even collateral – which together can pack a powerful, convincing punch. Furthermore, IC pros often take on the role of employee advocate inside their organizations, ensuring that the needs and aspirations of employees are heard and considered in decision-making. The purpose is not just altruistic, but an effort to ensure communication is relevant and credible. The emergence of employee advocacy, virtual meetings and crowd-sourcing programs only reinforces the role of internal communicators as keepers of the culture.

It’s true that taking on these new roles likely entails more work – or at minimum very different work – and certainly more risk and responsibility. And it assumes a great deal of research, networking, learning and adapting – and that never stops. But inertia is not really an option. Failure to proactively take on these critical roles – which too often go unfilled – will limit the function’s value inside an organization, and probably erode the team’s reputation and credibility. It’s taken years of effort for IC pros to get a place at the proverbial leadership table and gain the reputation of strategists, not just order-takers or tacticians. Now IC pros have the opportunity to not only secure their place at the decision-making table, but to expand their traditional role and enhance their reputation. It won’t be easy, but the effort is well worth it.

Authenticity (Without Limits) is Not Enough

This recent post in Huffington Post on Hillary Clinton’s authenticity (or lack thereof) got me thinking about the evolution of authenticity as a paragon of communication. In recent years, the immediacy and transparency of social media has increased the premium on authenticity – being true to your identity or person and avoiding artifice, hype or self-serving promotion. Over the years I have worked with numerous leaders and politicians striving to identify and promote their identity and genuine brand attributes – to be authentic. The premise is that an informed and empowered consumer (or voter) will not accept a disingenuous or fabricated persona, or marketing message. I still believe that striving for an honest, credible portrayal of oneself (or a company or culture) is critical, but is it enough? I’ve concluded that being authentic, in of itself, is not enough to foster lasting relationships with your audience(s).

Let’s take Donald Trump as a prominent example. Trump is unapologetic about being himself – for better or for worse, whether he contravenes political correctness or not. He ignores political conventions and etiquette, he blusters (apparently without script) about any topic, and he liberally throws around vitriolic insults at anyone who dares criticize him or his persona. Throughout this process, Trump seems to relish in being Donald Trump – or the persona he has crafted and become in the public consciousness.

At least for now, Trump’s recipe seems to be working. In fact, Trump’s very popularity seems largely based on his unscripted, honest and blunt commentaries and policy positions – which often contravene GOP orthodoxy. He is the consummate outsider (at least in political terms) and the opposite of the typical poll-driven, predictable and deliberate candidate. Other candidates seem to be either trying to ignore him – with varying degrees of success – or to emulate his dogmatic, no-holds-barred style. (On the democratic side, one could argue Bernie Sanders is benefiting from a similar wave of support for his direct style – albeit a more polite and humble version. Other pundits suggest Joe Biden, who has not declared his candidacy, would have the most equity on the authenticity meter.)

While Trump has garnered the headlines and the support, the cautious, reactive campaigns of other GOP candidates have generated more credibility problems than excitement with the public. Politicians like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, along with Hillary, are the anti-thesis of Trump. In fact, all three of these candidates have suffered due to their lack of candor, sincerity and accessibility on contentious issues. Based on polls I’ve seen, most Americans seem to question the authenticity – or trustworthiness – of these candidates. Their outreach seems designed not to share candid personal views or insights, but to sell a proactive electoral platform and carefully crafted persona. These candidates may at their core have real beliefs and policy ideas, but we’d be hard pressed to judge which ones are entrenched and which are promoted for political expediency or to avoid controversy. In other words, they are having difficulty making the case they are authentic.

But there is another side to Trump’s transparent “deal with it” persona. Yes, he certainly appears to be a distinctive personality and has carved out his own unique style. He is, in short, authentic and entirely original. But what of the view that he is also a bigot and misogynist? Or woefully ignorant of political minutiae and world affairs? Or laughably egotistical, thin-skinned and petty? All of the those criticisms have some strong proof-points and cogent advocates. In other words, he may be real, but is he a positive, effective candidate to be president of the country or is he a self-promoting clown?

I would posit that by itself authenticity isn’t enough if the person or brand being featured doesn’t align with the values, beliefs and aspirations of his/her supporters (or consumers.) In other words, you also have to be relevant, credible and yes, even likeable. What is the true value in an authentic narcissist or bully?

I would also argue that beyond an authentic personality, there needs to be authenticity for the actual ideas being promoted by candidates like Trump. Indeed, there is likely value in having passionate, consistent and convincing ideas (and content) rather than chasing polls or simply tossing out bumper-sticker slogans with little intellectual or empirical heft.

The focus on authenticity has also obscured the reality that politicians (and companies) need to do more than talk about themselves – they have to listen. And respond. And presumably also accept the ideas and criticisms of their followers or consumers. One could argue the implicit contract with fans or consumers – on social platforms but also through traditional media channels and political settings – is that the discussion should be civilized, with a measure of decorum, fairness and balance – like any reasonable conversation. That’s the basis of code of conduct for public communication in many organizations, and what keeps discourse on the web from becoming a troll free-for-all.

I’m not certain Trump is willing or able to show this level of civility, humility and empathy. Being elected, or selling a product, is not a one-way conversation or license to be obnoxious under the guise of being honest and unfiltered. Even if you are an authentic original. For these reasons I think Trump’s wave of popularity is not sustainable. Will he actually be the GOP presidential candidate? The jury is out, but my guess would be no.

Food for Thought from the 2015 Report on Internet Trends

Every year Mary Meeker from Kleiner Perkins shares her comprehensive report on internet trends. The report not only provides a great snapshot of technology trends and developments, but also a useful backdrop to compare how the communication profession is tracking on these changes. In this post I’ve selected a few highlights from the report that have particular (or potential) relevance to communicators, with a focus on internal communications. I’ve included questions (in italics) that should provide fodder for discussion among communication professionals.

• The internet has become increasingly mobile. Devices have made access possible from anywhere anytime, and content has shifted from text to photos to video. Will PR and internal communications follow this trend of rapid evolution to multi-media mobile outreach? (Many companies are still trying to adopt responsive design.) Can “buy buttons” be replaced with other relevant alternatives?
• Meeker presents a great example of innovative IC – an employee manual from Guidespark that is entirely digital and accessible via mobile. How many companies are still using paper-based files or outdated CMS programs?
• Consumers can choose from a plethora of messaging apps to communicate with peers and companies; Meeker lists the top ten globally. What is the status, and future, of messaging apps in most corporations? Can employees get 24/7 mobile access to peers without a firewall.
• Meeker uses one excellent slide depicting the wide-ranging benefits of mobile messaging (e.g. casual yet fast, real-time yet replayable, instant yet secure.) How many of these messaging benefits are available inside corporate firewalls?
• There is strong evidence in the report that what workers (in this case millenials) want/expect from an employer goes well beyond pay and benefits. For example, millenials expect flexibility at work, as well as a tech-savvy environment that features social capabilities (ideally BYOD) they are used to. They also value training and development and flexible work more than other common workplace perks and benefits. How many companies are focusing their efforts on their training and development programs, flexible hours and other millennial priorities?
• Consumer expectations for accessing information have changed dramatically in the digital age: consumers want to be able to get what they want when they want it. In other words, the consumer is in the driver seat. How many companies are actively trying to deliver on this mantra with their employees?
• User-generated content is powerful and prominent in the digital age. As Meeker puts it, content is increasing user-generated, curated and surprising. Are companies encouraging and curating the content and stories generated by their employees? Are employers leveraging their employee stories through advocacy programs?
• The modern workplace has evolved in several important ways: jobs have changed, technology has changed, worker expectations are shifting with each generation, and the business context has changed, among others. How many of these trends are really being considered and addressed by employers and communicators?
• Consumers are using social platforms like Snapshat and Periscope to create and share video stories – many in real-time. Are employers providing the tools to allow employees to generate and curate similar video stories – both inside and outside the firewall?
• The report features strong evidence employers are not in sync with the priorities of millennial workers. It’s about meaning and opportunity for younger employees, not money. How many companies are still basing their “employee value proposition” on outdated, incorrect assumptions?

How many of these trends are top of mind for you and your company?

Employee Advocacy – Game Changer but Not a Panacea

For the past few months there seems to be growing buzz in social media (and communication) circles about employee advocacy. Companies like IBM, Target, Dell and Starbucks are sharing positive updates about their programs. Employee advocacy is clearly being pitched as the next big thing, and with good reason – as you can see later in this post. But despite the huge potential benefits to companies (and employees), staff advocacy programs are not a magic bullet, and not for every company. Like any other social media program, you need to be smart, realistic and deliberate about your approach. So I’ve developed a checklist of issues communication pros should carefully consider before they embark on an advocacy program.

Before I get to the checklist, let’s review a quick definition and look at the rationale for employee advocacy.

Employee advocacy is mobilizing trained employees to share company-approved content through employee-owned social channels to engage consumers, peers and family. (Italics are intentional, underlining critical elements of an advocacy program.) Advocates typically do not have social outreach as a formal part of their jobs (like subject matter experts who blog on the company’s behalf.) In essence, advocacy programs allow your employees to tell your company story.

As for the potential benefits of employee advocacy, they have been well documented and are backed by robust research and results. At its core employee advocacy helps amplify your marketing efforts, increasing the credibility, reach, audience and engagement well beyond levels for typical corporate outreach. This can translate into a boost in a company’s online profile, reputation and fan base. But the bigger payoff is through the potential for an increase in sales leads, revenue and profits. Enlisting your employees in an advocacy program can also help drive staff engagement, and given the stubbornly low engagement levels, that’s a very good thing.

Beyond the profile boost for your branded content – the explicit messages you are sharing – advocacy programs send powerful symbolic messages to both consumers and employees. For employees it says: your ideas matter, we trust you, we believe in our company and we support your personal brand. For customers it says: we’re part of the conversation, we live our values, we’re proud to tell our story, we trust and value our employees and we’re a leader.

So with all this promise, why shouldn’t companies start an employee advocacy right now…if they haven’t already? The short answer is they may not be ready. The list below provides a good template for readiness for an advocacy program.

• Can you be authentic? – To be effective long-term, employee advocacy programs must authentically align with their culture, brand and employee interests. Authenticity is a central ethos of social media, with a premium on transparency and responsiveness. That means no hype, no fluff, no dishonesty and no hiding. Does your company’s marketing and PR content truly align with these values?
• Is your culture toxic? – Very low employee morale or engagement is not a good foundation for an employee advocacy program. Ask yourself if your employees are likely to be positive and supportive as online ambassadors? If you’re not sure, you need to fix your culture before you think about advocacy. It’s true that many companies start with small pilot programs, but author/pundit Jay Baer said it best: “If your employees aren’t your biggest fans, you’ve got bigger problems than social media.”
• Do you have social infrastructure? – Although there are good technology platforms that companies can easily adopt to manage their advocacy programs, companies with limited or no social capability and/or cultural acceptance will have a much steeper learning curve and a tougher time driving adoption. It’s also important to have internal systems that allow (even foster) multi-directional dialogue and content sharing.
• Is your social media policy overly complex or restrictive? – No matter how well you design and execute your advocacy program, it will lag if your social media policies confuse or inhibit your employees.
• Is your content compelling? – Perhaps the biggest barrier to a successful advocacy program is stale, self-serving content. Boring is bad. Leading companies use a formula that emphasizes industry and employee-generated content (multi-media of course) over typical marketing content. In other words, treat this as a conversation and not a pushy hard sell – which is anathema in social media.
• Do you recognize and value your employees? – Good advocacy programs do a great job of recognizing and rewarding participants. (IBM even ranks the most prolific and popular advocates.) Do you already have credible programs in place to recognize your staff? Are you willing to make your employees the stars of the program?
• Will you be social in good times and bad? – Any social media program requires sustained commitment to be credible and relevant, and advocacy programs are no exception. Shutting down during a crisis will create a backlash and erode your credibility. Furthermore, your staff will likely want to have their voice heard in tough times.
• Are you good at listening? – Beyond the marketing boost, a big advantage of employee advocacy programs is the acquisition of content-related data and insights on your customers and employees. If you are not already in the mode of listen-learn-adapt, however, these benefits will be lost on you.
• Do you trust your employees? – The most important litmus test of any advocacy program is whether you trust your employees. The best programs assume their employees have good intentions, and give their staff plenty of leeway – including choosing the role and content that fits their skills and interest. Programs that are dictatorial or stifle creativity will not be successful. Monitoring and discipline should be a last resort, not a default out of the gate.

It’s likely true that a good advocacy program can actually help fix many of the issues listed above. But I would suggest you start with a strong foundation. Walk before you go social, as it were.

When Trying to Change Minds, Facts are Not Enough

As communication pros we’ve always had a tough challenge, but drafting and communicating a message these days is more difficult than ever. Beyond the long-standing requirements of clarity, relevance and credibility we now must address the emerging demands for trans-media content, real-time conversation (and adjustment) and targeted delivery across social platforms; all in a context of decreasing trust for leaders and corporations. It turns out that even if we satisfy all these best practices, we still face a major hurdle. Indeed, new research suggests that even the strongest factual messages may not be enough to change minds. Chalk it up to confirmation bias.

If you’ve ever wondered why even the strongest arguments don’t seem to resonate with a particular audience – even when supported with cogent evidence and presented by credible sources – this research by IPR has the explanation. In a recent study IPR author Christopher Graves found that when people are shown evidence they may be wrong, they not only discount that evidence, they become even more extreme in their original belief. […] While it may not have been particularly surprising that people cling to their beliefs to the degree that they filter out any evidence that challenges their beliefs, an unexpected finding of the experiment was a backfire. The study goes into interesting details about the physiology and neuroscience behind this phenomenon. One particularly interesting finding suggests the messenger of information is critical, since outsiders will automatically elicit skepticism: To avoid being rejected from the get-go, you must choose representatives with whom each group feels comfortable, messengers or narrators who send the proper cues that identify them as in-group members. 

Though I’ve long known people initially discount information that doesn’t suit their particular viewpoint or narrative, I was surprised by the lack of importance (or power) that facts have if they go against the prevailing views of the target audience. Furthermore, it appears the more you try the wrong approach, the more you polarize the audience and diminish the resonance of your argument. I suppose this information bias helps explain how seemingly smart, curious individuals can have such different opinions on major public issues (notably climate change) and are not swayed by evidentiary facts that contradict their position.

So what are PR pros to do with this information? I suppose the first decision is whether to throw in the towel and abandon probity and factual evidence as tenets of content. After all, if the facts don’t really make a difference with many people, why even bother? Let’s just jump on the hype bandwagon and sell snake-oil. Assuming we want to maintain our ethical stance and remain committed to telling the truth – in whatever format and channel is most effective – there is a potential path to success.

The IPR research itself suggests that the answer to overcoming strong confirmation bias can be overcome with the following strategy:

• Affirm/recognize the audience’s core values
• Argue the position through an emotional narrative
• Choose an in-house messenger to reinforce, if not carry your message

It’s interesting to note that this roadmap in many ways echoes the increasing focus on influentials and storytelling in successful social media programs. It also suggests that it’s easier to change minds through conversation (and intellectual compromise) than just turning up the volume or frequency of your message.

I look forward to additional findings and guidance from this IPR study. For now, the lesson is that using facts and logic to convince a skeptical audience – no matter the underlying value of the evidence – will not only fail without the right strategy, but will likely backfire and permanently discredit your argument. Another good reminder to think before we act.

Talking Points the Bane of Public Relations

In recent weeks I’ve witnessed several instances of public figures using talking points, or planned messages, in ways that should make every PR professional cringe.

Perhaps the most visible example was the brouhaha surrounding Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, when Governor Pence appeared on talk shows to defend the proposed legislation – which was widely criticized for allowing, perhaps even encouraging, discrimination against the LGBT community. In one widely publicized interview, Pence methodically repeated his key talking points – including the widely debunked argument the Indiana RFRA was identical to a law passed by other states – even as the host provided detailed evidence to the contrary. To make matters worse, Pence repeatedly avoided answering a direct question about whether the law allowed discrimination against LGBT consumers, reverting back to stock messages that were not relevant. By most assessments, Pence did not fare well in the interview, yet his discredited talking points lived on even as the legislation was amended (despite Pence’s earlier claims to the contrary) to reflect the widespread criticism.

In fairness, this stubborn adherence to irrelevant or misleading talking points isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum. Last week US Senator Bob Menendez was indicted on criminal charges of bribery and corruption. The surprise wasn’t that Menendez pleaded not guilty, but that in his remarks he defiantly pronounced his innocence and defended his actions with arguments (and messages) that strained credulity given the scope and detail of the accusations. Undoubtedly, we will hear his script repeatedly as we wait for the legal process to unfold.

Like many communication professionals, I believe there is great value in proactively planning speaking points to position your argument (or product or policy) in the best possible light. I’ve trained my share of leaders on this practice. But there are several critical requirements to ensure this is done effectively, meaning the messages are relevant (in some way relate to the question and circumstance), supported by proof points and perceived as credible, or at least plausible and appropriate. It’s also important the messages be adaptable and evolve to reflect their resonance, or lack thereof, with observers. Worse case scenario, the audience or interviewer could disagree with your position, but not call into question your bona fides or integrity.

Unfortunately, the practice of talking points has become pervasive and perverted in recent years. Now it’s common practice for politicians, for example, to align on a set of partisan messages and repeat them with numbing frequency, notwithstanding the occasion or even the question. In the worse cases, these talking points are often misleading, if not outright fabrications; more slogans or aspirational headlines than information. What used to be shared as opinion or suggestion is now peddled as fact. The thinking appears to be that if you repeat something often enough – even if it’s not accurate or relevant – people will start to believe it.

Maybe the most surprising aspect of this is that the speakers appear oblivious to the fact their statements do not pass the sniff test. Witness the recent announcement by Senator Ted Cruz he was running for President. Cruz’ stump speech (ironically headlined with the theme of truth) is littered with sweeping, provocative claims that have been widely debunked, and not just by the obvious suspects on the other side of the partisan divide. Yet, Cruz appears happy to continue repeating his punch lines, presumably content that his target audience (conservative Republicans) is quite happy to believe in his worldview. My issue here isn’t with Cruz’s arguments or politics, but that he appears totally unconcerned about the widespread, repeated questions about the veracity of his statements. What me worry?

Like other industry observers, I suspect this neo-propaganda model of talking points owes something to the most infamous examples of intentional misinformation: the tobacco industry’s decades-long denial of health hazards from smoking. Other industries – notably the oil and gas sector – have followed a similar model of incessant lobbying fueled by massive advertising and marketing, all scripted by carefully written narratives and slogans with a tenuous relationship to truth or public interest. Now politics seems to have fully embraced this campaign model, designed more to shape public policy and sway voters than to educate or foster dialogue.

The problem with this paradigm, I would argue, is that the cumulative impact of this disputed, polarized messaging is the eroding credibility and relevance of the process and the messages themselves. Does anybody really believe what the politicians are saying? Or does having evidence to back your messages even matter anymore? A number of recent surveys on low levels of trust for a wide range of sources – notably politicians, journalists and corporate leaders – suggests there is a serious credibility gap in public discourse.

The result of all this, I fear, is collateral damage for the reputation of the PR profession, already struggling with accusations of spin and ethical lapses. All communication pros should carefully consider their own actions in these situations. What are the values and principles that guide our counsel and behavior? I believe our profession needs to take a stronger stand with our clients or company leaders, and promote a more authentic, relevant and cogent messaging strategy that can stand up to objective scrutiny. In short, stand up for the truth.

Social Skill Gap in PR Fuels Crisis of Relevance

Over the past few years, I’ve often questioned why so many communication professionals – both in-house and in PR agencies – were slow and hesitant to adapt to the dramatic industry changes sparked by social technology. There are many logical explanations for this lag: caution about legal issues, concern about a public misstep, fears about rogue employees, a distaste for real (and potentially negative) interaction with consumers…the list goes on. But based on recent research I’ve seen the explanation may be more basic: most PR professionals simply don’t have the social media skills and expertise to be effective (or confident) advocates for change.

This excellent post by friend and former colleague Richard Binhammer provides a good summary of the skills gap in marketing and across the general US employee population. Indeed, the problem is not limited to communication professionals. However, this is where the problem is most acute and noteworthy, since our jobs dictate that we provide cogent, informed counsel and support on digital engagement with both external and internal audiences. By some estimates in these studies, only about 10 percent of workers truly understand digital technology well enough to incorporate that knowledge into their work and planning. For more background on the PR skill gap see this article and this study.

Even millennials, who tend to be much more tech-savvy than older workers and use most major social platforms every day, have their blind spots. Though younger workers have grown up with the mobile Internet and have likely posted most of their lives online, they lack the strategic savvy and broader perspective required to use their knowledge in a business context. Put another way, they understand the technology, but not the PR business. This article in Fortune provides a good snapshot of the millennial strengths and weaknesses.

All of this evidence reflects what I’ve seen over the past 10 or so years as both a communication executive and consultant. We are falling behind in a digital world. Badly. Events like SXSW, the tip of the spear in digital innovation, suggest that everybody is fully immersed in digital media and driving cutting-edge social media strategies in marketing, advertising and communications. But I don’t think the folks at SXSW reflect the average PR professional, or company – particularly outside the tech havens of Silicon Valley, Portland and similar global outposts.

Leaders who are socially savvy and proactive are extremely rare, the proverbial unicorn. A surprising number of communication teams seem to rely on one or two in-house digital gurus – typically social media managers, digital designers or marketing experts – who are often over-taxed and overwhelmed. Lacking adequate depth and breadth of critical social skills, many communication teams rely on a range of outside experts ranging across digital disciplines to cobble together programs: web design, platform vendor/technology, visual/video content, editorial content, social community management, research and analytics, and so forth. I’ve rarely seen all this requisite expertise housed within a PR agency or team, much less inside the same organization. Though the outsourced virtual “best team” approach may be effective in the short-term, it doesn’t support the efficient, dedicated work required to plan and execute a robust digital strategy.

There is urgent need to address this social skill gap; the credibility, relevance and effectiveness of the communication/PR business are at stake. The solutions are obvious, if not easy or inexpensive: training in social media history and skills; built-in time to participate in relevant seminars and meetings; progressive BYOD and social media policies; reverse mentorship programs; recruitment of tech-savvy professionals; mandatory boot-camps on digital metrics; and, alignment with related disciplines (i.e. digital design, intranet technology, social analytics, CRM.) Smart communication leaders will take steps to ensure they – and their teams – become the social media experts their clients expect and need to be successful in the digital age. Without making progress in the social skill gap, I fear PR may simply be pushed out by smart marketing or technology firms (and teams) who pull together the requisite social capabilities.