It is often all too easy (and regular readers would assume – correctly – that I have been guilty of this) to overlook traditional communications channels in favour of the newer, more ‘exciting’ social or new media.
This was brought home to me at the Crisis Communications workshop we held in March when it emerged that the most effective way of getting information to rural communities during the Canberra bushfires was town hall meetings.
That’s right. Cellphone towers burned down. The heat was causing electricity mains to arc, cutting the power so it was a case of driving out to the communities and having a meeting in the town hall, RSL club or the local pub to let people know what was happening.
And it is not just in a crisis that this sort of channel is effective in a stakeholder relations programme. Getting in front of people, letting them see the way that you handle questions is invaluable. Social media are great in that they allow participation that is not dependent upon geography, but who wouldn’t prefer sitting down in front of a real live human being?
The reality is that it is most likely to be a mix of the channels that works best for your communications, so you would be well advised to factor social media into your strategy, where it is appropriate — and where you understand how to effectively deploy it.
This was all prompted when a colleague received an (unsolicited) email from Coca Cola New Zealand inviting her to participate in a stakeholder forum:
This is your opportunity to ask George Adams, Managing Director, CC-Amatil (NZ & Fiji) Ltd and team questions about things that matter to you. You might want to know what our company is doing about health, environmental, community or business issues in New Zealand. You can let us know about things that have an impact on you, your family, your community or your environment.
What interested me about this event was a) the fact that they were spamming people to invite them to their forum, and b) that there is to be an online forum opened after the event to facilitate discussion.
Once you get over the faux pas of spamming people that you would like, or think you would like, to attend your forum (and I will come back to this) it seems like a pretty good idea. Have senior management front to people (at Te Papa, no less) at a time when the industry is feeling the squeeze from nutritionists, health officials and consumer groups.
It is also a good idea to have people sign up for the website (if I keep calling it an online forum, I will just confuse myself). You get to harvest their details – so you don’t have to spam them next time – and you can capture any qualitative data.
I think they missed an opportunity by not opening the website before the event. It would have been a great way to take the temperature, to provide good input for what will be important to the people who do attend and, more importantly, really demonstrates a willingness to engage. It would have also allowed people to see exactly what level of engagement was on offer.
Opening the website after the forum is certainly the safer option. Less flammable. But it leads me to believe that it won’t be as interesting as it could be. It promises a forum where you can share your thoughts with others
, which is vague enough to invite disappointment. I hope I’m wrong.
Combined with the spam approach, it leaves me feeling that they haven’t quite grasped the mechanics of enagement in the age of social media. But perhaps I am being overly cynical?
