Bernard Dahl & Public Relations

“Pour être convaincant, il faut être convaincu.”

Regardez ce qu'il boit...

Dans ce sens, vos clients vous ont fait confiance en utilisant vos produits/services/solutions. Ils ont choisi de vous intégrer à leurs projets, d’une façon ou d’une autre, et contribuent (vraisemblablement) à votre prospérité.

Leur retournez-vous la faveur? Choisissez-vous leurs produits/services au-delà des autres, ne serait-ce que par loyauté?

Pourquoi pas? Si une boulangerie vous donne des mandats de consultation, ça me semble normal de changer de votre marque habituelle vers la leur, non? Même chose pour une compagnie qui fait des rasoirs, ou qui produit des médicaments de prescription, qui design des meubles, etc.

Ah, le pain n’est pas mangeable? Est-ce que ça veut dire que vous travaillez avec des clients dont vous ne pourriez pas endosser les produits? Il y a une question intéressante à poser à partir de là, non?

Pourquoi travaillerait-on avec des clients qui font des trucs qu’on n’achèterait pas?

En convertissant les followers en clients monnayables, il devient facile de chiffrer le retour sur investissement (ROI) pour vos efforts de médias sociaux. Sauf que si ce n’était pas la stratégie dès le début, ça ne fonctionnera probablement pas – à part si votre stratégie était de recruter des clients potentiels avec les médias sociaux.

Alors, on fait quoi, avec nos followers?

Et si on posait la question autrement? Et si on essayait plutôt de transformer nos clients payants… en followers?

Pratiquement chaque fois que je participe à un brainstorm sur le sujet, avec des clients, quelqu’un pose la question « qu’ont en commun nos clients?  », Il est très rare que quelqu’un propose la réponse « ils sont tous nos clients » ou « ils ont tous choisi notre solution / produit  / service. ». Dommage, c’est sûrement la seule chose qu’ils ont tous en commun. 100% de nos clients sont nos clients. Pensons-y…

En voilà une communauté. En voilà, des « fans »; des « followers » - avec qui le contact existe déjà. Avez-vous une stratégie de communication sur les médias sociaux avec vos clients actuels?  On pourrait dire qu’ils sont au moins aussi influents et susceptibles d’acheter que tout autre follower, non? L’idée de faire quelque chose pour les impliquer davantage devient plus tangible… Pourrions-nous utiliser les réseaux sociaux pour leur donner davantage de valeur?

P.S. En même temps, on peut toujours mesurer le taux de rétention ou de satisfaction des clients devenus followers vs. les autres. Il y aura certainement une différence. ROI? À vous de voir.

In the upcoming weeks, I will be converting this blog to a french language blog. Same Schtick, different language.

Why? Well, a lot of thought has gone into this, and in the end, I just felt like trying something new.

Don’t get me wrong; there are also some very logical reasons, including the fact that many of my Montreal PR firm’s customers speak french, the significant portion of french speaking business in the Montreal area (you know; our principal market), SEO, and all those logical reasons.

There are just as many arguments for an english blog; reasons which led to me getting this project going in English originally.

The fact that I don’t see many people who have made the switch, the fact that some people have said that “you lose EVERYTHING, SEO and all – this is branding suicide!”  (do you guys agree with that?). Bah. In the end, I just feel like giving it a go.

You see, I sometimes recommend that clients dare to try stuff, when their instinct/gut is stronger than established logic. It doesn’t always work, but we always turn it into something positive. When it does work, it is absolutely awesome! I like to think that I am following my own advice

Interestingly, last week, two people asked me why I didn’t blog in french. One is a good friend, the other is a well-known business person in Montreal I had just met (how he knew about my blog escapes me). So there. It didn’t seem very complicated to them, now, did it?

So, here, let’s give it a go!

(Hey, I can translate on demand – I’ll see if I can score a few blogging assignments, you know, to keep my writing skills as sharp as possible)

Cheers, and thanks for being a part of this

Yeah, random picture. Why not…

Risk Management has been gaining in importance in PR discussions, and that’s a good thing – understanding the issues surrounding any risk management-related issue will help any communications professional be better at their job should they be required to intervene. (Disclaimer : I may be a risk management enthousiast, but by no means a pro. The following is a very basic, layman’s guide to the logic of it all. If this floats your boat, speak to the pros, find a course and get your “learn on”!)

Here are the 4 basic components of Threat / Risk Analysis:

1. The Risk
2. The Threat
3. The Probability
4. The Impact

Lets break it down, using the example of fire extiguishers in an office building.

The Risk : There could be a fire in the office. This could be a small fire (like an outdoor ashtray catching fire), an medium blaze (the projector in the conference room caught on fire) or an inferno (the whole floor is catching fire). You get the idea; fire.

The Threat : Should there be a fire, local or general, employees’ safety, even lives could be at stake. If the information systems are not properly set up, important data loss could also occur.

The Probability : here’s the deal. There are virtually no deaths EVER recorded that are directly attributable to the absence of a fire extiguisher in an office building. Have you ever heard of one? Didn’t think so.* This means that logically, your fire extinguishers are taking up ressources, yet the chance of them ever being needed is pratically inexistant. Mathematically speaking, it would make better business sense to just get rid of them, you’ll save time, money, resources and even space. Logically. There is virtually no probability of this threat ever materializing.

The Impact : Say you do have a fire in your office building, and that you, logically, removed the extinguishers. Then, something really bad happens, that could have been prevented had an extinguisher been available… you see where this is going? The potential impact plays heavily into the mix, regardless of probability. The impact of people dying because you removed the extinguishers, though a mathematically logical move, would be too much to bear. Given the possible severity of the outcome, probability no longer matters.

This is really an overview of the basic logic behind risk management (RM), for a real ride just find a real Risk Management consultant and start asking about their craft, these guys are awesome! A good place to find them is to look at the consultancies, like KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, etc.

In a corporate or social environment, RM can be used for everything from corporate governance, IT security, HR policies to, well, fire extinguishers and physical safety issues. There are almost no limits to its applicability.

The involvement of an organization’s communications people int o risk management makes a lot of sense, to say the least. This basic analysis and its 4 elements can also be applied to pre-emptive crisis management for PR issues – at least to help prioritize.

Special request for Public Relations professionals : Let’s all make sure that we do not misuse or abuse the term Risk Management, like all those folks who throw the words “crisis” and “crisis management” around so gratuitously. You know who I’m talking about. Thanks!

*Anecdotal statistic

“How was your day, Bernard?” asks Kim, the friendly woman at the convenience store at the corner.

-”It was CRAP! I got turned down for a small business subsidy    How about you? We don’t see you here as often, what’s up?”

“My boyfriend was diagnosed with Lung and lymph cancer, pretty advanced. I’m helping him deal with the chemotherapy.”

Ouch.

Note to self: You had a great day, Bernard. Shut the f%*# up.

In her amazing spirit, Kim also pointed out that the beer I was buying wasn’t on special, whereas the other one I usually buy was. You rock Kim! I’m pulling for you guys. This Bud is most definitely for you.

At some point, while reading business books, you get a certain disconnection from the info. I don’t mean the pile of  “really interesting books” you started and might someday/never finish – this is about those that are relevant enough to finish quickly. No matter how riveting, at some point, the info seems too… contextual, no?

That’s because it is! Without context, there is no logic to the book and no interest in finishing it. Period. Having just received my Chapters delivery, I thought I’d share with you my new approach to maximizing reading – which I copied from wine-tasting.  No, seriously.

Behold, the three books that arrived today:

• The Long Tail (revised) – Chris Anderson
• The Culture Code – Clotaire Rapaille
• The Copywriter’s Handbook – Robert W. Bly

Just like wine tasting, you gain more by comparing. In this case, I have two books which are about marketing patterns, and one which is more geared towards marketing communications. I will probably read The Long Tail first, then The Culture Code. I expect several things to overlap, some to conflict and some to complement each other. I will be able to compare the ideas from both books, within a similar frame of mind – to bounce one’s ideas and concepts against the other’s. These books, to me, are similar.

I will follow up with The Copywriter’s Handbook, a skill-based (or skill-development?) book. Logically, I should be able to adapt the ideas I liked from the first two books into skills, which I will hopefully improve by reading the third.

In wine tasting, your best bet is always taking 3 or 4 wines, with at least two that are VERY similar (like two different Pomerol wines, from Bordeaux) and adding one that has similarities, yet is different (like a Médoc, from elsewhere in Bordeaux). You will often enjoy going back and forth, and the dominant features of each will become very obvious when compared with something different, then something similar. You’ll probably better understand the characteristics of both Pomerol and Médoc wines. Feel free to invite me top these things, by the way

I’ll let you know how this experiment goes.

Journalism, like most Public Relations, has too much Cut+Paste and Templates.  Interested in being a reporter? Here is the formula :

Dominic Arpin is the one who found the clip, you should check out his site.

Seth Godin has put together a “Best-of” from a bunch of brilliant authors and thinkers.

He is probably the only person who could have gotten all of these people together – to make a free book, nonetheless!

It’s free, and it’s important – because it gets you thinking. Seriously. There is one page in there, I swear, I stared at it for 10 minutes. I subscribed to his blog and now I’ll probably get the book.  Huh.

Download it for free, and share it – either by mail or by making it downloadable from your site/blog/Twitter. Thank you Seth Godin!

Happy Holidays you guys, thanks for reading!

Some people would say that a doorman or security guard is there to keep people out, to manage the door and/or for crowd control. That makes him the law. He only has the power to say no. Another way to look at it is to make sure that the person at the door lets the right people in, with the power to say yes. That makes him contribute to success. Same job, different definition, different outcome.

The same logic could (should) be applied to law enforcement vehicles. As a recent upgrade to police cars in Montreal, the red and blue lights on top are barely visible to other cars. You only really see them when they’re turned on. If drivers can’t recognize the cop car from a distance, they won’t slow down to avoid getting caught speeding, running a red light, right? This way, more people are caught and fined. This, sadly, fixes the wrong problem. By making it harder to see police cars, people are more likely to maintain  their bad driving habits, and will be caught and fined. Arguably, the target should be to discourage these habits – by doing the opposite, and making patrol cars AS VISIBLE AS POSSIBLE.  Have you ever ran a red light when you could see a cop car? Do you roll at twice the speed limit when you see them with the radar? Of course not. Because you KNOW you’ll be caught…

Sadly, (and pathetically), in the second case, I don’t think the real objective was to reduce the quantity of traffic tickets handed out in Montreal…

There, I said it.

I saw this on Facebook :

Fight Child Pornography
421,533 Members
$136 donated

If you do the math, that is an extremely weak donation. Less than a penny per person. And no mention of where the money goes.  I mean, it’s great that people are against child pornography – I’m just saying that as an exercise, this is somewhat useless, and might even take some goodwill away from a real cause.

Last year I met Justice Canada, along with Google, Yahoo, Cogeco and other companies, to discuss how we all dealt with juvenile pornography as electronic service providers, to provide input on shaping new legislation and to empower law enforcement to be able to better fight juvenile pornography. The biggest thing they could use? More awareness, and better information on what to do if you ever come across child pornography.

Here is some useful info:

• To report any Juvenile Pornography (JP), including a link to anything suspicious : Cybertip . They work with several authorities.
• In Canada, it is not (yet) a legal obligation to report any suspected juvenile pornography, it is an ethical choice. In the US, it IS a legal obligation to report anything. Not reporting JP is a crime.
• If you find something online, regardless of how it was discovered, the best thing to do is to report it. Please. It could save a child. Regardless of how it was discovered.
• A picture of your baby on the toilet or in the bath is not juvenile pornography. The police will not arrest you for it. That debate is ridiculous, an urban legend at best. Hey, they’re people too.

There. Now, feel free to share that info with those 400 000 or so people – this way the group actually CAN serve a purpose.