Richard Messik

Introduction

Ever since ancient civilisations recorded events on stone tablets (if not earlier), the ability to disseminate information has played a pivotal role in the development and intellectual growth of the human race. The invention of the printing press was a seminal enhancement in the method of transmitting knowledge to a wider audience and, arguably, the growth of the Internet has played no less a part in the history of communication – fundamentally changing the way that we impart and gain information, as well as communicate with each other.

Whereas the Internet was a late twentieth-century innovation, social media in all its forms is a twenty-first-century pivotal progression in the science of communication.

Seemingly, it came out of nowhere, developed by bored university students (if popular myth is to be believed) and struck a chord with the younger generation – and, probably, has saved a generation of parents a fortune in telecom charges as their children no longer needed to spend hours on the telephone to impart the latest and most important gossip of the day.

As with all innovations, many different social media brands have sprung up. Some have continued to flourish, while others withered on the vine of popular acceptance. However, those that survived have gained followers in hitherto unbelievable numbers.

It has grown exponentially in the last five years as the following would indicate:

Source: www.searchenginejournal.com/the-growth-of-social-media-an-info graphic/32788

Psychologists have had a field day in attempting to outdo each other by providing explanations as to why those of the generation of today wish to share their experiences and thoughts (however banal) with – almost literally – the whole world, and why, indeed, others want to know about them.

A rather tongue-in-cheek way of explaining the various brands of social media is provided in Table 9.1.

Perhaps those are a little unfair; but, it does give the general idea. Of course, there are other brands of social media, but those shown in Table 9.1 above are arguably the most popular.

So given the growth of social media, and its ever-increasing popularity, does it have a role in the business environment? Can it become the principal method of office communication internally as well as externally?

Consider the rapid growth of email as a medium – remember a time, not that long ago, when all external communication was by letter? Internal was via the dreaded office memo. That is not to say mail is obsolete – far from it. But its use is greatly reduced.

The same might be happening with email, so much so that email has sometimes been described as a failed medium.

A recent news article concerned a major UK company that was seriously considering banning email as an internal form of communication. The company concerned was aware that the vast majority of internal (and probably external) emails were pointless and, if the time taken to open and read emails was taken into account, the amount of lost time and lost productivity was considerable.

This is not a new concept – the success of email has been its own failing. It is so easy now to send off a quick email without giving it a great deal of thought, which in itself has been the cause of many an embarrassment for any who overreacted, and emailed far too promptly. Plus, the fact that emails sent to the whole of an international group advising of cakes in the kitchen of the Bristol office in the UK does not exactly add anything to ongoing productivity.

Is there an alternative? Well, yes, there are many. But they all revolve around using social media as a mode of internal communication. Possibly easier to manage – and, more importantly, easier to ignore – social media very much has a place in the work environment if it is used responsibly.

Is it better than email? That is possible in the right circumstances. However, where any media is used to excess – or, more to the point, when people become lazy (many of us have experienced receiving an email from someone sitting at the next desk) – any communications system will fail through overuse.

Of course, the main problem with email is the sheer volume of the stuff. Returning from vacation to an inbox overflowing with messages, the majority of which are pointless, is not an enticing prospect. In fact, a partner in a major professional firm, when on vacation, says in his out-of-office message that all incoming emails will be deleted automatically. If it is important, then people can resend their messages when he is back at work. This is a brave, but highly practical, approach.

As for social media, the statistics indicate that the vast majority comprising the younger generation (whoever that may be) use it in preference to email and, where they lead, the rest of us may very well follow.

Consequently, there has been a growth in so-called ‘internal’ social media, adopted by many large organisations worldwide as a method of internal communication and collaboration. For example, Yammer (see www.yammer.com) describes itself as ‘the Enterprise Social Network’. It further claims that it:

It is an interesting development and one that will, no doubt, gain ground. Basically, a quick tweet might be a more efficient method of communicating a short comment than an email.

Another comparatively recent development is the use of Twitter by radio presenters as a means of interacting ‘live’ with their audience. This adds a level of beneficial intimacy with their remote audience, and many radio presenters now upload pictures, or whatever else, via Twitter to illustrate topics they happen to be discussing. In an article in the Radio Times, Justin Webb, one of the regular presenters on Radio 4’s Today programme, comments:

It is very interesting that he refers to email as ‘old fashioned’!

The immediacy of Twitter, of course, is its attraction – but, it can be a major weakness. How many people (such as politicians, whom one would hope would know better) have come unstuck by tweeting a comment that, probably, should have required some more thought before transmitting – not just to one person but, potentially, to millions.

Additionally, there have been a number of high-profile cases recently where jurors have themselves ended up in prison by tweeting or using a social network application to interact with someone involved with the case – a prohibition emphasised more strongly than anything else by the judge at the start of every trial.

Social media as a marketing tool

A few years ago, marketing was a much simpler affair. Companies advertised their products, claiming how wonderful they were. People bought the product or didn’t, as the case may be. Some people might have passed the message on to others, but essentially this was a one-way communication process: company to consumer – one to one.

A few happy (or disgruntled) customers can affect the success of a brand, although that can happen with some notable exceptions. In the past, communicating to a wide audience was a complicated business, and well beyond the ability of most individuals. Mistakes, or bad service, could be localised and isolated. Damage to a brand was limited.

Social media has changed this concept completely. Do something right, and one person might mention it – do it wrong, and they tell the world. Modern marketing must recognise this – after all, that old adage might well have been coined for the world of social media. As a mode of complaint, social media has no equal.

In his aforementioned article, Justin Webb quotes the experience of Qantas, the Australian airline, when it launched a social media campaign to improve its brand image after a damaging strike. The airline used social media to ask people to name their ‘dream luxury flight experience’ and offered prizes for the best suggestions. The Twitter reaction was devastating…. no one was interested in the prize, but it provided the perfect forum to complain about Qantas!

Another example relates to a well-known magazine that sent out subscription offers with the additional incentive of a substantial supply of chocolate to those who subscribed. A reader responded to the promotion and, sure enough, received a confirmation for the new subscription – but, surprise, surprise, no chocolate. A number of emails to the marketing department prompted a response stating that, had the reader looked at the small print more closely, she would have seen that the offer only applied to the first 500 subscribers… in other words – tough!

A few years ago, probably, that would have been the end of it. However, in the new world of instant response and a worldwide audience, this particular incident for that solitary subscriber was like the proverbial red rag to a bull. The affected reader immediately tweeted about the magazine’s poor customer service, with this quickly becoming an issue that was taken up and retweeted by numerous others. The result? The magazine’s marketing department became aware of the Twitter traffic and sent out a tweeted response that additional supplies of the chocolate had been resourced; honour was satisfied.

Of course, the principal feature of social media is that it is a medium that enables communication by one to many – as opposed to email that, usually, is one to one (unless, of course, you hit the ‘Reply to all’ button inadvertently – as many have discovered to their detriment).

This is fine when the message or comment is directed at the world at large – and, as has been discussed above, there is nothing more efficient than internationally connected, electronic communication. However, its strength is also its major weakness.

LinkedIn is a site that has grown in popularity in recent years and is now the de facto source of professional information – very much a public CV. It is so much so, that this can say more about someone whose details are not on LinkedIn than those folk who are. Normally, this is fine – a great resource for finding information on contacts, enabling people to know who they are dealing with when they first get in touch.

However, as with ill-considered comments on Twitter, many have come unstuck when they publish, for example, that they are looking for new employment. It is great that the world at large can discover that they are available – although not so great if their current employer can also see that they are about to lose a principal member of the team.

Can social media generate new business?

At a recent seminar, the following question was posed: does social media work for professionals?

The gist of the argument was that while many professionals now use social media, did they benefit from so doing? Apart from the overriding (and not unimportant) consideration that it is fun. (As is often said, ‘If it ain’t fun, don’t do it.’) It was an interesting point.

As many professionals will agree, networking in its many forms is an essential component of business generation and, over the years, this has become more popular and widespread.

In many respects, this is what social media is – being another form of networking in getting your name out to a wider world, and expressing views and opinions which might not be heard otherwise. Importantly, those who will be reading your online comments and so on are users of social media themselves and, if they are looking for an accountant or professional advisor, they are possibly more likely to choose one who is social media-savvy.

It is obvious to the millions of daily users that social media is an excellent medium for getting your name and message heard by a larger audience. Yet will it generate new business? Well, like chicken soup, it probably won’t hurt!

As with most media, when used sensibly, it can be a great asset; used carelessly, it can be an absolute disaster.