One Communicator

The ABCs of English in a foreign environment

2011-02-09T19:00:00.015+03:00

Is tire or tyre the correct spelling? Which is more acceptable, the British or American pronunciation of vitamin? Is it proper to say going to the hospital or going to hospital? Do you know the definition of a fortnight, or what a zucchini is?

Image retrieved from http://blog.ezinearticles.com

One might assume the biggest adjustment to practicing PR in an international environment is developing cultural sensitivity, or working with foreign languages. I’d argue it’s communicating in proper English, particularly in writing.

While most populations have their own colloquialisms, idioms and slang, the divide between American and British English seems to generate the most debate. American English spelling, punctuation, and in some cases pronunciation, differs substantially from British English. Americans who have read the British version of the Harry Potter series likely noticed what appeared to be missing punctuation, Mr Dursley versus Mr. Dursley, and may have questioned why Harry had a torch (flashlight) under his blankets.

The variances between American and British English have provided fodder for countless comics and screenwriters; however, these discrepancies generate real uncertainties for PR professionals working in an international environment. Deciding if one should use the American or British spelling of words like artifact/artefact, curb/kerb and defence/defense, and the American or British vocabulary for terms such as cell phone (mobile), Fall (Autumn) and takeout (takeaway) may seem trivial and even entertaining. However, thoughtless selection can leave an audience stumbling over unfamiliar vocabulary, questioning intent and even feeling offended. Furthermore, there are a number of words, in current use, in both the UK and US that have differing meanings. The British use the word trousers while Americans use the word pants; however, the word pants is used by the British when referring to underwear. Similarly the British use the word bomb to denote success; most Americans associate bomb with disaster. Momentarily to a British person means for a moment, while it means soon to North Americans. Additionally, there are numerous differences surrounding writing styles, sentence structure and rules for punctuation. In American English periods, known as full stops in British English, are placed within quotations. In British English periods rarely appear within quotations. Furthermore, to Americans double quotation marks signify a direct quote, and single quotation marks enclose a quote within a quotation. In British English the rule is reversed. Double quotation marks, known as inverted commas, are used only for quotes within a quotation. As a point of interest, a number of languages including Arabic, Chinese, French and Norwegian forgo use of quotation marks. These languages use guillemets, which resemble double less and greater than symbols, to enclose quotations.

Aside from urging consistency, style guides provide little direction for communicators deciding between colour and color, or determining the appropriate treatment of a collective noun or preposition. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests existing style guides are obsolete. While commonwealth countries normally follow British vocabulary and usage, the worldwide prevalence of American media and technology has resulted in many populations adopting a hybrid 0f American and British English.

Bottom line, it’s important for PR practitioners to be thoughtful and avoid use of expressions, or vocabulary that are exclusive to one audience. It’s equally important to have some understanding of differing pronunciations, spellings and vocabulary usage. A considerate tone and sensitivity to potential interpretations is paramount.

Can you think of any lexical hazards practitioners in the international environment should avoid? Do you have any cautionary tales to share?

Social media monitoring - the future of customer service, or just plain creepy

2011-02-04T11:00:00.006+03:00

Corporate monitoring of conversations in the social space isn’t new. A few years back companies like Kodak, Comcast and Dell generated significant attention for tracking online conversations in order to gain brand insight. Then came an explosion of tales in the blogosphere about corporations ‘following’ individual’s mere moments after they mentioned said company online. The mainstream media didn’t pay a lot of attention to the phenomenon but bloggers were captivated and seemingly divided, neighing and yeahing the practice. Customer service through Twitter was being hailed the next big thing. Everyone seemed to agree that a revolution was underway; an upheaval that would forever change how companies and their publics interact.

Fast forward two years and the notion of corporations monitoring online conversation is seemingly accepted, and arguably expected. Customer service through social media is a work in progress for most organisations, and the tracking of online chatter has become an essential facet of public relations work. Today social media is providing both unlimited access and information. Social media monitoring is providing the ultimate heads up, allowing corporations to be a fly on the wall and intercept before an issue reaches crisis stage. Groups like Radian6, Attentio and Brandwatch are among the dozens of businesses profiting from technologies that run the gamut from tracking key words to offering high-level analysis of sentiment (there are also a number of decent free comparable services such as Google Alerts, Social Mention and TweetBeep.) While the benefits, and drawbacks, of access to conversations occurring in the social space are obvious and well documented, there remains a lot of ambiguity. Lurking and listening certainly isn’t enough, but it also isn’t clear what level of engagement is appropriate. Are unsolicited corporate approaches, post-tweet, intrusive and creepy, or is this simply the way we now offer customer service and interact with other publics?

Bottom line, from a public relations perspective practitioners need to help their corporations thoughtfully draw the line between using social media monitoring to protect their reputation without alienating publics, or worse stepping into unethical territory. Furthermore, organisations must swiftly move from the monitoring phase to engagement. With over 60 million tweets per day, information is flowing quickly. Entire communities are forming around issues before most corporate communicators have had their morning coffee. And, companies are facing real reputation related threats from their employees, customers, and even their own poor response times, think Domino’s. Yet seemingly many organisations are burying their head in the sand and wishing away social media.

As ROI strategies shift from traditional ‘push media’ to active connections with publics, our understanding of engagement will continue to evolve and the separation between marketing and public relations will perhaps become less pronounced. One certainty is that knowing about conversations in the social sphere is a necessity, not a nicety. Not engaging in the social space will result in irreparable damage. Yet it remains to be seen how corporations will maintain momentum as social media tools became ubiquitous and more publics join the conversation.

The world has Bieber Fever...says Klout

2011-01-31T19:53:00.008+03:00

A recent article in London daily, The Sun, stated Canadian pop sensation Justin Bieber is the world's most influential person...on Twitter.

The article, and a horde of subsequent articles and blog posts, stemmed from data released by online social media cruncher Klout. According to the company, Bieber is more influential than President Barack Obama, the Dalai Lama and a myriad of other celebrities and high profile business leaders.

For those not familiar, Klout is a social media measurement company that claims to be “the standard for online and internet influence.” Founded in 2008, the brainchild of San Francisco IT developer Joe Fernandez uses a unique algorithm to rank ‘influence’ on social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Using over 25 variables to measure authentic reach (engaged followers vs. spam), amplification (likelihood a message will generate re-tweets or spark conversation) and network value (how influential one’s followers are), Klout scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the more influence one is deemed to have. A score higher than 30 is said to represent skillful use of Twitter (or the measured social media platform); a score above 50 denotes a social media ‘celebrity.’

From a public relations perspective Klout is definitely interesting. At the very least it provides another metric that can be used to help understand who, and what, drives influence in the social space. Klout is valuable because it facilitates the tracking of buzz and quantifying of word of mouth marketing. Fernandez says hundreds of organisations are already using his company’s tool to help determine who, and what, is driving opinion. However, critics stress the significance of lacking qualitative analysis and question if the tool delivers authoritative results.

In my opinion Klout is useful. It provides notable, although perhaps startling, insight about who has influence in the social space; and it's a seemingly unique instrument (Twitalyzer, PeerIndex and Twendz Pro offer competitive services.) However, it must be recognised for what it is...just another tool in the toolbox. It’s inappropriate and irresponsible to overvalue Klout. I first became aware of this tool through reading an article that indicated two US-based advertising companies were using Klout scores as a primary component of their HR screening process. I’ve also read a handful of blogs that indicate companies are using Klout scores as a main dataset for compiling stakeholder engagement lists.

Bottom line, it's important to recognise the limitations of gauging influence, or impressions, using data that is not representative. Given research tells us 18-29 year olds are the most active group on Twitter, and that less than 20% of Canadians use Twitter, there are serious questions about the validity of any data gleaned exclusively from Twitter. Furthermore, practitioners must approach tools like Klout with a critical eye. Thoughtful research and common sense can never be replaced by an electronic tool.