One of the most consistent complaints we come across when meeting prospective clients, and the reason why many seek new PR help, is that their previous agency didn’t listen. How much business is lost over this seemingly obvious action…or lack thereof? I can’t think of one industry that is immune and yet the challenge continues. How do we solve this? More importantly, can it be solved or is it simply in our nature to believe we are so smart that we can provide the answer to a question that we have not even heard? Or that we can recommend a solution without fully understanding the other person’s challenges and issues?

I will admit I have very little patience when it comes to lack of listening. It’s kind of a “thing” with me. Like everyone else, though, I see this problem across every facet of my life and on a daily basis. Don’t get me wrong, I love to wax poetically about my favorite things as much as the next person, but when it comes to investing time and money into something of importance, I see very little return on my investment if I know I am not being heard.

Not to sound cheesy (or as if I just watched Oprah), but we are constantly being reminded to live in the moment, for it is the most important time we have. If we aren’t thinking about tomorrow, or reliving yesterday, perhaps we can better focus on the present, the here and now. If we try to make this effort a bigger priority, maybe we will find it easier to open our ears and our minds to really envelop what the person sitting across from us is trying to communicate. How hard can it be?

After months of careful planning and preparation, a company launches its new product. The news media picks up the story. A prominent publication features an article online, and the reviews are glowing. Congratulations on the great PR coverage!

But wait, what’s this? Dozens of comments attached to this very article? Well, how flattering. Let’s just click these and see what the kind readers have to say…

Uh-oh. You’ve just entered the Danger Zone of online media – the comments section. These anonymous, thinly-moderated forums attached to most articles can be mocking, misinformed, off-topic and downright nasty. Do you respond? Complain to the editor? Ignore them? Tell your PR firm to begin an Astroturf campaign to drown out the nay-sayers? (I am kidding about this last one.)

Here are a few suggestions for dealing with the comments section.  Keep in mind that each situation is unique and appropriate responses may vary.

Keep an eye on the comments, but don’t overreact. People will make disparaging remarks. Welcome to the Internet. The vocal minority has the megaphone, and they are not afraid to use it. Don’t mistake a few negative responses for general public opinion.  Except for extreme situations, plan on letting much of this stuff slide.

If some comments offer legitimate, specific points of criticism, respond using your full name and title, and remain emotionally neutral. This can be a powerful rejoinder, serving to diffuse hostility and bring some light to the situation. People, even anonymous ones, appreciate companies that are willing to engage at a personal level. In this situation it also helps to have social media channels at the ready. If you’ve felt the need to respond via comments, chances are you should also make a statement via Twitter, Facebook and the company blog.

Notify the journalist or website moderator. Sometimes online discussions can turn downright hateful. Some media police for this sort of thing, but it’s not unreasonable to pick up the phone to alert them of something that’s attached to your story that needs removal. Hate speech, racism and profanity would fall into this category. But be careful to only use this option when necessary; calling to complain about all the negative comments in your story, frustrating as they may be, will probably get you nowhere while also irritating the journalist that wrote the story. Choose your battles carefully.

Comment sections are the Wild West of online media. By proactively monitoring and responding to each case as appropriate, companies can keep tabs on what is being said, offer direct responses when appropriate, and help keep the worst offenders at bay.

Free Bikes 4 Kidz, a local non-profit organization that provides bikes to needy kids and adults in the Twin Cities (and pro bono client of Snow Communications), is preparing for its fourth-annual bicycle giveaway season! Thanks in part to a bike donation drive led by sponsor Allina Hospitals and Clinics, the group recently received 5,000 bikes in less than two weeks, its largest total ever.

This incredible generosity has created the need for volunteers to help prepare these bikes to give away, an event which will happen on December 10 at 21 locations around the metro area.  No technical skills are necessary to volunteer, so if you want to be part of a great organization that brings joy to local Twin Cities families this holiday season, please visit www.fb4k.com and click on ‘Volunteer!’

Here’s a fun anecdote to this story: Art Engstrom, the retired owner and founder of one of the first and largest Schwinn dealerships in America, has donated his warehouse space to Free Bikes 4 Kidz to use for repairing bikes this year. This is the same location where his bike shop was functioning 30 years ago. Last Saturday Art came to the site to volunteer to work on bikes, only to find that there were several bikes in the pile that had stickers proving they were purchased at his store, that very location, 30 years earlier. So Art was now repairing a bike that he sold 30 years prior, and preparing that bike to have a second life – given away to a child in need – from the same premises. What goes around, comes around!

Everyone here at Snow Communications is deeply saddened by the loss of Steve Jobs. His passion for innovation, creativity and persistence has shaped our lives, both personally and professionally.  Much of the joy and wonder we experience with technology is due to his genius.

There are so many wonderful words being said about him amongst his fans, colleagues and competitors from around the globe and across so many communication mediums. However, when cutting to the heart of what matters most, we think he said it best.

Cheers to a well lived life Steve Jobs…and thank you. Rest in peace.

Today is picture day at my daughter’s daycare. In my unbiased opinion, she will be the most photogenic and adorable child present, partly due to genetics, but also partly due to the outfit my wife picked out for her last weekend at Ridgedale Mall.

I was along for the ride during this mission, and when I wasn’t checking my phone for fantasy football updates, I was giving nods of approval for the various outfits my wife considered. We were in some sort of chic designer clothing store catered to parents of infants and toddlers, so pretty much every outfit looked to be picture-day ready. We aren’t normally the type of parents to shop in such stores, but again: picture day. Out-of-state grandparents demand satisfaction.

When the decision was made, I had a conversation with the cashier that made me think about direct marketing, and how the quest for personal data seems to have become a never-ending struggle between retailers and consumers.

Cashier: Is that all for you today?

Me: Yes, thank you.

Cashier: OK, what is your email address?

Me: No, thank you.

Cashier: No problem. What is your phone number?

Me: No, thank you.

Cashier: OK. Are you a member of our rewards program?

Me: No, thank you.

And so on. Eventually I was able to hand over a credit card, take my item and leave the store. But the whole experience just left me slightly irritated. It’s not that I haven’t been through that song and dance before – indeed, nearly every retailer these days requests the same personal data if you so much as pop in for a pack of gum.

Now, I work in marketing and public relations. I get it. Customer loyalty programs are great for generating repeat business and showing appreciation for reliable patrons. Phone numbers lead to addresses which lead to direct mail offers. These campaigns can be successful, else they wouldn’t be so prevalent (more so all the time, it seems). But we don’t even have a land line. Our cell numbers won’t provide an address, and we certainly don’t want to receive offers via text message. Is there a risk that eventually there will be pushback from consumers? A polite “no, thank you” isn’t a big deal, but three or four for a single transaction, times many transactions over time add up and, if you’re like me, it sours the experience. Customers want to get in, out and on with their busy lives. The personal nature of the requests can be off-putting. Customer lists are sometimes sold to third parties leading to a greater supply of junk mail.

Retailers generally have to market to survive, and I’m not advocating they stop doing so. What I would suggest is smarter, more personal marketing that avoids holding up, or even badgering, every customer at the point-of-purchase. Also, a little employee communications coaching can go a long way. Instead of “What is your email address”, opt for a softer approach. “Would you like to provide an email so we can send you exclusive offers?” It’s more courteous, it’s transparent, and it becomes a two-way opt-in process.

Point-of-purchase data mining isn’t likely to go away any time soon. A few tweaks to the way retailers go about handling the process though could result in a better response rates, higher levels of trust, and in my case, less annoyed customers.

Regardless, I still can’t wait to see how the pictures turn out.

In many ways, September 11, 2001 feels like it was yesterday. In other ways, it feels like a distant nightmare where you may struggle to not dwell on it too much as the tears might come too fast. Who can forget the shock, devastation and heartbreak for all the countless lives lost? Yet, in spite of this unparalleled feeling of loss, hope remains.

The 9/11 Memorial opens today, September 12, 2011 after a special dedication for families of the victims on September 11. If you don’t have plans to visit New York in the near future, a quick visit to its website is certainly worth a trip.

http://www.911memorial.org/

We will not forget.

As the new Congressional Debt Reduction Super Committee prepares to meet next month to cut government spending by $1.2 trillion over the next decade, supporters of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) are marshaling various arguments for preserving the electronic health records (EHR) incentive program. EHRs save money and improve outcomes. HITECH has bi-partisan support. Doctors and hospitals are purchasing EHR systems, diverting staff time and changing workflows under the belief that HITECH incentive dollars will eventually reimburse them for their initial investments of time and money.

These are all sound arguments that should be highlighted, but perhaps the most compelling case to be made to members of the Super Committee is that HITECH is helping create jobs.

Barring a war or other cataclysmic event, the results of the 2012 election will be closely tied to unemployment. Recent polls show that the public considers jobs to be the number one issue on which the President and Congress should be focused. Neither Democrats nor Republicans receive high marks on the issue from likely voters so both sides will be especially attentive to job creation this fall.

Washington’s renewed focus on jobs provides yet another opportunity for the HITECH program to show its worth. Talk to anyone in the health information technology (HIT) industry and they will share an anecdote about their company’s aggressive hiring or the dearth of qualified candidates to fill openings. Significant HIT job growth is surely happening, but unfortunately, there does not appear to be any hard data to support these anecdotes.

The most often cited figure is contained in a section of the 2010-2011 Occupational Outlook Handbook issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In their Outlook, BLS sees job prospects for Medical Record and Health Information Technicians growing faster than average (20%) and estimates that 35,000 new jobs will be added by 2018. Last week, Computer Economics, an IT research and advisory firm, revealed that 61 percent of health care organizations plan to increase IT staff in 2011. In testimony before a House Small Business Subcommittee in early June, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Farzad Mostashari, pointed to the fact that 60% of the HIT products certified as of early June had been developed at firms with 50 employees or fewer, suggesting that HITECH dollars were spurring job creation among small businesses.

Dr. Mostashari’s testimony illustrates this lack of hard data on job creation. Besides citing the BLS outlook, he said the following in his written testimony:

“Other sources suggest that many jobs are being created among private sector firms that install and maintain EHR systems for providers. The software and tech industries are also adding jobs as more EHR products are developed and hardware is manufactured. Our experience suggests that many jobs are being created among private sector firms that install and maintain EHR systems for providers.”

The Office of the National Coordinator should seek out these ‘other sources’ to provide more detail and data on job creation. Similarly, the American Medical Association and American Hospital Association may have figures to share on HIT job growth in large practice groups and hospitals. HIMSS should consider surveying its membership to gauge the pace of job growth in the industry between 2009 and the present. At a minimum, the upcoming HIMSS Policy Summit in mid-September provides an excellent opportunity to collect additional anecdotes and testimonials about job growth in the HIT sector.

With the public seeking answers on both the debt and jobs, members of the Super Committee will be hard pressed to cut any program that can demonstrate cost savings in the long run and job creation in the near term. There are already numerous studies to demonstrate the enormous cost savings EHR adoption will generate over the long term. If the HIT industry can also present solid data illustrating HITECH’s job-creating power, supporters of the EHR incentive program should be able to sleep soundly this fall.

I remember being in elementary school and visiting the fire department. During the tour, the fire chief discussed several things but what I remember most were his words about how every home should have multiple fire extinguishers; that each family should have an evacuation plan; the importance of the “stop, drop and roll”; and that every bedroom on a second floor should have a portable ladder in its closet.  Learning to “stop, drop and roll” was certainly easy and appeared to be a no-brainer, but I remember being mortified when I got home armed with all of this new knowledge and expertise to discover that my parents not only didn’t have portable ladders (I had a second-floor bedroom), but there was nary a fire extinguisher in the house or any kind of evacuation plan – discussed or written. It all seemed so irresponsible despite being what appeared to be such an obvious and fundamental need.

This same sentiment can be applied to businesses – big or small – when they find themselves in an unlikely situation where internal and external communication must be managed delicately. While the majority of large corporations and businesses have plans in place to address potential conflicts or adverse issues, there are still plenty of companies that don’t.

Termed crisis communication plans, these well thought-out processes and steps can be just as critical to a business as an evacuation plan would be to a family dealing with a fire in the middle of the night. A crisis communications plan is often the Holy Grail for business owners that need a strict and formal guide to light the way for how they are to deal with their situation – step by step – during what would most likely be a very tense time when emotions run high.

Plans should be as comprehensive as possible and include employee designations, contingency plans and prepared statements (which can be modified if necessary). Author Otto Lerbinger wrote in his book “The Crisis Manager” that there are at least seven different crisis categories that can either be considered acts of nature or human error. Preparing for both is necessary and in today’s communications realm, social media will also require a significant focus. While this endeavor will require a concerted effort and a lot of time, the payoff is invaluable. While some crises are much more dramatic than others, developing a plan that considers the situations with the most potential, can save a company valuable resources, not the least of which is its reputation.

As the fire chief once said, having an evacuation plan will make all the difference should your house catch on fire.

As advertisers continue to flock to Facebook, many are wondering if Google+ has the makings of a solid competitor to the world’s top social networking site. Whether Google+ will become a successful social media service with a dedicated user base remains to be seen. However, in the one month since its launch one thing has become apparent: this is no Facebook killer. Here’s why.

Engagement Overload

You’re on Facebook. Probably a majority of the people you know are on Facebook. The site has over 750 million users, many of whom check the site constantly. LinkedIn continues to gain influence. Not to mention Twitter, Tumblr, FourSquare and countless other social platforms that integrate these big hitters into their sharing options (Xbox LIVE, for example). How many people do you think are eager to manage yet another online profile? Especially when everyone that’s on Google+ is already on Facebook. Eventually, social media saturation is reached and choices must be made.

In addition, participation within these networks generally involves posting detailed personal information: birth date, email, phone number, political views, location, etc. At what point will users shy away from giving this information to yet another corporation?

You’re Already Hooked

Business blogger and fellow skeptic Mark Schafer points out on his blog {grow} that, “…Facebook may be entrenched as the king of social networking sites for a long time because the emotional and psychological cost of switching to something else is too high.”

Exactly. Those that check in and update their Facebook profile regularly have built up tremendous loyalty to the service, whether they realize it or not. It’s not uncommon for today’s college students and recent grads to have over 1,000 friends on Facebook. Many have dozens of photo albums. Starting over would be no simple task. On the flip side, the older generation is still cautiously dipping its toes in the Facebook waters. To many of them, Google+ remains foreign altogether. Consider this invitation to Google+ I posted recently:

My Facebook friend is not exactly an early adopter. Now we expect Grandpa to begin using Circles and Sparks?

Social Segmentation

Speaking of Circles, this feature is a key differentiator. Essentially it takes one’s “friends list” a step further, allowing the user to segregate contacts into specific groups, then interact with each group as they please. It’s a feature that many have requested of Facebook as friend lists have evolved to include more coworkers and family members. And certainly having more control over one’s message is a positive thing. But it also has potential drawbacks, like requiring more effort to manage, the potential for user mistakes and the knowledge that you could be in someone’s circle titled “Jerks I Ignore”. (One does not have the ability to see what others have named their circles, or who is in them.)

No Third-Party Support

At least, not yet. Facebook embraced third-party development, which brought a new level of interactivity and innovation to the site. Farmville and Mafia Wars are just two hugely popular examples of what third-party support can bring.

From Math to Social Science

Can a company that knows algorithms and search technology also strike gold with social networking? It’s the same question many asked at the launch of Google Wave (and what a debacle that turned out to be!)

Paul Adams is a former Google employee that joined Facebook shortly before the launch of Google+. He recently felt the need to clarify a few things about his departure from Google, and described his frustrations this way: “Google is an engineering company, and as a researcher or designer, it’s very difficult to have your voice heard at a strategic level. Ultimately I felt that although my research formed a cornerstone of the Google social strategy, and I had correctly predicted how other products in the market would play out, I wasn’t being listened to when it came to executing that strategy. My peers listened intently, but persuading the leadership was a losing battle. Google values technology, not social science.” [emphasis added]

On the Plus Side

Still, despite a plethora of obstacles, it’s foolish to count Google out entirely over the long term. The company is flush with cash, employs many brilliant minds, and is already one of the world’s best-known brands. Millions of people use the company’s variety of products such as Gmail, YouTube, Picasa, Maps and of course the search engine itself.

Google+ does have some very good things going for it, too. “Hangouts” are video web chats that allow up to ten participants at once. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, one can edit their posts after publishing. And simply by not being Facebook, a certain segment will be eager to give it a try.

Google execs are referring to Google+ as a “project,” not a product. Eventually it will be open to everyone, not just those who have received an invitation. Currently the network does not support advertising, although we can expect that to change at some point. But judging from what I’ve seen so far, Facebook doesn’t have much reason to be worried.