I met a chartered accountant the other day who works at PWC and naturally we started talking about what we do for money. In fact, we only spoke about what I do for money because we both knew that I pretty much already knew what he did. CAs coordinate and sign off audits, right?
He was quite intrigued by this 'niche' in media agency and publicity. 'So, what do you do, sit on Facebook all day?' he asked, but not in a sarcastic or condescending way. One thing I've noticed about accountants and engineers is that they expect straight answers to seemingly simple questions. I paused for a while before answering, knowing that this would become a standard response to anyone who might want to quizz me in future as regards my vocation.
So, in true fence-sitting tradition of a humanities graduate and indeed media practitioner I replied yes and no, days are long and if you spend them sitting on Facebook you might as well be working as a sub-editor at any given newspaper or magazine in the world. He didn't get it and neither did I because everyone knows that sub-editors split their work time three ways: one third on online dating channels, one third smoking and the rest bitching about how writers these days simply can't write.
I realised then that this can't be my standard response firstly because it lacks definition and secondly it exudes a certain verbosity that sure as hell won't go down in most professional circles. And if we're talking about circles and such, what I've embroiled myself in over the past few months is just that- an attempt to break into social circles that I think may be interested in the products Total Exposure has to offer on behalf of its clients. Yes, Mr CA, the plot thickens.
What's more is that after I successfully infiltrate these virtual social circles, I must influence their members to talk about what I've told them even when I'm not there. After I explained this to him he noticed the challenge and conceded that albeit an interesting field of work it is something that can be done with relative ease provided messages are communicated by likeable, or sociable, people. I grinned and said yes, even though electronic communication is widely perceived as impersonal, mechanical or otherwise anti-social, there is that nuance of personality that exists in the social media space.
People flock to 'blog gurus' not only because they possess the technical know-how of Web 2.0, IT and programming but also because they willingly share this knowledge in an approachable manner while developing likeable characters for themselves, the geeky skinny guy with a quirky sense of humour comes to mind as an example of this character (think a Windhoek Light-drinking Zach Braff in Scrubs except he works in a cubicle at some office park in Sandton, wears Old Khaki, plays social hockey and often has friends over to his Fourways townhouse for a serious session of Guitar Hero).
I guess that's one of the objectives of This is Total Exposure: To develop an approachable online character for the agency and somehow build a good online reputation. I don't quite know if it's working out yet, it might be too early to tell but in the mean time I'm taking lessons in likeability, approachability and general cordiality. Will keep you posted as to how it's going.
Your friend,
Ahmed Patel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's not working. You're now officially perceived as stuck up, and to be frank, out of touch with your core audience you badly want to "influence".
ReplyDeleteSadly I think most PR companies miss the boat completely, and whilst the 500 stats look great in those PowerPoint presentations back to clients, the data is meaningless and cost per exposure way higher than it should be.
Therefore, I'll give this little self-indulgent rant a square 2 out of 10.
Thanks for your most valuable rating, Anonymous. But this is hardly a rant. Follow us on Twitter @totalexposure.
ReplyDeleteYou're definitely not likeable online. Mocking the physical appearance of Shakespearean actresses, on behalf of Ster-Kinekor, in productions hosted by Ster-Kinekor, is not only exceedingly disrespectful and inappropriate, it is downright juvenile.
ReplyDeleteYou also can't seem to decide whether to use @totalexposure as a professional platform or a personal one. If you have an opinion, put it on your personal account. Tell everyone what's on Letterman tonight, but no one cares what Total Exposure thinks of how badly the Proteas are playing - have the stones to put your personal opinions next to your name, and perhaps you won't tar the reputations of the brands you represent.
"...have the stones to put your personal opinions next to your name..." Thanks ANONYMOUS.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who is also dipping her big toe in the social media realm, I think your views and opinions are spot on! Some of the more experience Social Media Gurus obviously forget what it's like to be a noob!
ReplyDeletePerceptions, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder or perceiver in this instance. I don't perceive Ahmed as 'stuck-up' or 'out of touch' as Anonymous #1 put it. But rather as honest and witty in his approach to this blogpost, yes I said blogpost, not rant.
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing, as PR or communications practitioners in any medium isn't it up to us to be honest and not adopt the age old practice of 'spin', especially when it comes to the clients we represent and the product that they in turn represent?
Lets also not forget that we as people are part of this 'audience' we are trying to 'influence'( although I prefer the term engage with) and our views matter too. In fact, it is crucial to have a human aspect behind the brand that is represented.
One last thing, Anonymous #1, you might not be happy with the results shown in the PowerPoint presentations you've seen but there are a whole collection of brands that are very happy with teh return on their results. It is good to keep in mind that the returns are often two fold, immediate in terms of exposure and long term in terms of building a community, or rather aiding the growth of a community around a brand or product offering.
anonymous - I am curious as to why "most pr companies miss the boat" and how you think they should be catching that boat
ReplyDeleteSince Anonymous#1 is now non-responsive I think PR companies are missing the boat in a sense that they're simply not being honest. Who better to communicate to the client - socially - about their product in an honest way than the PR firm representing it?
ReplyDeleteOften PR or Reputation management firms take on an after-the-fact approach. It is naive to think that all brand or product representatives agree with the selling-points of the brand/product or even with aspects of the brand/product itself.
Instead, an approach that informs the 'eventual' public while the awareness process (from conception) is taking place is one that is very much 'on the boat' regardless of how unlikeable or 'anti-social' it may seem at first.
So, an approach implied by Anonymous#1 is in fact an old, out of tune, regular PR spin approach.