Sherie Griffiths

April 29, 2010

SHHH! Mic’s Have Ears!

There was a serious issue behind yesterday’s news about Gordon Brown’s gaff, but I have a confession: my first response was to laugh!  I’ll tell you why in a minute. 

First, in case  you missed the Prime Minister’s unscheduled Party Election broadcast (if so, where have you been? – it’s been everywhere!), it came out of one of those chance encounters with voters of which all three party leaders seemed to have had so many ‘the other day’, before the first TV debate.  This time, Mr Brown had an apparently friendly chat with a lady who described herself as a lifelong Labour supporter.  When she challenged him on issues ranging from pensions to the national debt, he seemed to do his utmost to answer her questions and they seemed to part on quite amicable terms. 

Once back in his car, though, Gordon expressed his true feelings.  He growled that he “should never have been put with that woman” and called her a ‘bigot’ – because of her comments on immigration.  The trouble was that he’d forgotten he was still wearing a radio mic, which relayed everything he said straight to the three main broadcasters (Sky, ITV and the BBC) and so to the lady herself. 

Of course the Prime Minister immediately apologised – ‘profusely’, as the Chancellor, Alastair Darling, described it.  Perhaps not too surprisingly, the target of his spleen wasn’t impressed.  For what it’s worth, I think his apologies were genuine.  I’m sure he was truly sorry – for being overheard.

The coverage immediately after the event implied that we should be shocked that a politician could show one face in public and another in private – and maybe we should, but I’m not.  Call me cynical, but I accept that politics inevitably involves saying the right things at the right time – like marketing.  After all, that’s what electioneering is, isn’t it?  Each party is currently marketing its socks off, trying to win you and me as new or repeat customers. 

In case you’re wondering, when I say marketing is about saying the right things at the right time, I’m talking about finding out what the customer wants and finding a way to supply that want.  I’m certainly not advocating telling them what you think they want to hear, then going on your own sweet way.  Playing that game is bound to land you in the brown stuff eventually, isn’t it?  Marketing should never be about saying one thing in public and believing another in private – and if you’re in the marketing frontline (as the party leaders are)  but can’t deal with customer feedback, you’re in trouble.  

What did shock me when I first heard this story was that someone who has presumably had considerable media training – and experience – over the years, should make a mistake like this.  Then I thought again, remembered Tony Blackburn and the ‘Sky Channel incident’ – and burst out laughing!

In 1985, TB was part of the new team presenting music programmes on the still very new Sky Channel.  In March of that year, a story appeared in the paper about an unfortunate incident involving Tony, a radio mic and a ‘comfort break’.  Apparently, during the ads in the middle of a live show, he headed for the little boys’ room, did what little boys must do, washed his hands, came back to the studio, whistling all the way – and Europe heard it all, thanks to the radio mic on his lapel, which was still live.  OOOOOPS!

I guess if a seasoned broadcaster like Tony Blackburn can forget he’s wired for sound, Gordon Brown can be forgiven for doing the same.

Less excusable by his party colleagues, I suspect, is what this implies about their leader’s trustworthiness in the eyes of voters.  The last thing any of the participants in this election need right now is such stark evidence that ‘politicians say one thing and mean another’. 

The Labour Party will defend Gordon to the hilt in public, naturally, but I wonder what they’re saying in private … wouldn’t you like to be a mic on that walll …?

April 27, 2010

The Right Connections take us Onwards & Upwards

I often think that, important as it is to know what we’re good at in business, it’s at least as important, if not more, to know what we’re not good at.

 Exploration of the concept which would grow up to be Savvy Business got the go-ahead at the May ’07 board meeting of the company I was then running, Griffiths Legal.  My first job was to talk to USP Content (where I already had links) about taking on the studio production. 

 Then, after the American trip, came the research – and lots of it. 

 Extract From The Upcoming Book, ‘On Sound Foundations’ – Chapter 8: ‘Onwards And Upwards’

“I needed to understand the big picture, which meant getting to grips with lots of statistics about media trends generally, on- and off-line, and then drilling down into the specifics of podcasting.

“I also needed to approach the kind of professionals we would need to help us make the programmes, to see what they thought of the idea and – all-importantly – how willing they would be to buy into it.

“In the event, although I dreaded trying to process all the numbers, the global research was easier because I could do most of it on the web.

“The individual side, on the other hand, proved a little trickier logistically.

“First – and for me most feared – were the cold calls.  Within a few days of rejection after rejection, I soon realised I wasn’t the woman for that particular job.  It needed a professional.

“When Rob introduced Sue Ellen, of Direct Marketing Services, at the Savvy launch in May ’09, he described her as ‘a lady who lunches’, because I’d told him we’d met at an all-female networking event.  Actually, I was wrong.  Sue had called to invite me on behalf of the network, but she didn’t make it to the meeting herself.  It just shows how the memory can play tricks, doesn’t it?

“Fortunately, I kept hold of her name and number and in September ’07, I called her for help.

“By October, Sue was beavering away in the background, setting up phone appointments and meetings for me with potential expert panellists.  I spent a lot of my time whizzing all over the country.

“I was so keen to grab every opportunity that I must admit I wasn’t terribly time-efficient over that period.  I spent a whole day travelling up to York to have lunch with someone and did an overnighter in Liverpool for two meetings.  It was worthwhile, though, perhaps not always financially, but in the chances it gave me to meet people I would never otherwise have made contact with, and to discuss the project and get their feedback.”

April 23, 2010

Bad News For Murdoch And Me?

Back on 8th April, I asked you ‘Would you pay for news online?’ according to figures published earlier this week by KPMG, the answer is increasingly likely to be ‘No thanks’.

The research shows that whilst people are consuming more media, both traditional and digital, spending on both has dropped over the last six months.

It’s hardly surprising. We all love a freebie, don’t we? – and with so much free content out there, why would anybody put their hands in their pockets – especially during and after a recession, when we’re all looking at where we can cut business and personal costs?

So, although I stand by everything I said two weeks ago about paying for online news etc (I’d be willing to pay myself), now is not the time to start building pay walls around news sites – unless you can wrap the news up in a film or album. Younger people are apparently happier to pay for music and movies. That’s probably a direct result of tightened regulation around ‘free’ access. It’s a novel idea – “Sunday Times – The Movie”, or “The latest album from Wall Street” (how would the world tour work – stadiums, or small, intimate gigs?) …!

Seriously, though, will Murdoch get away with it? Interestingly, with titles like ‘The Times’ and ‘The Sunday Times’, he’s aiming for the more mature reader, but that’s the group who seem least willing to shell out for their online news. So will he pull it off, or will we be treated to the all too rare sight of a big cheese with egg on face? (Just because I accept the principle of paying doesn’t mean I wouldn’t enjoy a little schadenfreude as much as you would!)

Of course, there’s no such thing as ‘free’, be it lunch, news or anything else. In business, we all know that money has to come from somewhere. No income, no service. So if the end consumer isn’t going to pay, someone else has to – most likely, advertisers. Either that, or the quantity of all this ‘free’ stuff will be at the expense of quality. Something has to give somewhere.

On the up side, necessity being ‘the mother of invention’ – and all that – anyone wanting to ‘sell’ news will have to get creative about how they do it, which might well make the ‘reader’ experience a lot more interesting.

April 20, 2010

The Land of Opportunity

In June 2007, I made my first trip to America.  That week changed my professional life and is still changing it. 

 Extract from ‘On Sound Foundations’; Chapter 7: ‘Found In Translation’

 “11:30 Sunday morning seemed quite a civilised time to take off from Heathrow;  but by the time I fell into bed at the Key Bridge Mariott Hotel around 8pm local time (1am in the UK), it didn’t feel quite so civilised!

 “This was my first time in the States – my first time outside Europe.  So I was completely unprepared for the games jetlag can play, like waking you up at four o’clock in the morning full of energy, then making you feel completely exhausted five hours later – just as you’re about to start work!  I just about got the hang of the time difference by the end of the week.

 “Nor was I prepared for how foreign I felt.  Very welcome, but foreign.  So often I’d heard it said in England that we and the US are ‘divided by a common language’, but I thought it was just a cliché.  I assumed, as novice Brits often do before they first set foot on American soil, that after years of a TV diet including so many shows imported from the States, the one thing that wouldn’t be an issue was the language.

 “How wrong I was – especially in the hotel.  The staff were wonderful.  I couldn’t fault the service from everyone.  From the most junior porter up to the Manager, nothing was too much trouble.  That said, time and time again, I’d use a word which I didn’t even think about as being particularly English, get a blank stare in response – and have to think again.  The one that caught me out more often than any other was ‘lift’.  It took me almost the whole week to remember to ask for the ‘nearest elevator’.

 “Another reason to make that ‘Trading in the US’ podcast, I thought.”

 A couple of weeks ago, I had a long Skype chat with Colleen Jolly of The 24-hour Company, in Northern Virginia.  I was put in touch with Colleen by Mark Amtower – and I was put in touch with Mark by Ardell Fleeson, whom I met on that first trip in ’07.  I’ve made programmes with Mark and Ardell and hope to do the same with Colleen in the not too distant future.

 I think it’s safe to say that Colleen and I hit it off pretty much instantly.  Well, at least, she wants to come and watch me present at a 4Networking breakfast at the end of April.  No, she’s not coming over specially – she’ll be here working on the UK expansion of her company.  We both agreed, though, that there’s still a language barrier between here and the US.  We’ve each run into it – but we agree that finding a way through it is well worth the effort.

Last month, I said there was no substitute for the human voice.  Of course, there’s also no substitute for meeting face to face.  It isn’t a case of ‘either’ ‘or’.  Creating great opportunities is about developing great connections – and that’s all about utilising every kind of communication at our disposal.  That doesn’t have to mean flying halfway around the world (just as well at the moment!), but it does mean being open to ideas.

April 16, 2010

The big Debate –Did You Get The Message?

Well, did you watch?; and if so, what did you make of it? Did you feel you got an insight into the personalities behind the parties, or did it feel more like a marathon joint press conference?

I felt I was proved right about the audience being a prop. I’m not sure what was added by members of the public, some of them terribly nervous, reading out their questions and then not being able to respond to the answers they were given – and in some cases, the answers they weren’t given. I know what was intended with the use of that device – they were there to represent you and me. I’m just not sure if it worked.

Not surprisingly, there were times when the responses were distinctly ‘Political’ – in the sense of politicians trying to answer the questions they wished they’d been asked, rather than the ones they were actually asked; and I did hear some evidence of careful line-learning – especially when phrases were recited over and over. Repetition works in marketing – we all know that; but it can get pretty tedious if we hear the same soundbites in the same order again and again within a few minutes!

I also have to agree with everyone I’ve heard across the media this morning, who’ve said the show was too long. In marketing terms, we’re always being reminded that people today have a shorter attention span than they used to. I regularly find myself trying to squeeze 60 minutesworth of information into less than 30 for that reason. Ok, half an hour would have gone nowhere last night, but I think an hour would have been plenty.

I couldn’t help noticing that they were all extremely busy meeting ‘ordinary’ people ‘the other day’. I don’t know which day it was – but they must have been completely knackered by the end of it! It got to a point where, like a twitch, or (something I’m very familiar with in sound production) an ‘erm’ pattern, I started to see an ‘I was talking to’ pattern –and it threatened to distract me from what they were talking about! It was obviously intended to show they were all in touch with ‘real people’, but it was a bit overdone. It reminded me of non-media people who go through media training. They’re often taught that when being interviewed on radio or tv, they should ’use the presenter’s name’. Unfortunately, some take it to the cringe-making enth degree, throwing in the name at every opportunity – and sometimes even when there isn’t an opportunity – “Well, John, as I was saying, John ..” etc etc.

There were positives, though – despite the 40-page rule book governing the event. I thought some of the most telling moments came when the moderator, Alastair Stewart, had to battle to retain control – when the combatants threatened to break out into a real row! Also, even the diving around the issues I mentioned earlier told me something about these individuals. Whether it told me what they wanted me to hear, I don’t know; but that’s the constant challenge with marketing, isn’t it – making sure that the message we want the customer to hear is the one they actually receive? So often, messages are lost in translation, aren’t they?

I’m always telling clients to talk ‘to’ their market, rather than at it. If I’m honest, for much of last night’s programme, I felt I was being talked ‘at’. I had a mad idea earlier this morning – get each one of the candidates into a radio studio on their own, with no audience in front of them to play to and no opponent to compete with. I’m not talking about an interview here. I’m talking about turning them into temporary presenters – so that they have to talk to each of us on a one-to-one basis. If we let them loose with the format, what sort of show would each come up with, I wonder …

No, of course I’m not serious – but if they mean what they say about wanting to connect with us personally, it could be a fun way of doing it – fun for us, if not for them!

April 15, 2010

The Big Debate – Can You Ever Be ‘Too Prepared’?

Unless you’ve been living on another planet for the last several weeks, you can’t have failed to notice that we have a piece of ‘tv history’ to look forward to tonight – the first UK pre-election debate between the three main party leaders.  They’re going to face big questions about the economic situation and how best to get out of it, health, education etc.  We know all the questions have been agreed in advance and the audience aren’t going to be allowed to cheer, heckle or otherwise respond.  So I’ve got a few questions for you:  Are you planning to watch?; and if so, what are you expecting?  Perhaps more to the point, what would you like to see?

 When it comes to any kind of presentation, I was always taught that ‘It’s all in the preparation’, but as I watch, listen to and read the media promotion – dare I say hype – of this evening’s show, I’m asking myself: is it ever possible to be too prepared?

Making any kind of live programme can be real seat of the pants stuff.  Even recording in front of a live audience, with the knowledge that you can edit afterwards is hair-raising at times – as I know from experience.  The golden rule is to expect the unexpected.  Sometimes that comes in the form of solid gold – sometimes it’s a massive clanger, dropped just at a point in the proceedings which makes it particularly difficult to remove afterwards.  Tonight’s programme is going out live, so it has to be carefully stage-managed, to avoid it degenerating into a free-for-all .  That might be quite fun to watch, but might not add much to our knowledge of the candidates.  Although, perhaps it would.  You often only see someone’s true colours in a crisis, don’t you?

I’m at least as curious about the fall-out from this as I am about the show itself.  We know a large percentage of the UK population is disillusioned with party politics.  “I don’t trust any of ‘em!” is an oft-heard cry and has been for years – just look at the declining turn-out across successive general and local elections.  The tv debate is, of course, supposed to help rekindle our interest and enthusiasm, by allowing us to engage with the three candidates as directly as possible – to see them outside their natural habitat – the zoo which is the Commons!  I’m not sure this particular format will facilitate that.

I asked you what you’re expecting to see.  As for me, I have to say I’m expecting something quite sterile.  Maybe I’m being cynical, but I can’t help thinking the live studio audience is no more or less than a prop in what I’ve already called a ‘show’.  Yes, there must be structure; yes, there must be preparation; but I have a nasty feeling that what we’re going to get is the equivalent of one of my contributors who came into the studio for an interview, clutching his pre-scripted answers, resulting in a stilted exchange which was at least as uncomfortable to listen to as it was to produce and in which his true personality and core message were lost.  I always send my interviewees the questions in advance and I have no issue with them bringing notes with them on the day – but scripts will be confiscated!  Of course tonight’s contributors won’t physically read from a script, but I’ll bet they’ll know their lines pretty thoroughly and rather than showing us the policies behind the people, what we’re actually in for is a political ‘beauty pageant’ – yes, I am using that term in its loosest sense!  It could well come down to who ‘performs’ best on camera.  I was at A Women In Business lunch yesterday.  The network has just launched its own online video channel and it was interesting to see how many of the members were scared witless at the prospect of having a camera pointed at them.  The likes of Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are obviously quite used to that, but they have very different styles and I’m afraid this evening might come down to style over substance.  The big debate is supposed to be about the issues, but for me at the moment, it’s about the ‘event’ itself.

I don’t know if there will be any research afterwards into how viewers and listeners respond, but I’d be fascinated to find out whether those watching on tv and those who listen on the radio come away with different impressions.  Body language is an incredibly powerful communication tool, but the unadorned human voice can often give away what a winning smile and carefully choreographed gestures conceal.

April 13, 2010

More From The Upcoming Book – Buzzing With Ideas:

In May 2006, you were lucky to find a business person who knew what a podcast was, but I found one – and look where it got me!

Extract from ‘On Sound Foundations’
Chapter 6 – ‘Lost For Words’:

“I was put in touch with Steve Westall by mutual friend and obsessive networker, Debbie Neville. Steve was a Director of Businesswise (now Pansophix), training and information specialists.

“From the first moment we met, in a hotel reception in Chelmsford, we realised we were destined never to have enough time to finish a conversation – there would always be more to say! It was one of those meetings that leave you excited and exhausted, buzzing with ideas but too knackered to do anything with them until you’ve had time to recover. Every conversation since has been exactly the same!

“After an hour or so of ideas flying around the room like jet-propelled bees, Steve suddenly looked at me across the table and said, ‘Have you ever considered doing a legal podcast?’ ‘What?’ I laughed. ‘As opposed to an illegal one?’ ‘No!’ he grinned back. ‘I mean a podcast on legal issues, for business. Do you know what a podcast is?’ Fortunately, of course, I did. But who would actually listen to a programme about law, I wondered. I had enough trouble trying to get people sitting in front of me to listen!

“Steve was definite though. ‘I’d listen,’ he said, ‘and I can think of plenty of other people who would.’ ‘Well,’ I said, the bees in my head firing up their turbo-boosters, ‘I’ll try anything once.’”

April 8, 2010

Would You Pay For News Online?

I never thought I’d see the day, but reading yesterday’s Guardian online, I found myself agreeing with Rupert Murdoch. In an article by Paul Harris, he was advocating putting online newspapers behind a ‘pay wall’ – making them available only to paying subscribers. The idea has met with fierce resistence, but I have to admit, I’m not sure why. Is it because it comes from someone like Murdoch? I have to say I didn’t like his assertion in the article that consumers could be “forced” to change their behaviour – that “if there’s nowhere else to go”, they would pay; but I honestly don’t understand the general avertion to the idea of paying for online content, news or otherwise. People who buy newspapers quite willingly part with their hard-earned on a regular basis. The same is true of buyers of books, cds, dvds etc. Yet when any of that material is made available online, a substantial percentage of people expect to get it for free. Surely we, as 21st century humans, aren’t so simple that we only value things we can hold in our hands? Surely most of the value of any information product is in the content, not the packaging? A piece of journalism, for instance, is the product of the journalist’s training, +his/her time and talent. He or she will bring the same training, the same skills etc to bear, however the results are made available to the world – so don’t those results have monitary value, whether their packaging is tangible or intangible? Am I missing something here?

I’m not saying we should always pay the same price for electronic information as we pay for the paper version. I can see the logic behind charging less for an ebook or an epaper than for a hard copy, because production and distribution costs will be lower. There will be costs, though, associated with producing an ebook or updating a newspaper’s website, which have to be covered by someone. When the vast majority of readers were buying old-fashioned newspapers, maybe companies could afford to make their online content free to the end user, but as fewer and fewer people buy physical papers, that becomes more of a challenge for publishers. Murdoch hailed the launch of the Apple iPad in the States on Saturday as the potential saviour of the newspaper industry. If he’s right and increasing numbers of readers move away from newsprint to the screen, some kind of charging model is going to be essential to the survival of titles. The only other option is advertiser-funding – but that’s another blog, for another day!

 

In the meantime, if you fancy getting your hands on an iPad before its worldwide launch, check out this article in The Inquirer.  Interesting marketing move …

April 6, 2010

University Was Enough To Drive Me To Verse!

Extract from “On Sound Foundations”
Chapter 5, “Long Time, No Hear”.

“There are very good reasons why most mature students have the sense not to live in student accommodation. Aside from the dirt, there was the noise. The flat was directly over the downstairs kitchen, which was shared by the rest of the house. The neighbours and I didn’t keep the same hours – it was nothing unusual for them to start cooking a meal at four in the morning – and the building didn’t boast luxuries like soundproofing. That meant we shared the house in every sense. Their music, mealtimes, arguments and sex lives were all clearly audible from upstairs.

“Verse has never been my natural medium, but on holiday shortly after I moved out in 2000, a couple of lines popped into my head and, before I knew it, I’d written ‘A Warning To Would-be Mature Students’ – a mix of estate agent-style blurb, ironic romanticism and sarky spin.”
** ** **

“Dear reader, let me take you to a place that I once knew,
Where perfume de communal kitchen and shared bathroom welcome you.
The ceilings are all painted in deep-dappled nicotine;
And the walls? Designer two-tone – mucky brown and mouldy green!
The jumping carpet lets you know the downstairs neighbour’s home
And the thin walls have you leaping up to answer next door’s phone.
For washing, there’s a lidded bucket and a nice big spoon
And the bathroom easily converts into a drying room.
The articulated loo has you believing you’re at sea
And underneath the lino, where a floorboard used to be
Which has given up the ghost and crumbled quietly away –
Look! It’s made a little footbath! (That’ll mean more rent to pay.)
The ‘Antiques Roadshow’ called the cooker, ‘An amazing find!’
It would have been worth more if Mr Faraday had signed
His name inside the oven door; but still, such a rare piece
Was bound to shift a handsome price – if I could shift the grease.
The local insect graveyard neatly doubles as a light
And time is an illusion… is it day, or is it night..?
Strange, nocturnal animals stay out of sight all day,
Then come out in the dark, to cook and clean and fight and… play.
The sleep you took for granted soon becomes a luxury.
Some learn to live without it, but that never worked for me.
So if at thirty-something or beyond, you’ve ever thought
You’d like to try the student life yourself, you really ought
To think about it carefully before you take the plunge
Into cosy communality, shared-house-music and grunge.
If you believe a student flat will help you keep your youth,
Just look at me and you will see the very painful truth.
I moved in young and hopeful and full of grand ideas
– and I’m leaving three years later, having aged at least ten years!”

April 1, 2010

The Things We Do For Love!

As you may know, I love my job.  Why else would I get up at 5 AM – aka ‘Stupid O’Clock’ – in the dark, to go up to Colchester to deliver a presentation this morning? 

It was my first trip to the Business Café, at the Barn Brasserie in Great Tey – and it was well worth the early start.  They were a great audience, who responded brilliantly to the weird and wonderful props I chose to illustrate my talk about ‘Podcasting on a Shoestring’ – everything from a pair of baby shoes to a cushion.  No, don’t ask – well, you can – but I won’t tell you where they fit in.  I might get the chance to deliver the presentation for a group you’re involved in and if I gave the game away in advance, I’d spoil the surprise, wouldn’t I? 

Anyway, I just wanted to thank this morning’s group, especially Jill Crooks of Room 105, who has liaised with me over the last month or so and has just sent me a lovely email.  I’m really hoping to get back up to The Barn very soon, as an ordinary visitor – and if you’re in the area (even if you’re not) I recommend you give it a go.

Hosted by Killer SEO SuperBlogs