Sherie Griffiths

July 22, 2011

Feedback: A painful noise? Or music to your ears?

A couple of years ago, I did a presentation under this title. It was all about the similarities I’d spoted between two apparently completely different kinds of feedback – the horrible, high-pitched whistling noise you get in a studio, or with a PA system, when the mic is too close to a speaker or a pair of headphones and the sound circles around between the two, and negative comments from customers.

I hadn’t thought of it in ages – until yesterday.

I’m currently adapting a series of training courses I normally deliver personally, into downloadable packages. If you’ve never done that, it isn’t as easy as it looks. When I’m face to face with a client or group of clients, although I follow the same basic process each time, their questions and feedback play a significant role in deciding what we focus on and how I deliver the information.. The online version has to include everything and be user-friendly for everyone who wants to use it.

As I’m too close to the subject and the material to judge whether I’m hitting either of those objectives, I’ve asked a small group of people to road-test the course as I develop it. Yesterday saw the first major milestone, when I sent them the first draft of the first module.

To be honest, I was quite surprised how nervous I was – it was almost as bad as when I hit the ‘Send’ button and emailed out the very first draft of the book!

A few hours later, I was sitting in the radio studio, interviewing Caroline Thomas of Sales Scene and Louise Innes of Dotty Hippo Design, about the Thurrock Network Group and their ‘Thurrock’s Den’ project at this weekend’s T-Fest. If you’re in the area, go and check out their stand – there’s a great prize on offer for the best videoed business pitch, courtesy of the Park Inn Thurrock, Sales Scene and Dotty Hippo Design.

The interview went really well – both girls know their stuff inside out and are passionate about their subject – but through the whole thing, I could hear the familiar high howl of feedback in my headphones – OUCH! There was nothing obviously wrong and as we were live on air, there wasn’t much I could do by way of investigation – so I just had to grin and bear it – and solve it at the earliest opportunity (before the poor listener ran as far from the radio as possible, holding their ears!)

So what’s the connection between those two events? Well, as I said at the beginning, audio feedback happens when a mic gets too close to an output source. It’s a nasty noise – it can actually hurt if it’s loud enough – but it does alert you pretty quickly to the fact that there’s a problem which will, if it’s left unchecked, drive listeners away. It’s usually quite easily fixed, by putting distance between the two bits of kit which are annoying each other.

In business, we often fight shy of getting too close to our customers, in case we hear something that hurts, don’t we? I’m twitching at the moment, waiting for my test-drivers to come back to me. I’d love them to tell me my first efforts are wonderful and I should just keep doing what I’m doing – but realistically, I know they’re far more likely to offer constructive criticism. Some of it might even sting a bit – but at least it’ll tell me where the issues are at this early stage and I’ll be able to fix them before the product hits the market – and prospective paying customers vote with their hard-earned!

We tend to see complaints etc as problems – but shouldn’t we actually see them as opportunities to improve? Rather than being painful noises (avoided by putting a distance between us and the critic), shouldn’t they be music to our ears? I’m certainly trying to see them that way at the moment!

August 4, 2010

Get PodSavvy – ‘Sound Advice’

Last week, we released the second episode of our monthly business communications podcast, ‘Get PodSavvy’ –. This month’s theme is ‘Where do I start?’ So of course that was the question I looked at in the first episode of my ‘Sound Advice’ feature (which will appear within each monthly show). The series gives me the chance to share some tips and tricks on the subject of professional business audio.

The answer to the question is, of course, ‘with research’. If you have no experience of this kind of project, the starting point for that research is listening – soaking up as much of other people’s content as you can get your ears on! Dr Stephen Covey says that out of reading, writing, speaking and listening, listening is the activity we spend the highest percentage of our time doing (or at least attempting to do) but the lowest percentage of our time learning. I’d go along with that – although I have to say, in my professional experience, the average person’s listening skills are better than they think. I’m consistently surprised by clients who swear they’re ‘no good at listening’, then proceed to spot a flawed piece of audio on first hearing. They can’t always tell me straight off what’s wrong with it – but they know it isn’t right; it isn’t ‘comfortable’ to listen to.

I set you a challenge in the programme – to turn away from the tv for a few minutes, just listen, and see what you pick up on. I try this with all my training clients –with some really interesting results. If you give it a go, do let me know what happens.

The July show is the first I’ve recorded in USP’s new studios – which include some very swish television facilities. So I had to be a bit careful what I said about tv sound – although I still had to tell it like it is – traditionally, it’s been ‘the poor relation’, the assumption being that the viewer will be so preoccupied with the pictures, the sound really doesn’t matter. Even I assumed that was the case for a lot of people – until recently, when I was talking to someone who makes videos for business and he commented that the standard of the audio behind the pictures could make or break the whole presentation.

For this month’s competition, I’m asking you to identify what’s wrong with a sound clip. Obviously, you need to listen to be able to have a crack at it.

The winner of the June competition was Tim Carter of Attwaters Solicitors in Harlow, Essex. He was the only person correctly to identify that Ivan Newman was reciting ‘Jabberwocky’ by Lewis Carroll. The stakes have gone up this month – not only do you get an hour of me for free, you also get an hour with Ivan. Between us, we can help you improve your customer service – and sound professional when you shout about it!

Talking of the relationship between sound and pictures (as I was just now), next week, I’ll tell you a bit about the first ‘Get PodSavvy’ feature to go visual.

March 4, 2010

“Clarification” On The BBC Strategy Review?

I’m normally aiming to talk to you a couple of times a week, but what I’m about to say follows on from yesterday so won’t wait till next week!

As you’ll have gathered, I was genuinely baffled about the business case for some of the specific cuts proposed by the BBC Strategy Review, published on Tuesday. I focused on 6 Music in my last post, but the axe is also hovering over the Asian Network (another small digital radio station) and various web services.

So when I heard that the BBC’s Head of Strategy was going to be interviewed on Radio 4’s “The Media Show”, I pricked up my ears. A-ha! I thought. Now we’ll get some answers!

Well, no, not really.

Nothing I’m about to say is meant in any way as a slur against John Tate – I wouldn’t want his job for any salary – especially at the moment. As he pointed out in his interview with “Media Show” presenter, Steve Hewlett, the report was very much a team effort.

He emphasized that the core purpose was to streamline services, to “do fewer things better”, put more money into high quality programming and put content back at the heart of everything. Well, that’s great – but it still didn’t answer my question – why streamline by removing small, relatively low-cost niche services for which the wider market doesn’t have an obvious replacement?

Previously, said Mr Tate, the BBC had been able to “do both” – create new services whilst maintaining the existing offering. Now, he said, it was becoming a choice of “either/or”. Ok, I get that. Most of us in business during the recession have had to make those decisions. Just one small problem: the emphasis of the report seems to be on maintaining and improving existing services at the expense of new ones – but these proposed cuts are aimed at existing services. Is it me, or is that a straight contradiction?

Steve Hewlett asked if the previous digital expansion, which produced 6 Music, the Asian Network and a lot of the new web services, had actually “backfired” by diluting the offering from the core channels? After all, the report talks about taking new comedy back to BBC2 (from BBC3), along with high end factual and cultural material (from BBC4). Mr Tate disagreed though. Far from backfiring, he said, all those new digital channels had “created more space” for great programming – space which the review seems to recommend should now be reduced. He went on to say that BBC2 had changed since the introduction of 3 and 4 and the plans contained in the review included “taking it back” to some extent. Contradiction alert?! He said the place for digital media had changed. Well, yes, very soon it will become the only media we have.

On the subject of 6 Music, he said the station has “a big and loyal fan base”, but that the “listener hour” cost is relatively high, the average age of the core listenership is 37 – “Right at the heart of the target audience for commercial radio” and 85% of those listeners also listen to other BBC stations. Aside from the cost, none of that convinces me of the business case. Just because the average 6 Music listener is part of the target audience for commercial radio doesn’t mean commercial radio is serving them; and as for 85% listening to other BBC stations, I don’t doubt it. I don’t know about you, but I’m a multidimensional person who can’t get all her needs met from any single source, radio or otherwise. I want different things at different times and I find them in different places – but that doesn’t lessen the importance to me of any individual source.

Mr Tate said the choice was between growing 6 until it became the third national pop station, alongside Radios 1 and 2, or closing it and redistributing the programming. With respect to the authors of and contributors to the report, who must have done a huge amount of background work, I think they’ve missed several points here – especially the one about the radio village. That’s what 6 and the Asian Network were set up to be and now they risk being destroyed because that’s what they’ve become. It all boils down to the question: what was the measure of success set out when these networks were set up?

There’s always going to be some conflict between minority entertainment and commercial principles and between commercial principles and listener-funded public service broadcasting. We expect psb to serve minorities, but as we all know, those services have to be paid for – by the majority. It’s a really difficult balance, but one I don’t think this latest report has managed to strike. What do you think?

Hosted by Killer SEO SuperBlogs