Cross-posted from the Adfero Group blog

We’ve all seen horrible presentations. Most of us have probably given a few in our day. But in the professional world, public speaking is an unavoidable fact of life. Whether you love or loathe giving presentations, people on both sides of the coin can be really, really bad at it.

In reminiscing on the truly awful presentations I’ve seen, I came up with 4 basic pitfalls that can doom any public speaker:

Cross-posted from the Adfero Group blog

With the quick popularity of Google+ (G+), many social media gurus are proclaiming the slow but sure downfall of Facebook. To that, I say one thing: not going to happen. Here’s why:

1. Too little, too late

In a very rare and embarrassing moment (and for what feels like the first time), Google made a really big deal about a really bad product. Google Buzz was a complete failure on multiple fronts. From privacy lawsuits to simply bad aesthetics, Google’s seemingly invincible persona suffered a breach in its armor with a subpar product that was clearly a reactive idea in contrast to their usual forward-thinking, proactive approach – and people noticed. The best team in the league showed a weakness, other teams capitalized on it, and now they’re playing catch up, with Facebook remaining the “face” (pun intended) and authority on social networking.

2. Live by minimal, die by minimal

One of the biggest praises for G+ so far has been its clean, minimal design. On the flip side of that, Google plans to continue to add features, bells, whistles, and widgets. Yet for some reason, the public seems to think that they can request more functionality without any impact to the layout. Facebook has suffered from the same symptoms with the addition of chat windows, friend lists, and important vs. unimportant news feed posts. The difference is users, myself included, have already established Facebook as a part of our everyday lives. So even when new features were added that we don’t like, we were stuck. With Google+, users have absolutely no reason to defect from Facebook when the difference between the two isn’t all that drastic.

3. It’s not how the real world works

Google+ is about circles. You put your going-out buddies in a circle so you can share embarassing drinking snapshots. You put your coworkers in a separate circle so they can’t see anything but industry-related sharing. All your circles are comprised of people you know, and the people you don’t know get their own circle… with whom you never share… ever. There’s only one problem with this social architecture: the world is one BIG circle.

One of my biggest praises of Facebook is the way it sparks conversations. Let’s say a girl you went to college with posts a status saying “I need a new allergy medicine…” and you comment with a suggestion. Shortly after, another girl whom you’ve never met or heard of before, leaves a comment informing you that she used to used that medicine but there was a news story about it not being safe. Now there’s an informational dialogue going on between you and someone you’ve never met. Next week, you both end up commenting on that mutual friend’s status again. And again.  At this point, you might as well friend her, right? A few months later, your new Facebook friend is visiting your mutual friend for the weekend and suggests you all go out for drinks. A new thread has been added to your social network similarly to the way it would have if the same conversation came up in a bar.

The way Google+ presents itself will make it very hard to expand social networks. Sooner or later, that will get old and they will have to think of something else. However, that “something else” will take away from the heavily praised white space, generating more criticism. That, along with us assuming, of course, that Facebook hasn’t already implemented it renders G+, again, as a follower – not a leader.

Congressional offices are receiving between 200 to 1,000 percent more constituent communications than they were ten years ago. Despite the increase, a survey of congressional staff indicates that 90 percent believe constituent communications remains a “high priority” for the office. But sizable percentages of staff report that their offices are shifting resources to manage the increased demand.

The findings are part of a new report released today by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), How Citizen Advocacy Is Changing Mail Operations on Capitol Hill. The report is based on a survey of 260 congressional staff on how email and the Internet are affecting office procedures. CMF researchers also collected mail volume data from ten House and Senate offices.

Read the report here.

“Congress is working hard to adapt to and understand this new environment,” the report states. “But are most Members and staff of the Congress fundamentally rethinking what they do, or simply trying to apply a 20th century paradigm, workflow, and communications process to a 21st century challenge?”

Among the findings:

 
• Senate offices reported a 548 percent increase in mail volume since 2002 (including one office that reported a 1,422 percent increase from 2002 to 2009); House offices reported a 158 percent increase. All offices reported a significant spike in volume in 2009 when Congress considered many high-profile issues.
• An increasing number of congressional offices are answering incoming email with an email response, rising from 37 percent in 2005 to 86 percent in 2010.
• A majority of staff report they spend more time on constituent communications than two years ago (58 percent); and 46 percent report shifting resources to manage increased volume.
• If an office has previously prepared a response to a constituent inquiry, a sizable percentage of staff (41 percent) estimate it requires more than a week to respond. If a new policy statement or text is required, 42 percent report it can take more than three weeks for the office to respond.
• While senior managers and staff primarily responsible for answering the mail agree on the top three challenges to quickly responding to constituent communications, they do not agree on the most significant problem. Senior managers state that the mail volume is the biggest challenge (35 percent); but, “mail staffers” report that “the review and approval process” is the biggest obstacle (41 percent).

The report notes that congressional offices have seen no increases in personnel in the last three decades. “I don’t know any industry in the world that could absorb as much as a ten-fold increase in customer interest and a zero increase in labor to support it,” said Bradford Fitch, President and CEO of CMF. “Under the circumstances, most congressional offices are doing the best job they can in just keeping up with the increasing volume,” he said.

The report is the latest in a series of CMF’s “Communicating with Congress” research, part of the organization’s Partnership for a More Perfect Union, which seeks to enhance the understanding, communications, and relationship between citizens and Congress. The report is the third in a series released in 2011 by CMF based primarily on a survey of congressional staff conducted October–December 2010. Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill was released in January 2011, and #SocialCongress: Perceptions and Use of Social Media on Capitol Hill was released in July 2011. Today’s report and other CMF research are available at CongressFoundation.org.

The report was sponsored by Convio, Fireside21 and voterVOICE. CMF’s next report will be released on October 24, identifying the best websites on Capitol Hill, with the issuance of the 112th Congress Gold Mouse Awards.

With 800 million active users, Facebook has earned the title of most popular social network around the globe. At the f8 conference a few weeks ago, CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg announced some big changes, the latest in the site’s constant evolution. It’s hard for a lot of users to adjust to the new features and, for organizations using Facebook in advocacy efforts, it may seem like things are changing just as they were getting the hang of things. Despite the growing pains, Facebook is a valuable tool that can raise awareness and inspire action.  

Here are a few rules to live by:

1.       A Few Can Activate Many

Engagement, not number of fans, is key. On average, every time someone shares a link to your organization’s website on Facebook, two to five people will visit it. In any online campaign, it’s imperative to utilize social context. People care about what their friends are doing and are heavily influenced by actions. If you can show Facebook users that their friends “liked” or engaged with your page, chances are high that you can get them involved, too.  
So, now the question is, how? 

 
• Use Facebook Questions. Asking your fans a question leads to viral exposure. If you ask a question, it will appear on your fans’ newsfeed. If they answer or follow that question, their friends can also see the activity. This is also a good way to get direct feedback from your fans. 
• Use Facebook to live stream your events or town halls. Free tools like UStream allow you to broadcast your event to all of your fans. Also, if you use event materials to let people know they can tune in on your Facebook page, you are likely to get more fans.
•  Make everything you can an event.  All of your organization’s events should be shared on Facebook. You should also use this tool for virtual events or calls to action (i.e. “Call your congressman by noon today!”).  Again, this allows your fans’ friends to see their action, making them more likely to join in.

 2.       Don’t Be Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf

Facebook encourages open communication, something that may seem daunting to organizations because it can indicate a lack of control. If you want to successfully use Facebook as a tool, you have to put some time into engaging with your fans, monitoring your page, and moderating the comments. That being said, most press is good press.

 
• Post a clear comment policy on your page info, and stick to it.
• Don’t delete comments just because they’re negative.  Even negative comments make it more likely for people to see your page. Supporters will defend against these negative comments and drive traffic to the topic.
• Be active. When people know that someone is actively monitoring and responding to comments, they tend to be nicer.

 3.       Be Human

If you let your fans and activists get to know a little bit about the people behind your mission, you give them a way to connect.  When people are more connected to the page, they view it as a legitimate source of information, and will be more inspired and inclined to take action.

 
• It’s great to post a story or anecdote about your staff that’s not strictly related to your organization. Show the personalities behind the work you do.
• If you have a good relationship with your fans, you can raise money without even asking for it
• If you’re posting more than press releases, you can provoke interesting conversation on your site, giving it a lot more personality.

Facebook is evolving, and so should your organization. In your advocacy campaign, be innovative and embrace these tools as a way to reach a wider audience.

Despite the successful and headline-grabbing launch of Google+, only 13 members of the U.S. Senate and 15 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have established profiles on the new social networking site, far fewer than the number from each chamber who are active on Facebook and Twitter.

Google+ launched in July to much fanfare and within three weeks had attracted 20 million users in the U.S. Some technology pundits have labeled it a “Facebook killer.”

Congress’s slow adoption of Google+ comes as a surprise because the new social networking platform contains at least one unique function the others do not: It allows users to segregate relationships into “Circles,” meaning members of Congress can isolate constituents from other followers. Heavy social networking “spam” from non-constituents is a significant frustration for members and their social media staffs.

“Just the other day, someone posted on our Facebook wall that she wished my boss was her senator,” a Hill press secretary told me.

A recent study by the Congressional Management Foundation reports that members of Congress and key staff have embraced social media as a tool to communicate with constituents. But privately, many also complain they receive too much pre-packaged “Astroturf” in the form of canned Tweets and Facebook wall postings. In many cases, these communications come from people far away from the members’ districts or from undetermined locations. Google+ Circles allow members of Congress to target their communications directly to people in the states or districts they represent, while ignoring communications directed at them from people outside their states or districts.

The Circles feature offers additional benefits as well. For example, members can compartmentalize constituents based on the content of their communications. A member could have a Veterans Issues Circle or an Energy and Environment Circle, for example. Circles can also streamline and facilitate press communications. And Circles are by no means the only promising functionality on Google+. So-called “Hangouts” — a native, pushbutton small group video chat feature — could become an alternative to district town hall meetings, which have become made-to-order YouTube set-up moments over the last couple of years.

Nevertheless, one staff member for a Republican U.S. senator told me he was reluctant to dive into Google+ because, “We already have enough difficulty keeping Facebook and Twitter up to date.”

It appears that Google has not yet made a concerted effort to encourage members of Congress to use its new platform. “While Facebook and Twitter appear to actively work with the caucus, Google has made no such effort,” another Republican staffer told me.

Of the senators who have established profiles on Google+, only four appear to use it to reach out to constituents actively: Sens. Bob Casey, Orrin Hatch, Bernie Sanders and Mark Warner.

Only thee House members on Google+ (Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Jared Polis and Kathy Hochul) use it frequently to post and interact with followers. The others have profiles and occasionally update their spaces.

One reason for the relative lack of Capitol Hill enthusiasm for Google+ to date may be the fact that the platform has not yet lived through an election cycle. In the past, heated primary and general-election contests have fueled the explosive growth of Facebook and Twitter in the political world.

It’s also important to note that despite its widespread use, Google+ is still a Beta product. Google is currently testing a platform for business entities that might have additional functions that will benefit political leaders, like advertising tie-ins to aid brand management and data collection. And in addition to its native applications, developers are certain to enhance the Google+ experience with custom apps.

Some Hill staffers I have spoken to feel a bit burned by the overstated expectations of other social media platforms. It’s not altogether clear to them that they are getting out of it all they have put in. But the successful launch of Google+ ensures it is here to stay. And its native functionality and promising future appear well-suited for leaders in government, politics and public affairs.

Patrick Hynes is the President of Hynes Communications.

By Kalee Miller of Adfero Group

Obviously, the list of reasons to use Twitter are endless. These reasons could range from promoting thoughts, ideas or people, to updating followers on news and events or keeping up with current trends. I personally use the site for all of these reasons, but I have to be honest about another motivation for my Twitter usage. Here is my big confession: I love celebrity gossip. It’s easy to learn what’s going on in Hollywood via Twitter. Following celebrity accounts has saved me time and money because I can get the “news” free and quick, instead of buying magazines at the grocery store. And while some of us may just be in it for the gossip, I also believe there is a greater lesson in social media to be learned.

By Sean Wagman of Adfero Group

It appears that in social advertising these days, too much web space has been dedicated to writing eye-catching ad copy. That is all well and good, but ad copy will not make or break your social ad campaign. Most people will not take the time to read your copy. Instead, they will look at the picture, the headline, and a few keywords.

Instead, a savvy marketer will spend most of their time thinking through their targets and how they will reach them.

Look, I used to be like you. I spent most of my time pouring over the copy, making sure the 135 characters were maximized to their fullest extent. And on Facebook, targeting can be a bit overwhelming, with options ranging to geo-targeting (all the way down to the city) to gender to marital status to other Facebook pages.

But, once you have stopped worrying about the totality of targeting options, here are three easy tips to ensure that your targeting is top notch (that is, if you do not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars required for an extensive market research campaign).

1. When in doubt, borrow from others

Small dollars for research should never equal poor targeting, not when you have so much content at your fingertips. Did you know that a lot of time and money goes into placing advertisements on the websites you visit? The same thing goes for the magazines that you read. A great way to generate ideas for targeting is to see the advertisements that are run in websites and magazines that you give to your community to read and see if they have a presence on Facebook. And presto – you have your bootleg version of Market Research.

2. Go where your audience already is

This one is sort of obvious but still needs to be said. Certain demographics like certain things. Moms will like motherly things like Gerber and Motts. Younger Men (18-34) will like Bud Light and Call of Duty. And seniors will like the AARP and the way things used to be. Don’t over think your options and get too cute.

3. If the fish aren’t biting, go where they are

In the last campaign I ran, after 2-3 days, I felt there were a few targets on various ads that were dragging down the overall performance of the campaign. So instead of leaving those items in there, I adjusted my targets. I took out 10-15 of the underperforming targets and replaced them other items that were a bit more broad and popular. The results were what I expected: more people started clicking on my ads. That is the great thing about social advertising; nothing is set in stone and everything can be adjusted on the fly.

And remember, when thinking through your list of targets, not everyone has the same awesome taste that you have. The more minds you have brainstorming possible ideas, the more likely you are to hit upon something you never could have thought of on your own. For the most recent campaign I ran, I never would have hit upon some of my best targets if I didn’t ask for help first. Collaboration should always be encouraged, no matter what.

P.S. – The first person to successfully @ message me on Twitter with the movie I stole my title from gets a rare and elusive #FF from me.

By Sheree Anne Kelly, Vice President of the Public Affairs Council

I wouldn’t feel comfortable if our head of IT asked me to disassemble my computer, rebuild it and then go back to using it. I bet I’d enjoy the process of seeing what’s actually inside my PC, and I might even learn something. But how likely is it that my computer would function properly after such an exercise? Odds are pretty slim. When it comes to motherboards, I’ve had no training. I’m flying blind.

Many global companies are also flying blind when it comes to managing their in-country public affairs activities. According to the Public Affairs Council’s 2010-2011 International Public Affairs Benchmarking Report, most country managers (business heads in a particular host country) lack consistent public affairs training. Yet they are often responsible for the public affairs function.

The survey examines how firms organize, staff and resource global public affairs. It also looks at common decision-making processes, activities, challenges and trends in the field. In addition, respondents rated their ability to have an impact on public policy in markets such as China, the EU, Argentina, India and South Korea. Copies of the report can be ordered on the Council’s website at www.pac.org.

Sixty-one percent said their company’s in-country business leaders manage both operational and public affairs activities. This makes sense because of the natural synergy between business interests and public affairs objectives. In fact, respondents said more than 12 percent of the average international public affairs budget is allocated for business development.

What doesn’t make sense is the lack of training provided to these business executives so they know how to engage political leaders and confront public policy challenges. Fewer than 20 percent of companies provide regular (at least annual) training on company or industry-specific business issues. Advocacy skill training is regularly offered by only 18 percent of companies. Education programs on the inner workings of government and national decision-making processes are also rare – only 14 percent provide this type of training. Coalition-building skills are taught and reviewed even less frequently (by only 10 percent of companies).

This is not to say that companies forego training altogether. Anti-corruption training? That’s a priority for many organizations. Seventy-five percent provide instruction at least once a year. Ethics training is also offered on a regular basis by 71 percent of respondents. Those numbers ought to be 100 percent, however. And public affairs-specific guidance is provided regularly in less than one quarter of all companies.

Why is there a dearth of training? That’s a good question, especially when you review other study results. When asked to identify key political challenges in the international markets where they operate, respondents ranked “managing legislative and regulatory processes in host countries” the most difficult. If that’s the case, then it would stand to reason that firms would want to ensure the people charged with managing public affairs activities had the necessary political knowledge and tools to do their jobs.

In addition, preparing country managers well has become critical because of the growing global cynicism about the role of corporations in society.  Edelman’s 2011 Trust Barometer surveyed thought-leaders around the world to see if they trusted business to do what’s right. In the United States, a dismal 46 percent gave a positive response. That’s down eight percent from last year. Major countries with low levels of trust in business also include France, the UK and Russia.

Other studies have confirmed that the public affairs function is becoming more important than ever. A study last year by McKinsey & Company showed that government is more likely to affect a business’ economic value than any other group except customers. Nearly two-thirds said they believe government’s role in their industry will increase in the next three to five years.

If you want to see evidence of what happens when corporate employees approach global public affairs the wrong way, just read the headlines. In India, the giant conglomerate Tata Group may be implicated in a high-profile scandal, reports The Financial Times. Parliamentary panels are probing allegations that the company’s business executives practiced graft and other misconduct when dealing with government officials. In China last year, four executives from Rio Tinto, an Australian mining company, were sentenced to prison for bribery and stealing commercial secrets.CNN called this incident “a wake-up call for foreign firms in China.”

Could more training have helped these companies do the right thing? I would hope so. When you consider the cost of a negative public policy outcome, a missed opportunity to open a new market, and – most of all – the damage caused by a major ethics scandal, it’s short-sighted not to equip executives with the information they need to be effective.

The risks are simply too great to fly blind.

The past few months have made it clear that executive agencies will continue to make key decisions in Washington, D.C.

So far in 2011, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has considered new regulations on electricity plants, mining, and emissions.  The Federal Communications Commission has tried to implement limited net neutrality rules and continues to pursue controversial aspects of a national broadband plan.

Sequestered from the political realities of elections faced by Members of Congress, administration entities can seem immune to grassroots communication.  Many advocacy organizations pull the plug on their online outreach and grassroots programs entirely.

In reality, you ignore these important tactics at your own risk.

From agency heads up to the President’s veto pen, persuasive communication from the right voices can impact the decision-making process. It may not be as plainly obvious as the “email your Member of Congress” function that we’re all used to seeing on most advocacy websites, but effective strategies do exist.  For instance, they might include:

- Surrounding the President, his political and policy advisors, and regulators with messages from those within their spheres of influence – their network of “Key Influentials.”
- Leveraging the 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections by mobilizing political contacts in battleground states.
- Conducting targeted in-district campaigns to raise the awareness of Members of Congress on priority oversight committees.
- Demonstrating public support through public comments and attendance at public meetings.

Online organizing can serve as a good first step.  In fact, campaign tactics like these offer a good opportunity to mobilize online supporters to take impactful, tangible, real-world action.

Every political figure – even the ones that don’t face re-election every few years – has a kitchen cabinet of advisors who help him or her make decisions.  As such, a precisely targeted campaign can properly direct support to reach them with issue-based messages.

Wes Farno serves as Vice President at Advocacy Group, Inc., where he designs and manages grassroots field campaigns.

The last thing one expects when prepping a kid for a history test is to spot a public affairs lesson in the story of the Tea Party.

No, not that Tea Party. The one 238 years ago. At Boston Harbor. Involving the stuff you drink.

What struck me as my daughter and I went over the events of that winter night in 1773 was how the Boston rebels spread the story of their tea-dumping escapade from colony to colony. They so masterfully laced the tale with real-life heroes, villains and action that the story ignited support for revolution among colonists who – despite high taxes and heavy-handed British rule – weren’t yet sold on the idea.

Storytelling. This, says former White House communications director Kevin Sullivan, is the most powerful way to drive a public affairs message home and inspire people to act.

“Paint a picture,” Sullivan told those who attended the Public Affairs Council’s National PAC Conference in Miami, Fla., in February. “Build a drama, be a storyteller… it’s the most effective way to communicate. People remember stories.”

This seems a no-brainer. But apparently not, since experienced communicators such as Sullivan recognize their audiences need reminding.

Sullivan began his conference speech – one that focused on how to be a “trusted advisor” — with a story. He ended with a story. He dropped mini-stories in between each “lesson.” And he captivated his audience for nearly an hour.  Stories about people, he pointed out, are far more interesting than stories about policies or legislation.

But policies and legislation are typically the material a public affairs professional has to work with. How does one tell a story about something as seemingly academic as, say, “government regulations that hamper the free enterprise economic system”?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did it by using the tools every good storyteller does – creating protagonists, posing a threat or obstacle and illustrating some “transformation” in which the heroes either deliver the goods or win the day.

In the chamber’s “American Free Enterprise, Dream Big” campaign, launched in mid-2009 to counter what it considered an anti-business White House, the villain was a new sort of burdensome “tea tax” — government regulation. The threat was a modern sort of British suffocation – the strangulation of American jobs. And the heroes were the political candidates who would rescue jobs on the stallion of less government intervention.

In a Des Moines Rotary Club appearance that underscored the campaign’s storytelling mechanism, chamber President Tom Donohue motioned to Suku Radia, CEO of Bankers Trust, noting that the Ugandan native came to the United States to attend school, decided to stay and “rose to lead the largest independently owned community bank in Iowa.”

Then he turned to John Ruan of Ruan Securities and reminded his audience that Ruan’s father “started a company with a single truck during the height of the Great Depression and built it into a vast financial empire.”

“There are millions of other stories just like theirs across this great land,” Donohue told his listeners before diving into the regulatory evils that threatened “the American Dream.” “Perhaps you share a similar one… of dreaming big, starting a business, and working hard to earn success.”

The chamber ran ads in states with vulnerable Democrats picturing out-of-work Americans cradling their heads in their hands after losing jobs because of environmental laws, lawsuit-happy politicians or strict financial regulations. One ad showed parched farm fields and blamed California Sen. Barbara Boxer for “protecting the three-inch smelt instead of protecting California jobs.” Even though Boxer won reelection, I guarantee as a former resident of the drought-plagued state that this sort of ad goes over big.

State by state, the chamber publicized how many jobs each would have to create in the next decade to make up for jobs lost in the recession (in Missouri it was nearly 450,000; in Illinois it was more than 670,000).

So what was the “transformation” required of every good story? It was the chamber’s storytelling, in part, that probably convinced some Americans to break with a once-popular president and flood Congress with new Republicans whom they believed could beat back any job-killing menace.

Imagine if the chamber had tried to pull off its campaign with egg-headed recitations of the virtues of the free enterprise system.  Imagine if Samuel Adams, who immediately worked to publicize and defend the Boston Tea Party, had stripped the rebellion of its characters and plot and instead told the story this way:

“In direct action demonstrating resistance to the Tea Act passed by the British Parliament, Massachusetts colonists objected to the violation of their right to be taxed only by elected representatives by successfully unloading British tea into Boston’s harbor.”

Instead, Adams’ “messaging,” if you will, resonated with on-the-fence colonists because it involved people like them, doing extraordinary things: slipping aboard three ships after dark, using tomahawks to split tea chests in half, tossing 45 tons of the stuff (worth a modern $1 million) overboard. There was even humor:  The rebels – seized by some strange fit of conscientiousness – swept the docks clean of tea and sent the ships’ captain a new lock to replace the one they’d mangled.

The chamber’s “messaging” resonated with voters because it involved people like them, enduring extraordinary times.

In my living room this week, it was because she was reciting a great story that my daughter — animated by the drama she could picture in her head – rattled off dates, places, crusades and characters and barely recognized she was studying for a history exam.

In the parlance of the public affairs profession, I think that’s what we call a “desired outcome.”