Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

I belong to a lot of e-mail lists for various groups of people, from independent consultants to academic PR types. And one thing I see a lot on those lists are messages like this:

“Does anyone have a social media strategic plan they would be willing to share? Am specifically looking for strategy relation to alumni engagement, but would love to see other plans as well. Thanks!”

Sometimes, those requests are accompanied by a flurry of “Yeah, me too!” replies to the list.

So here’s my advice: Stop asking.

Do you need someone else’s plan to write your own? Do you believe there’s a magic formula that will give you buy-in from your boss or a phrase that is better than anything you could come up with? Did someone come up with a structure for communication plans or a plan element that nobody else has devised?

The answer to all of those questions is, or should be, no.

What should any plan contain?

• Situation analysis / Background / Context. Enough background so that you can lay out the challenges and opportunity your organization faces.
• Objective. What’s the goal?
• Tactics. What are you going to do to get to the objective?
• Evaluation. How — and when — are you going to measure success?

That’s it — the skeleton that you need. Everything else — key messages, Qs & As, issue briefs — can be put into appendices or tactical plans. Looking at someone else’s challenges and opportunities, objectives, tactics won’t help you. Just do it. And if you can’t, hire someone else or bring in a colleague to help you do it.

Don’t look to other people’s work for your salvation.

Photo: “Helping student / big cheater”, CC licenced by Flickr user Mrfishersclass

UPDATE: Buddy Joe Boughner has created the following handy-dandy graphic guide. Please clip and save.

Two stories have caught my eye in the last 12 hours or so.

First, new rules that Canada’s Treasury Board (essentially, the financial management arm for government operations) has brought in regarding hospitality expenses for public servants; second, a fight between the Toronto Star and provincial public servants over reports on Internet surfing habits by provincial public servants. What do these have in common? To my mind, questionable premises and easy targets.

Let’s talk feds first. According to a story in The Globe and Mail, Treasury Board minister Stockwell Day is “tightening the leash” on public servants. The Toronto Star’s headline was “No more booze for bureaucrats.” But when you read the stories, it becomes clear that these new rules are being set out to catch a fairly small number of cases. For example, this passage from a story in the Sun chain:

QMI Agency reported earlier this year that top bureaucrats had expensed $506 on liquor during an off-site meeting and spent more than $495 on booze during a farewell reception in 2008. Although the Treasury Board’s policy was silent, deputy ministers and ministers could approve alcohol spending.

Meanwhile, a story in the National Post reported “figures released to the NDP on Wednesday show that total government spending on hospitality reached $556,880 last fiscal year, up from $435,280 the previous year.”

Hm. We have a federal budget of more than $230,000,000,000. Hm. That seems to make around 4/1000ths of one per cent of the federal budget.

And as the partner of a public servant, I can tell you a couple of things. She rarely travels. Her travel requests are usually approved by three layers of management, up to either an assistant deputy minister or the deputy minister. She’s fought — and lost — battles to offer people coffee at full-day meetings. Food? Hah. Paid venues for meetings? Don’t bother asking. While I’ve no doubt that other departments aren’t as parsimonious, I somehow doubt mimosas in the morning and martinis at lunch whilst basking in a sauna are regularly — if ever — on the menu.

For those of us inside the Queensway, this sort of rule-making seems a bit like outlawing public servants buying themselves Ferraris. Sure, we don’t WANT that to happen. But how often does it happen anyway?

Moving on to the provincial story. Apparently, the Toronto Star is wrestling with the provincial government to obtain reports into the Internet surfing habits of civil servants. According to the story,

the government has spent the better part of a year arguing that taxpayers have no right to know how much time civil servants spend on social media sites, sports and entertainment websites or trying to access websites that show porn or promote “Racism and Hate” or “Drugs.”

Keep in mind that the government of Ontario blocks social media sites like Facebook and Youtube from its networks already. The reports the Star wants to obtain are those of investigations carried out by the province’s IT security folks. So why wouldn’t the government release such reports. One reason cited is the confidentiality of HR matters. I can see that being a concern. But I suspect there’s a fear of the “GOTCHA!” story that would result: “The Toronto Star has learned that one bureaucrat spent six hours per day watching Danish pornography…”

There’s a perception that public servants at all levels have it pretty soft. The concern that I have is that stories and initiatives like this play into the hands of solidifying that perception based on some incredibly unrepresentative samples. As a communicator, I understand the power of symbols to lead. The question is: in what direction do we want these symbols to lead us?

I had a coffee with Vincent White of Canada NewsWire today, the first time we’d had a chance to chat in person. He’s a recent transplant to Ottawa from his home town of Montreal. As we chatted about a number of things, with a special appearance from PR and Other Deadly Sins cohort Mark Blevis, an idea came up.

I had also met today with Kel Morin-Parsons for the first time, and while we were getting to know each other, I was able to introduce her to Kym, who photographed me earlier this year. What do Mark, Kym, and Kel have in common? Multiple lives. Not the reincarnated type.

Kel works with a national association. She works with other smart communicators. She writes academic papers. She acts, writes, and directs. She has her own theatre company.

How an "amateur" can make a silk purse of a sow's ear

Kym is a public servant. She is a travel addict. And she’s created a web site where she takes pictures of people (quite artfully making them look fantastic and catching a sense of who they are seemingly effortlessly, from the subject’s point of view.)

Mark is a public affairs professional, a podcaster, a musician, a conference organizer…

It occurred to me that these folks are far from unique in my life. Ryan works with Kel, and is a blogger. Kym has taken photos of Emily, who is a graphic designer, a t-shirt entrepreneur, and a fundraiser against cancer with her art. Rob is a singer, a revitalizer of community associations, a public servant, and the organizer of a great fundraiser. Andrea is a singer-songwriter whose work I love and who does media monitoring in the early mornings. Suze is a maker of videos, a teacher, and helped create a super web site with Cheryl, who is a videotape editor, an organizer of songwriting circles, and more. And I have this job as a public relations guy, in addition to helping to organize meetups, serving on a board, doing house concerts, podcasting about Stephen King, trying to write a novel…

This isn’t the way my parents lived. Not sure it was the way ANYone’s parents lived. As Vincent and I talked about that, he wondered if this was an Ottawa thing. One of the things he’s noticed in his time here is that this is a “community” thing that may be unique to Ottawa. (He also pointed out that when we Ottawa types go to a 5 à 7, we leave at 7 and go home, instead of heading to a restaurant and continuing the evening. That is a Montréal thing, along with the best smoked meat and Sicilian cannoli…)

So I’m asking you: is this an Ottawa thing? Are we doing this more than other people? Or is this the way we all live now?

Happy weekend, everyone.

UPDATE: Great to see all of you new visitors to the site. Can I ask commenters to please be civil to each other and to the readers? Thanks.

I just got pointed to an interview that aired on last night’s CBC Radio show “As It Happens.” For readers outside of Canada who don’t know about this show, it’s one of the flagship national current affairs shows on CBC Radio One, hosted by a senior journalist named Carol Off.

The interview was with the newly-elected mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford. Ford is a colorful figure to say the least, and I would suggest that those wanting the details of the many controversies (ranging from insensitive remarks to a DUI arrest to a pending defamation lawsuit) check out the wikipedia entry. He was elected based on a platform of cutting waste and spending and reducing taxes. That platform differed greatly from his chief competition George Smitherman, and his predecessor David Miller.

So when there’s a major change at the top of Canada’s largest city, it’s not surprising that As It Happens would want to talk with him. And if you’re the leader of Canada’s largest city, you’d think you’d want to speak on As It Happens.

Well… apparently Ford was struggling with the dilemma of coaching his minor league football team and doing a national radio interview. Listen for 3 and a half minutes:

I am flabbergasted. I can’t figure out whether Ford did this out of incompetence, or whether it was a direct insult to the show and/or CBC. Now here’s my question for you: If you were Adrienne Batra, Ford’s director of communications, how would you respond to this? Options that occur to me:

• Resignation
• Apology to AIH for the insult
• A heart to heart with your boss
• Something else

Tell me what you think.

UPDATE: Torontoist has kindly provided a transcript of the interview. If you just can’t bring yourself to listen to the audio, here it is:

Carol Off: Mr. Ford, congratulations…

Rob Ford: Thank you. Appreciate it.

Carol Off: People are saying it’s a, calling it a stunning win. What do you think that—

Rob Ford: Things are, things are going really well.

Carol Off: What drew so much—

Rob Ford, yelling: Coach, half your juniors aren’t even here, eh? Alright. Alright.

Carol Off: Hello, Mr. Ford, are you there?

Rob Ford: Yeah, yeah, I’m here, yeah.

Carol Off: Oh, you’re at some event or…?

Rob Ford: I’m a coach. I’m a football coach.

Carol Off: Okay, so you’re at football practice, then.

Rob Ford: Yes.

Carol Off: Alright well, okay, we’ll continue then. What is it that you think drew so much support to your campaign?

Rob Ford: Yeah, it’s just people are sick and tired of the wasteful spending. People are sick and tired of wasteful spending, that’s the bottom line, that’s what it comes down.

Carol Off: Well there—

Rob Ford: You know, I’m the only one that can go down there [Inaudible, then, yelling:] Just go get changed! Go! Out! And get changed! Don’t worry about the water right now. [Pause.] Sorry.

Carol Off: Uh-huh—

Rob Ford: So, um, yeah, no, people are just fed up with, uh, with, you know, uh, politicians squandering, uh, hard-earned tax dollars, and they know that I’m gonna get rid of the sixty-dollar car registration tax and the land transfer tax.

Carol Off: Well you know that your campaign has been compared to Mike Harris’s Common Sense Revolution, to the Tea Party movement, do you see those comparisons?

Rob Ford: I don’t see [inaudible] comparisons [inaudible] what, I don’t care [laughs]. I just, I just know, know the taxpayers, uh, want, uh, you know, the gravy train to come to an end, and that, uh, Rob Ford’s the guy to do it, and uh [inaudible]—

Carol Off: Do you think there are similarities?

Rob Ford: And, and, I don’t, I don’t see there’s any similarities, I just know that, uh, like I said, uh, I’m, you know, gonna put an end to the wasteful spending, and, uh…you know, stop the gravy train—sorry, I’m being distracted [inaudible] so…

Carol Off: So—

Rob Ford: So, that’s pretty well it.

Carol Off: Mr. Ford, do you think that though there’s not people that who might think that their taxes are too high, or that too much is being spent on things? There seems to be a division in this city. People, in the, ah, you’ve seen it in even your voting: people who live in the more of the core of the city have different priorities than people in the suburbs. So when you stop the gravy train, some people want to see more public transportation, more bike lanes…

Rob Ford: Right…

Carol Off: …others want to see better routes out into the suburbs. how are you going to reconcile that?

Rob Ford: Well the first, well the first and foremost concern with people—is money. That’s the first and foremost concern. So, I’m gonna make sure our finances, um, you know, are well taken care of, and then we can deal with all the other issues, but uh, money’s the first and foremost concern, and, uh, that’s what my uh, what I’m gonna concentrate on.

Carol Off: Well sure, that’s everyone’s concern, but we’re not sure what it is that you’re going to save money on. Are you going to reduce public transportation?

Rob Ford, interrupting: Well I just told you that I’m gonna get rid of the sixty-dollar car registration tax and land transfer tax, so, um, maybe I’m not making myself clear, but I’m gonna get rid of the sixty-dollar car registration tax and land transfer tax. And we’re gonna stop the wasteful spending, and not have $12,000 retirement parties, and you know, all the other nonsense that’s been going on for seven years.

Carol Off: Um—

Rob Ford, interrupting: Anyways, I gotta let you go here. And, uh…

Carol Off: Well, can I ask you about public transportation before you go?

Rob Ford: Pardon me? I can’t talk to you right now—I’m really, I’m on a really tight schedule, so I hate to be rude, but I gotta let you go, and we can chat another time. Really nice talking to you, all the best, buh-bye.

There have been some stories in my local media about the closing of an old-school men’s clothing store in downtown Ottawa. 

G.L. Myles has been around for more than 90 years, and the current owner’s been there for more than 40, apparently. The store has provided clothes for lots of Prime Ministers and Governors-General, and apparently did a big trade in uniforms. The store also provides silk robes for Supreme Court Justices and less ostentatious ones for lawyers.

But, the owner told one reporter, men just aren’t wearing suits as much as they used to. He reminisces about top hats and white gloves, and about how nobody tied a bow tie like Lester B. Pearson (Pearson was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a Prime Minister, and died 38 years ago). And on top of everything, he’s 67, and he’s got prostate cancer. (You’ve probably guessed that he doesn’t have a web site, or, as far as I know, an e-mail address.)

As I was listening, and then as I happened to walk past the store, its windows filled with “LIQUIDATION! CLOSING SALE!” signs, I thought about his reminiscences.

So there must have been a point before October 2010 when the owner thought to himself “Geez, men aren’t buying top hats any more. The silk ascots are not moving the way they used to (he really does / did sell ascots). This isn’t good.”

And at that point — or points, because he had to have thought it more than once — he had a choice. He could have changed his inventory. He could have moved from his location on a downtown Ottawa street where I’m sure the rent is prodigious.

Another men’s wear store in Ottawa, E.R. Fisher, has been around for even longer than Myles. They seem to be doing OK. They sell formal wear. They still provide uniforms, I think. And they sell corduroy pants, wool sweaters, and casual shirts. They’re not cheap — by no means in TipTop or Moores terrritory. But they seem to have a market.

To get all Seth Godin on you, we all make choices every day in our business lives. We do the right thing or the wrong thing, or we avoid making the decision at all. The owner of this store decided to reminisce about the days of men buying top hats and spats rather than actually choosing to sell stuff that people want to buy now.

Am I doing that? Are you? It’s a question worth asking, and answering honestly. Because time is not on your side. Or mine.

I have a couple of tickets to give for tomorrow night’s (Thursday, October 21) Schmoozefest, one of many events that the United Way of Ottawa puts on, but for my money the most fun.

Schmoozefest brings several hundred young, dynamic people to the Lago restaurant on Dow’s Lake for the most enthusiastic networking session with local luminaries that you can imagine.

There are tons of local VIPs in attendance, there will be a silent auction, a live auction with the everywhere-doing-everything Stuntman Stu, nibblies, great drinks, and a DJ starting at 9.

Two tickets to this event would eat most of $100. And if you tell me how many episodes of my Stephen King podcast “The Kingcast” are online as of today, I’ll toss your name into the hat. (By the way, don’t you love the logo, drawn by local illustrator Colin White? I do.)  Now… GO! I’m going to draw the winner at noon tomorrow.

Leave me your answer in a comment. Good luck!

Every so often you see a news story or two that make you do a double take. Case in point: this CBC story about the city of Toronto banning kite flying in a park. I saw the headline, and thought it was a crazy idea. The gist of the story? Apparently some people don’t just fly kites with plain old string. There are people who indulge in the hobby of “kite fighting,” in which two fliers try to cut the string of each other’s kites.

And there’s the problem: the string can apparently cause several problems — birds can get caught in the trees with it, ducks and geese can get the string wrapped around their legs in the pond and lose a limb, city workers find the string tangling their mowers or weed-whackers, and apparently the councillor has had reports of people being injured by the string.

So the city banned kite flying in the park where the kite fighters congregated.

The comments on the news story are entirely unsurprising. “Moronic government”, loss of freedom, “why not take on some real problems”…

But this story got me thinking about two things. Number one was how you balance sensitivities.

To me — a white Canadian guy who grew up in Cape Breton — kite flying was something did once in a while on a windy day. If your parents made you, you’d make a kite like the one in the picture, and fly that. Otherwise, you’d go down to Woolworth’s, blow a buck or two on a plastic one, and fly that.

But to others, this is a big deal. Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Korea, Japan, and the Caribbean all have long traditions of kite fighting.

Here’s a story from AlJazeera about how it’s done in Afghanistan (or at least was done before the Taliban and is now done, after the Taliban:

So while some are upset by the effects of the kite fighters on the park, for others this is their sport — their ultimate, their running, their dogwalking. Does this turn kite-flying into a culture clash? I hope not. But if I use a park for dogwalking and someone else uses it for kiteflying, whose interests are more important, more valid?

Second, one commenter made a really interesting point: “So a few birds are hurt by string, but tens of thousands of song birds in Toronto are killed each year by cats. Cities should ban outdoor cats.” I’m not arguing for such a ban. But I think the commenter underlines an interesting point. That point: nothing is risk-free; no solution perfect.

And surprisingly enough, it made me think of the Chalk River NRU nuclear reactor, which began to make medical isotopes again this week. When the NRU was shut down a couple of years ago, it became a cause celebre, leading to emergency sittings of Parliament and the passage of a bill to keep it open. Then it shut down again, and that time it didn’t seem to create any great public concern.

At the time, Dr. William Leiss wrote a short essay for me about risk and the decisions being made. It occurred to me then that the situation was one in which shutting the reactor was a decision with a high probability of negative effects on the patients who needed its medical isotopes, while keeping the reactor open had a low probability of a catastrophic negative effect. It reminded me that almost nothing is ever clean-cut.

Same thing with the kite-flying (on a different scale, of course):

• Allow kite-flying:  adds a likely source of harm to birds, a possible source of harm to people
• Disallow kite-flying: removes one source of harm to birds and people; removes fulfilling activity for some.

One more example: I’m on the board of the Ottawa Folk Festival, and we had an absolute downpour last  Sunday. Suddenly, a million decisions had to be made. What got cancelled? What got moved? Was the site safe? Which stages could be used? Do we discount tickets? Do we refund tickets? And on and on… Every decision (with the exception of site safety) was not black and white. Each one had to be hashed through (in this case with extreme time constraints). And no decision pleased everyone. You never do. At least our festival director found an opportunity to get a great photo taken.

My partner Cathy and I love spending time in our garden. And we spend lots of time out there when things get green and lovely.

And when we travel, we like to find beautiful things to take pictures of.

So I thought I’d share some of them with you. If you’re looking for an iPad wallpaper, feel free to take one or all of these, and I hope you enjoy looking at them as much as we did finding the images.

The Ottawa Fringe Festival, one of the seemingly dozens of annual events that make life in Ottawa in the summer fun (and sometimes exhausting) has been holding a series of lunchtime events that have ranged from bloody debates on the future of theatre to… an Ignite event.

With the help of theatre and communications guy Ryan Anderson, the Fringe folk put together a roster of artists (not including me) and business types (yeah, that was me) to do Ignite presentations with the loose topic of the intersection of art and business.

For those of you not familiar with Ignite, it’s a movement where people put together 20-slide presentations that are the visuals for a five-minute talk. The slides advance mercilessly, every 15  seconds, so it’s like “The Pit and the Pendulum” for speakers.

The good news is that  all the presentations were great.

The presenters were, in order of appearance:

Tyler Cope, co-founder of Overlay.TV, a local tech startup and general good corporate citizen in Ottawa
Nancy Kenny, a peripatetic young actor, writer, and marketing guru
Sterling Lynch, another hyphenate (actor-writer-only-guy-wearing-a-tie).
Ram Kanda, creative director at Fuel Industries, a seriously big advertainment and online company here in Ottawa
Me
and Barry Smith, a Colorado newspaper columnist here with a show called “Every Job I’ve Ever Had”

Anyway, I thought that since I’m in the business of shameless self promotion, I should record my audio and match it up with the slides for you.

The presentation, which I called “If your art falls in a forest was it really art?” is only about five minutes long, so at the very worst you won’t have wasted much time.

I’ve put up the audio from the presentation, as well as a PDF of the slides. I tried to marry the slides with the audio, but sad to say, couldn’t get the timing to work the way I wanted it to.

UPDATE: Or… you could just wait a little bit for the enterprising folks at Ottawa Tonite to put up the video (which I thought was just being streamed). I’m really not that smart.