Vetting information which is supposed to be objective

We live in an age where information is produced, then copied, at lightening speed. Verifiable sources can be difficult to track and even harder to tack onto an "expanding" storyline. Whether this applies to business in their attempt to position their brand in the market or public policy conversations as weighted by the media - verifiable information should be tracked.

If someone posts a defamatory story about Company XYZ and it is untrue, how do they respond? They simply find the document which verifies their account of the story and present it as primary evidence. I know that sounds a big legalistic, but it's an important point. Word of mouth advertising, positive or negative, can be incredibly difficult to contain. Image, once begun rolling down that snowball hill, can be incredibly time-consuming (and expensive) to repair. Even if the story wasn't factual the damage left behind can be long-lasting.

My thoughts on this subject were triggered by a story posted on CNN which was presented as factual and (through light research) was cast as unsound and over-reaching. The CNN article can be read here CNN article on drug use and risky AIDS incidence. My response can be ready at my Facebook, here David's Facebook page

Webpage building

I am soon to launch my new webpage for D Comm. and it's really coming along. It will be very helpful once there's a central means of communicating with everyone that can be more cross platform (i.e. video, blog, events and portfolio samples).

As I was thinking of the need to get this started I learned about the Brooklyn Creative League. They meet not so regularly but share office space for consultants and freelancers. At the most recent meeting a few days ago a representative for a web development company, wix.com, shared his business card. Once I returned home and emailed everyone from whom I receive a card (great way to build relationships) the next item was to take a look. After just a few minutes of browsing it was clear - this site is amazing. The functionality far surpasses anything I've used previously. It is easy to manipulate pages, there are tons of templates and uploading cross platform is really simplistic.

I will set a goal to have the webpage completed by the end of next week. Ideally, it would have been earlier but it's important to get some feedback before it goes live. My situation is peculair because new business cards cannot be ordered until the webpage is complete. It makes no sense to hand out a business card without the site that's brand new. In trying to rush one project I'd pay more for the other and build relationships in an unbalanced way.

Creating great web content

We are all linked into the global network called the internet. It's accessed every day to retrieve and send messages on an ever-expanding platform. First, there was email, then Instant Messaging and now Social Media sites. For those individuals who are trying to keep a surfer tuned into their content there has to be a connection. Just as with any other message, it must make sense.

I am currently undertaking a web critique for a political organization here in New York City. That involves going through each page and examining content, location and logic. Does the page say what is necessary? Is anything irrelevent? Do I have to click a lot of different links to retrieve valuable information? Is the information mirrored in the title of the page?

These are just a few questions.

Once these are answered a cohesive approach, using what is likely an already existing voice will be applied towards generating new content. It's not just the actual words but also ensuring that the typical surfer will actually look at (i.e. consume) the information. It doesn't really matter how valuable the information is if the intended recipient has left the page due to boredom.

Criticizing group members and selecting "Reply All"

In another example of digital etiquette I have seen group members openly scold others and copy multiple parties. That doesn't strike me as a prudent means to communicate a point. The need of the sender is to either clarify a point or to pose a question about what the sender meant. If this specifically refers to intra-group policies why not pick up the phone?

There has always been the claim that email makes quick work of such interactions. It's very central that we think of the end result and if that will fulfill our need. If an individual has 5 minutes to craft an email there exists just as much time to add a highly personal touch and make a call. It's much more appropriate, in fact, if any criticism is overtly negative. We all know how easy it is to misinterpret anything which is strictly textual. Tone, meaning and underlying subterfuge are very easily lost on the reader.

Copying other parties on such messages is not only unecessary, but also belittling. Even in person, the question can be put forth to the sender within the same group in a tone that evokes care and empathy. Emails can be read as cold, uncaring and why would anyone risk that chance? Group cohesion can be very difficult to build and once you spend the social capital that keeps this high, reinvestment may not be worth the effort.

Setting deadlines for open-ended business partnerships

Recently, I have been speaking with the founder of a rather interesting educational product. It serves as an intuitive system and will be offered to individual schools per contract. During the immediate time leading up to a national marketing blitz (i.e. phone calls, presentations, articles and etc.) the founder has been extremely busy.

In all of my emails this has been duly understood and noted. However, after the passage of several weeks it has come to my attention that several deadlines which were self-imposed not being met may be representative. I was looking to receive updates, which would happen after upcoming meetings and these have not occured either. At this point, I am thinking of a level message which might posit the need for sticking to deadlines. That's especially true in any situation where a consultant relies on the agent of a new product (unestablished) for a dependable compensation schedule.

It may be uncomfortable, but having this conversation in tandem with compensation would only compound that feeling.

Applying practicality when communicating company policies

Yesterday, while at a local Barnes & Noble, I encountered the irritant of managers who do not apply their view on specific situations to declare company policy. Instead of surveying the context in which something occurs company policy is elevated to the status of law: universal and violation of which causes a sliding set of responses.

Law is created so that human beings will not encroach on any other persons natural, or state-specific, rights. Corporate policies which are consumer specific are many times necessary so that duplicitous questions can be answered and products are protected. Using present information to inform response does not presuppose ignoring either of these central principles.

Case and point: I brought a sandwhich from another establishment (actally the components which wtere assembled). When I asked for a plate or container so that I wouldn't make a mess. The response was immediate, "We don't allow outside products." That assumes I am asking prior to bringing something, not true. Also, once I have something it will be immediately disposed or I will leave. The former makes no sense, let's suppose it were a book from another store. Secondly, even if I bring one product does not preclude me from spending on both a beverage and dessert option.

Policy must be extended in an appropriate fashion to seem reasonable or appropriate. If this isn't used judiciously, the entire rationale for the company stance is weakned uneccessarily.

Faith-based institution communication strains

In what would appear to be the ideal setting for mutually beneficial relationships the opposite can often appear. Churches which are homogenous tend to have less strain, other than age based, because of the parallels in value systems. When a place of worship is very plural and diverse differing attitudes as to how the institution should move forwarde can cause serious concerns.

At the Riverside Church, where I currently worship this is our current state. The institution offers a plethora of amazing social services and was the first location where the Rev. Dr. MLK Jr delivered an anti-war speech (i.e. Vietnam). It has always heralded itself as a model for progressive change and ideals. In the wake of the senior minister Rev. Dr. James Forbes departure there has been much jostling for identity.

Several groups believe the institution should proceed forward on the same "arc" as has always existed. The new minister, now departed, felt that the liturgy should be changed. Getting people to accept changes in their style of worship is never easy, he learned that lesson the hard way.

In the midst of these outwardly appearing problems lies a huge opportunity to learn about both PR and group communications.