Context, Part 1

May 19, 2010 By Jill 1 Comment

When I worked for the Nasdaq Stock Market, I would often meet with people who asked me a very basic question: “Is [this number] good?”  They didn’t mean, “Is this number correct?” they were asking for a qualitative answer.  They wanted me to evaluate the number they were handing me.

I always wanted to say something flip like, “Yeah – three is a very good number.  But five – look out for five.  Five will cut you.”

I kept my flippancy to myself and instead asked, “Compared to what?”  An earnings per share ratio that is phenomenal in one industry is anemic in another.  Context is key.

Likewise, the iterative and narrow way many people are used to searching for information in their daily lives tends to strip away the idea of context.  Looking for a phone number is not particularly complex.  Finding a restaurant review is fairly mechanical.  But the answer to a client’s question in the real world is not ”Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code.”  It is going to be application of that code section to a specific fact pattern.  It is going to be contextual.

I have read a great deal about how students (in general – not just law students) frequently have a much higher opinion of their ability to find things then their ability actually warrants.  Some blame the “Google-ization” of finding tools: plug in a few keywords, get an answer.  This piece of our current landscape probably does shift thinking: much of the “data in/data out” searching we do on a daily basis might as well be context-free.

Considering a fact pattern in law is not a matter of placing code or regulations or case law on top of the facts, but a complex and sometimes lengthy matter of analysis.  How does this law here relate to and intersect with that fact there?  If this fact changes, how does that affect the whole?  If the law changes, how will it shape the facts of behavior moving forward?

How does this type of analysis change and shape searching strategies and behaviors?  How do other forces (availability of resources, cost, time) shape those behaviors?  Just as in legal analysis, there really is no one answer.  It depends on the context.

Filed Under: practical pedagogy Tagged With: common sense, context

On the utility of academic writing

May 14, 2010 By Jill Leave a Comment

I recently completed an independent study, reviewing The MacCrate Report and 24 pieces of academic writing on the subject of teaching legal research afterwards.  I will soon be launching another project using that work as its base, but one thing struck me again and again as I read these articles.  I noted it in my conclusion to the literature journal which was the output for the class and I reproduce it here:

It seems to me that the increased focus on practicality is key – and not just practicality in the realm of how research is taught, but also practicality in terms of the costs and benefits of various tools, and practicality in the way these problems are written about in articles such as the ones I have reviewed.  To identify a problem and discuss it in the abstract only continues the problem – offering real-world ideas, even if they are flawed ones, can help debate and dialogue flourish in the search for actual solutions to bring to the library and the classroom.

Perhaps it is my business background talking, but I found myself getting very frustrated at times reading pieces that either a.) only pointed out problems without offering solutions, or b.) talked about teaching in terms of abstract theory that would be hard to put to use in a classroom or library setting.  Reading these, my brain responded with a dull thud that sounded surprisingly like, “So what?”

In contrast, when I read accounts of clinical programs utilizing the nascent skills of students in research classes or exercises designed to get students to stop thinking about research as a discrete project and put them on the path of thinking about research as part of the overall process of representation, then my brain began to spark off further ideas and refinements.  I could imagine scenarios where something worked and led to something else — or didn’t work and led to something else.  How would I handle that?

Papers that offered practical solutions or outlined actual innovative curricula made me want to teach.  They implicitly handed me tools to try — or at least to consider.  So, I am putting myself on notice: write what you would want to read.

Filed Under: practical pedagogy Tagged With: academic writing, writers

Watch this site

May 12, 2010 By Jill 2 Comments

With only three months between me and my MLS, I am beginning to revamp this site to reflect my future career.  Past communications posts will still be found under the category “communications,” but going forward I envision that most of my posts will have to do with law, libraries, and law libraries.

…Which is not to say I intend to try to teach Grandma to suck eggs.  I know there are tons of brilliant bloggers in the law library field.  Whatever I have to say on the subject are… well, baby steps.  I intend to honor the fantastic law library bloggers, but I also intend to make my mark in the field of law information.

Please wish me luck.

Filed Under: law library blogging

Clarity of message and clarity of metaphor

March 10, 2010 By Jill Leave a Comment

Many years ago, I worked for a company whose leader was a brilliant speaker.  In general, he also could create create thematically compelling presentations, but he tended to reuse his metaphors.  In his original presentation, the products of the company were represented by a triad metaphor.  Then the three principles of the company were represented by the triad.  And then… until he was reined in, any three things were represented by that one metaphor.

This is a problem.

Here is another problem, illustrated by the inimitable Fry and Laurie:

Stephen Fry’s character keeps trying to make his point with an ever-shifting array of metaphors.  Hugh Laurie’s character keeps trying to anchor it by saying, “Hello.  We’re talking about: _____.”  Fry’s lyrically tripping tongue speedily outstrips Laurie’s ability to keep the audience tuned in to the topic at hand – they are unmoored in a restless sea of images.

Neither of these approaches work to create effective business communications.  Metaphors need to be selected carefully, crafted carefully, and presented carefully.  When used correctly, a metaphor can be a great tool to connect with your audience.  When selected, crafted, or presented haphazardly, metaphors can only create confusion.  Or, in the case of Fry and Laurie, humor.

Filed Under: proper tool, proper use, say what you mean

I have only one thing to add to this

November 18, 2009 By Jill Leave a Comment

Techdirt has a great (yet horrifying) piece from the “how not to connect with customers” trenches.  I agree with it pretty completely, but I would also add to this statement:

At some point or another everyone screws up. Everyone makes a mistake. Customers recognize this. But if a company never makes a mistake, then customers may still wonder how they’ll be treated when that future mistake comes. However, if the mistake has been made, and the response was good, the customer is confident that future mistakes will be handled well also.

Screwups are also memorable interactions – and how you handle them is memorable as well.  Not to skew too far into the territory of silver linings, but a single screwup handled well can be more memorable than 100 mediocre-to-satisfactory experiences and might translate into good word-of-mouth.  I would argue that a customer may not spend much time wondering about how a fairly competent company might handle a screwup, but that company may just not be very top-of-mind.  You wouldn’t recommend them, because you just might not think of them at all.

Extraordinary service is memorable.  A screwup, handled badly or well, is memorable.  Reasonably competent service or an experience that gets you where you need to go without any great highs or lows (barring any extraordinary expectations from the consumer)?  Not very memorable.

Filed Under: really dumb stuff, relationship management

How many examples do we need?

August 11, 2009 By Jill Leave a Comment

Briefly noted: the United Airlines broken guitar public relations fiasco.

I have one quibble with the linked article, which says, “Companies have to be tapped in to social media to quickly right wrongs and head off bad press before it spins out of control.”  While this is true, it is also often too late by the time it gets to the social media stage.  The cat is out of the bag, and the company has lost control of the opportunity it once had to make things right.

Doing the right thing at the management level early on would have been smart.  Training and empowering employees to do the right thing at the customer service level would have been even smarter.

Related posts: Now hiring: Corporate Spokespeople, Your brand is your brand

Filed Under: really dumb stuff, relationship management

A small example of why version control is so important

July 10, 2009 By Jill Leave a Comment

Working at a breakneck pace?  Think that release is ready for the wire?  You might want to open the document and check just one more time.

While you’re at it, you might also want to make sure young aides are briefed in the concept of keeping the meta-commentary out of the document itself.

Just a thought.

Filed Under: administrivia, really dumb stuff, say what you mean

Breaking news: a case study in handling it right

June 23, 2009 By Jill Leave a Comment

Developing crisis situations demand regular updates.  But all too often, communications professionals get too enmeshed in their own story, forgetting that not everyone is fully aware of the history of a given situation.  In that case, updates occur without context, leading to confusion by some readers.

As a reader, keeping track of the update cycle itself can also be fraught: without a photographic memory, it can be hard to tell if a press item has new information or if it is the  same release you read a few hours ago.

Crisis communications also brings with it a huge load of stress, so a communications professional who keeps a cool head and continues to deliver valuable information in a meaningful way is a huge asset to an organization.  That said, I have to applaud the communications people at the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA).  Reporting on your own tragedy is surreal and awful — I know, I have done it.  But they have kept a steady stream of information coming via their web site, and as their top story refreshed, they noted how many updates had been given to orient the reader in the news stream.

They also have not overwritten their news as the sad toll has mounted — their archives contain the string of releases they have put out, maintaining a good degree of transparency.

Filed Under: proper tool, proper use

How not to use Twitter – a UK case study

June 22, 2009 By Jill Leave a Comment

Twitter – it’s either all the rage, or a cause of rage among people you know, right?  Mostly people seem to either love it or hate it to the point where they rant about it for what may seem like several days.

The service is admittedly quirky – it has its own syntax and rules.  You can target a specific person by placing the @ symbol in front of their user name,  and you can identify a topic or issue by prefacing it with a hashtag (e.g. the protests and crackdowns following the Iranian elections means that #Iran is a very common hashtag term at the moment).

Identification via hashtag does more than just giving a regular reader a categorical “heads up.”  It makes a topic easier to search for.   For instance, a search for “law” might give you everything from gripes about someone’s mother-in-law to a legislative alert; however, if you search for “#law” you will get messages (“tweets”) specifically relating to law and the legal field.

Hashtags, therefore, can serve as primitive but valuable finding aids for people interested in certain issues or topics. tallmanwalking {at} gmail(.)com" target="_blank"> So, consider this case study of the UK furniture firm Habitat, who signed up for Twitter and immediately started populating their tweets about store sales with random hashtagged terms like #iPhone and #Apple.

Who thought this was a good idea?  What happens when someone who is interested in the new iPhone runs into a tweet about a furniture sale?  Do they say, “Oh – I thought I was interested in an iPhone, but perhaps I will purchase a sofa instead”?

I have to say that I think the chances of that happening are extremely low.  I would even go so far as to venture a guess that people running a search on #iPhone might feel as if they were the targets of a very inept con.  I don’t know about you, but when I am the target of an inept con, I either think that the person attempting to perpetrate it is exceedingly stupid or has such a low opinion of my intellect that they haven’t bothered to make an effort.

It’s not especially good branding strategy to either look really stupid or assume your customers are really stupid.

The original post linked above has fantastic advice about how to step back from the brink of such a PR disaster.  The best of these in my opinion is this:

Its ok to fail. Do it quickly and apologise publicly. People are a lot more forgiving when you admit to your mistakes rather than deny any wrongdoing.

Very, very true.  If you are stepping up to use a medium that is expressly designed to communicate both directly and publicly with your customers, you really need to proceed with utter openness and honesty.  Otherwise, don’t bother.

Filed Under: proper tool, proper use, really dumb stuff, say what you mean Tagged With: retail, twitter

Now hiring: Corporate Spokespeople

June 18, 2009 By Jill 2 Comments

As a follow up to my post Your brand is your brand, I thought I would address a few additional points.

First, among the many hits that post generated, I got  at least six visits from nat1.jo-annstores.com.  Actual direct outreach from the company?  Nothing.  No use of my contact page, no comment on the blog, nothing.

While this didn’t surprise me, it does allow me to make a collateral point, which is well known to many people in relationship management:

When your customer knows you are listening and you do not respond, they will assume you do not care.

Not caring about your customers or service may work in the short term if you are a monopolist selling a necessary product with high barriers to entry.  In that scenario, you basically have a captive audience until someone gets clever enough to surmount those barriers and compete effectively.

So what does Jo-Ann’s competitive landscape look like?  They carry sewing supplies (fabric, thread, notions, sewing machines, etc.), craft supplies, and some knitting/crochet materials.  The bricks-and-mortar options in my local area are thus: there are at least two other mass-market fabric store chains in my area with multiple retail outlets for each within 25 miles of my house.  There are also at least two stores that carry craft and hobby supplies and a great wealth of independent knitting/crochet shops.  There are probably also additional specialty niche shops in a variety of areas that could compete in areas where J0-Ann plays.

On the Internet side of things, there are also several large players and I don’t even want to begin to count the number of boutique players (including eBay sellers) who can compete with Jo-Ann.

So, the market is anywhere from very to intensely competitive and the Internet makes the barriers to entry exceedingly low.  Not caring about your customers is a really bad idea in this instance.

Second, in not responding to my original post (which generated quite a bit of commentary and interest – at least by the traffic standards I usually go by), Jo-Ann basically ceded the conversation about their brand to me, which cedes a bit of control over their messaging.  It is madness to chase rumors, but it is smart retail brand management to reach out to a customer you know is disgruntled and to try to fix the situation.  Any person has the capacity to be your unpaid corporate spokesperson – you can either work with them and help them to be a source of positive brand messages, or you can ignore them (or worse yet be antagonistic towards them: see the recording industry for too many examples) and make them a font of negativity.

My third point is is also about who some of your other corporate spokespeople are.  In retail operations, your store employees are your spokespeople — they are the face of your brand.  “Corporate” may not recognize it, they may pay lip service to it, or they may embrace it.  Not recognizing or ignoring this fact will not help you, because the people who come face to face with your customers every day are the ones who are creating impressions, building (or destroying) loyalty, and making your store a destination or a place to be avoided.

It is fashionable to be disdainful of retail as a career.  There are exceptions: specialty shops are often repositories of knowledge, some large retailers (Apple, for instance) are known for their well-trained and enthusiastic staff.  But for the most part, we have low expectations that are often disappointed — which only lowers our expectations further, and the next time… swings and roundabouts, ever downward.

But, in many cases, a person chooses a specific retailer to work for because they have a passion for the subject and knowledge in that area.  Art shops draw artists to their payrolls.  Fabric shops gather seamstresses.  Fishing shops lure anglers (okay, I’ll stop).

Give that employee the opportunity to create bonds with your customer.  After all, these two people already probably have something in common.

Will every customer coming in for a $2 spool of thread become a customer for life?  Of course not.  But they are far more likely to if they are confronted with an employee who is engaged, knowledgeable, and empowered to help, rather than hinder.

In this way, you create not just employees but spokespeople who are ambassadors for your brand, instead of apologists for your policies.

Filed Under: Working with writers, just dumb, proper tool, proper use, really dumb stuff, relationship management Tagged With: retail
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »