Virgins wanted. Who's next at social media's sacrificial altar?

The wonderful thing about communication is that there's always fresh content to discuss. Take for example two cases where companies found themselves at social media's sacrificial altar this past week: Celeb Boutique and Chick-fil-A. Social media is a game changer for companies. Never before have companies been able to have such a direct and immediate dialog with their customers. Never before have companies been able to communicate in this "in the moment" kind of way.

This is both good and bad. While companies can reach audiences in the fifteen seconds it takes to compose a status update or tweet, consumers also have this same power. In the social media arena, this often gives consumers the upper hand. In this new world, consumers can love you one day and crucify you the next. Corporate executives beware.

The first example comes from Celeb Boutique and their ridiculously poorly timed tweet promoting their Aurora dress. Until a week ago, most people didn't have the Colorado town or the trendy dress on their radar. What transpired across social media is a lesson about how not to make your grand entrance.

  

The morning following last week's horrific shooting in Aurora, "clearly" Aurora was trending on Twitter (among the grown-ups). An employee at Celeb Boutique saw the Twitter trend and couldn't contain her excitement as she fired off her less than 140-character tweet. Celeb Boutique featured a Kim-K inspired dress called the Aurora, so the social media employee mistakenly assumed all the buzz around the world was about their $157 white Aurora dress (that's like totally newsworthy, right?). This, folks, is all it takes to make you the laughing stock of Twitter, Facebook and every other social media outlet. Celeb Boutique soon realized their humongous gaffe and issued an apology, coupled with a convenient excuse for their sheer stupidity. Apparently, their communication was handled abroad and they weren't aware of our news due to the time difference. I'm not sure if blaming the Europeans or the Prime Meridian are valid excuses, but if your clients include Kim K. and other celeb wannabes, I don't suppose it matters much.
Lessons:

1. Always a good idea to look before you tweet.
2. Sometimes it's actually beneficial to have an adult in charge of social media.

Next topic example comes from Chick-fil-A. Once again, they've fumbled with their anti-gay rights stance. This time, the controversy ignited when President Dan Cathy commented that he is “guilty as charged" of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Cathy's mistake is in not understanding how this proclamation carries the weight of a $4 billion-dollar Goliath when he continues to express it on a public platform.

Cathy's statement caused Jim Henson Co. to back out of a partnership with the chain to make toys for kids' meals. Jim Henson Co. went further by running a full-page ad featuring the Muppets with a statement of their own: as a group embracing diversity, they would not do business with someone they perceived to be discriminatory. Despite a public apology and some backpedaling, the misstep has not gone away. Chick-fil-A's own Facebook page has been a hotbed of controversy as their critics have swarmed their page with hostile posts. The company's Facebook page continues to serve as a battleground for the gay marriage debate, as Chick-fil-A's similarly principled chicken-loving fans have come out in mass to defend the company's position.

It's unclear whether Chick-fil-A can keep alienating so many with this issue. It seems their sales are actually up (and if you believe their loyal Facebook fans, the chains are packing in record crowds during lunch this week). However, this just tells me that right-wing Christians enjoy chicken and will consume large quantities to show loyalty and prove their moral ground. Once this immediate call to eat more chikin subsides, I suspect Chick-fil-A's numbers will dip if they continue to confuse their agenda against gay marriage with the sale of tasty waffle fries. I suppose the Facebook banner advertisement announcing the peach milkshake is back will distract the angry mob somewhat until the dust settles on this one.

 Lessons:

1. If you want to drag religion and politics into the sale of fast food, pray that your side will eat more "chikin'" than the other side.
2. Peach? It's no Shamrock Shake. Seriously.

Martha, is that really you tweeting? Emerging issue of ethics and the practice of ghost tweeting

I recently came across a thought provoking discussion about the practice of ghost tweeting. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, the practice occurs when a communications professional (either agency or internal employee) is tasked to write for social media outlets, but does so in the name of a higher-up (typically the CEO) who is too busy to be tweeting).

When a company creates a Twitter account in the company's name and attaches it to a corporate image or logo, we assume the Tweets are coming from the corporate communications office and represent the "voice" of the company. With the growing popularity of Twitter, many executives and CEOs feel they need to establish Twitter voices of their own. Sometimes they're Twitter-proficient enough to take on this task alone, while other times it's outsourced. The discussion of whether it's ethical for CEOs to create Twitter accounts where someone is posting on their behalf keeps cropping up on industry discussion boards.

My first thought was that it was not a big deal. Was this any different than how marketing has operated for the last century? When I receive a letter promoting the benefits of cable tv, signed by the CEO of Time Warner, I don't really think he wrote or signed the letter personally. I know it's coming from a marketing department on his behalf. I sort of assumed the same thing of high-level business professionals on Twitter; they probably were too busy with all the meetings regarding government bailouts and inflated stock prices important stuff to be tweeting. However, tweeting, unlike direct mail, involves more of a fluid conversation or dialog. Looking at it from this angle, assuming someone's identity on Twitter becomes a different beast. I believe it does inolve some degree of fraud (at least on ethical grounds).

I decided to at look a few high-profile people on Twitter to see how it's handled. I follow Martha Stewart because...well....who doesn't aspire to be more like her?

When I pulled up her profile, there was no disclaimer stating that the tweets were coming from Martha Stewart Enterprises, rather than Martha. Looking at her tweets (many of them were from places where I'd envision Martha tweeting from...like dressing rooms or her chicken coup), it seemed believable that these were her own. I knew with 99.99% certainty this was Martha from the above tweets about not putting too much coriander in your meatballs. Only Martha can joke about meatballs....or coriander. If a social media intern tweeted casual jokes about coriander and meatballs using Martha's name, she'd be out on her ass (chestnut brown pashmina scarf and all).

For the next example, I looked at the highest office out there. Nobody would expect Barack Obama to be composing his own tweets from the Oval Office. I think he'd probably get a lot of backlash if he were tweeting all day instead of attending to corporate bailouts important stuff.

So, how does President Obama have a Twitter presence without tweeting himself? His account openly states that it is run by the #Obama2012 campaign staff and that any personal tweets would be signed by -bo. Michelle's profile is the same, her personal tweets would be signed by -mo.

I've covered the cases of people posting as themselves and people having others post on their behalf (with full disclosure). What happens when a CEO or executive wants both the presence on Twitter and the "appearance" that he's posting himself (making himself look hip with technology), when he is actually using someone on staff to post on his behalf? Is this an ethical area? Is it different than the direct mail letter with his signature that he never wrote or signed? Does the continued dialog or conversation aspect of tweeting make this a type of fraud?

These are questions we don't have answers for in this new and emerging field. As a communications professional, I would always advise to be honest and open about who is posting. Creating profiles where people are misled to believe the CEO is posting is a dangerous game. Who's to say your social media intern hasn't had a drink or two at lunch, and starts posting about coriander meatballs crazy stuff. It's a lot easier to explain and recover if the account clearly stated it wasn't necessarily the CEO tweeting.

You could try the old "my account was hacked" line, but it didn't work so well for Senator Weiner. Complete honesty and disclosure about who is tweeting behind the account is always the best policy.

Is anyone else upset about the coriander meatballs being a joke? Those sounded good, Martha.

Too much communication? When channels of communication are diluted

There's nothing that drives me more crazy than when businesses or organizations practice haphazard communication. All the information is "out there," but too many channels are used to communicate and the information is not consistent. Finding the piece of information I need becomes a monumental task while searching all the competing channels across the web and e-mail.

A clear example of this haphazard communication is with my boys' school (we'll call it Woodbridge Academy). In the first year the school opened, communication was simple: they had a website. While communication wasn't stellar, any information (albeit, limited) was on the school site.

Fast forward six years. Vast communications outlets (including social media channels) coupled with no central communications staff person at the school = communication diarrhea. No other way to say it: it's messy.

Currently we have the external website anyone can see, a login required site for the school community, an e-mail newsletter, e-mail updates, a family council website (with its own newsletter), a newly formed PTO website (which I believe is replacing the family council website), a fundraising website (separate from the school), a booster club website (again, not affiliated with the school), a Facebook page for parents (general topics, started by one parent) and a Facebook page for the PTO. I suspect there may be separate Facebook pages for other groups at the school, but haven't bothered to seek them out. Finally, there's an independent website for the hot lunch program and a special site that coordinates all of the volunteer efforts and opportunities. Exhausted yet? I am.You should see me scrambling at 6:30 on the Monday morning of Spirit Week, trying to figure out what the heck my kids are supposed to wear for the day!

It boggles the mind how many times people equate more communication channels to better communication. While often it is nice to have some different types of channels for customers who have varying access to information, the information needs to be consistent. I want one place where I can find everything I need to know. Instead, I have about a dozen places where something "could be," and I have to start accessing all these various channels to find the specific piece of information I need. On any given day, I have no way of knowing if the updated football schedule is going to be found on the booster club's external site for football or on the internal school site under the "athletics" tab. Often I find three or more different versions of schedules, notices and policies, depending on where I look.

Communication is not just about writing messages and spreading information. A large part of a communicator's role is in evaluating the channels of communication and determining if they are appropriate. A communicator must have a hand in all channels of communication to make sure the messaging is consistent across the board. A communicator must be able to look at redundancies and determine when there are too many sources for communication. Is it better to have 5 different Facebook pages for specific groups or interests at the school, each generating and audience of a few dozen parents, or is it better to encourage all groups to post on the parent page where there is a larger audience of 600?

Every few months a parent at the school posts on the (main) Facebook parent page saying they want to create another page for something more specific (family council, PTO, fund-raising, etc.). I'm always perceived as the negative Nelly when I (nicely) suggest that we should keep all the school information on the one page (where the largest audience will see it). I really don't have the time to be monitoring two dozen spin-off websites and Facebook pages for information relating to the school.

As a communications professional, a lesson can be learned from the above situation. Organizations need someone to take ownership of communications efforts. Without accountability, it's easy for communications to develop into what happened at this school. Communication wasn't any person's specific job, so it became the job of anyone (and everyone) who had any kind of interest in publicizing information. At this point, when the school does get around to hiring someone in this position, it will be a daunting task to untangle all these communications channels and shut a few of the redundant sites down (especially difficult since so many of them are now parent-driven and not official school channels).

As you all know, communication is essential. We just need to be careful that our main channel is not being diluted by so many others with different information. Often, with too many channels to pay attention to, people aren't really paying attention to any of them.

Now, where's the remote?

What's the coolest, trendiest thing in communications?

This question was recently posed on a LinkedIn group. A member was asked this question on a job interview and wanted to know how others would answer.

Some answers from the group included: Pinterest as a marketing tool, content marketing, brand journalism, interactive communications (all valid trends). I recently read a blog suggesting all communications professionals go on a "press release diet" for six months or more, arguing that press release content could easily and effectively be distributed via twitter, blogging, YouTube videos and LinkedIn. The writer suggested we've come so far with all this cutting-edge technology that the press release was now out-dated and no longer an efficient communications tool.

He got slammed (in a polite way). Several communicators jumped in and argued that the press release was still an essential tool. Think smaller town communities and newspapers (many of which are not online). Communicators need to be targeting the least common denominator in their audience, instead of using the "trendiest" communication tools at the expense of missing most of their audience.

Mistake number one among some communications professionals is that everyone out is using the social media with the same ease and frequency. If you're gulping down your morning coffee while hovering over HootSuite to coordinate how you will push content out to your Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn accounts, you are still in the minority. You are also at risk for being out of touch with your audience, who may not be using any of these forms of social media.

Admittedly, there are some industries where marketing and communications are all about social media. I'd imagine that companies like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and HootSuite practice a much different kind of communications since their target market is the social media junkie. Marketing skateboards to twenty-year-olds or used textbooks to college students could similarly benefit from an online and social media communications strategy.

For most communications professionals, it's not so black and white. While advances in social media have opened up some "cool" and different communications channels, it's important to not lose sight of who your audience is and what they are using. To paraphrase one comment, "I can write the most brilliant and engaging 140-character Tweet, but if my audience isn't on Twitter, they don't see the message." This doesn't mean we should be ignoring social media by any means. Social media can and should be used in conjunction with traditional communications tools. Each company's audience is unique and needs to be assessed as such. Every communicator should know what social tools are available -- knowing how to use them is equally as important as assessing whether to use them.

Right now, so many executives and companies are hearing social media buzz words and rushing to hire social media mangers that will take their companies to this new Promised Land. An executive hears something like "Pinning with a purpose," and starts to freak-out because their company doesn't have a presence on Pinterest (and he's not even sure what Pinterest is). Before you know it, a newly hired social media manager is tasked to Tweet and Pin content about motor oil (maybe not to the extreme, but you get the point).

For ordinary communicators promoting ordinary products and services, the "coolest" thing they can bring to the table should always be crafting the message and knowing their audience. That is far cooler than the ability to orchestrate content pushes on your social media dashboard in a single click, even if you're someday able to do it hands-free on a smartphone.

This is how I'll answer the question if I'm ever asked on a job interview.

Valuable marketing tip: never overstate the value (2 great photos to illustrate)

I never miss an opportunity to take a picture of funny things I see when I'm out and about. One common misstep in marketing involves overstating the value of something beyond what your company can deliver. When marketing practitioners overstate the value of something, it causes anger and distrust from their customers. The photo below is from a menu at a Mexican restaurant we stumbled upon in Hilton Head recently.

Cheap Swill Wine....Probably out of the box....(aged on the truck)

Is that not brilliant? It's crappy wine, but they've chosen to not overstate its value buy calling it the house "special," or something along those lines. They are telling it like it is and making customers smile. With that description, it's doubtful anyone has ever bothered to complain or send it back. Customers were told what they were getting. If I ordered it and it was truly awful, I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and laugh, knowing that I had been warned.

I'm not quite sure what to say about this next photo.

NICEPKG

At first, I assumed it was a young 20-something-year-old driver with an inflated ego. This is the kind of thing my own 16-year-old would find funny to do, so I immediately assumed it was a misguided youth. I had the opportunity to pull up next to the driver at a light and was slightly horrified to discover that he looked to be my father's age. He might have been driving his son's car somewhere for the day. He might have owned a reputable UPS packaging franchise and the vanity plate was simply a form of marketing (I know, it's a stretch). Whatever the case, it's a clear example of over-promising something you might not be able to deliver on...and something with a rather subjective value (I would imagine...the light turned, thankfully).

While a lot of marketing is all about choosing words to attract customers or buyers, one must be careful about not overstating the value of what you are selling. Often it can backfire and then you've lost the trust of your audience completely. This is especially true in real estate. My mother, sister and brother were all realtors, so I've heard a lot of the euphemisms out there! Cozy = too small for a flat screen television; retro décor = vinyl floors and avocado green appliances; mechanic's dream = the house is dump, but the garage is huge; unique design = flawed floor plan where you might have to walk through the pantry to access the bathroom.

Marketing is about finding that perfect balance between promoting the benefits, yet keeping it real enough that you won't lose trust by overstating the value of that NICEPKG you might be selling.

Dear CVS and online marketers....

Dear Online Marketers,                                                   

It’s not that I don’t like you. I do. I’ve been you. I understand the need to capitalize on a current transaction by offering the customer a future discount. This all makes perfect sense to my cynical marketing self.

But, please….stop offering me discounts for the exact same products or services I JUST PURCHASED AT FULL RETAIL PRICE, no less than 72-hours ago. It makes you look stupid. It makes me like you less.

I just took my son to CVS Minute Clinic for a sports physical. So, a few days later, I'm struggling to understand why their marketing department would send me a coupon for $10 off a sports physical. Maybe it's all entirely coincidental (not), but I haven't received a CVS promotion until just now, when the online check-in prompted me for my e-mail and address.

I can’t tell you how many times this practice happens. As much as I love Lands’ End, they are guilty of this also. It never fails, that I’ll place a $200+ order for school uniform apparel, and I’ll get an e-mail the very next day for 30% off. Seriously? I know I can call your customer service and they will probably give me the discount on the past order (as they have stellar customer service), but you just make me feel all bitchy and cheap doing that.

So, please…take the following into consideration:

1)     I love that you appreciate my business with a personal e-mail following up on my purchase. Kudos for that.

2)      I love extra discounts, who doesn’t?

3)      I don’t like to feel like I’m being played, or that I missed the boat on a seemingly good deal that’s (coincidentally) occurring moments after my credit card was swiped.

If you are going to use your voodoo marketing and target me before I’m even aware that I’m a loyal customer, please don’t offer me a discount on what I just purchased. If I was just at your store for a sports physical, there’s a pretty good chance I don’t need another one this week. Maybe file this promotion away to hit 11 months from now and send me an e-mail reminder and a coupon for the next delinquent annual sports physical my child likely needs for school. If you want to send me a promotion immediately, offer me something that I can actually use: $5 off any purchase at CVS, a discount on a flu-shot, or $10 off any prescription.

If I just purchased a boat-load of clothing at your store…cough-cough, Lands’ End…don’t send me a 30% off everything promotion that starts tomorrow and ends next week. Send me an e-mail that says, “Thank you for your recent purchase. We are sending you a coupon code that can be used for any future purchase in the next six months." Better yet, notice all those times I have stuff in my cart and haven't checked out? I'm not checking out right away because I'm waiting to see if you will send me another e-mail promotion this week. Save us both the time, and offer me a discount TODAY.

Don’t make me feel dumb. Don’t make me feel like I missed the boat on a sale. Make me feel valued for the customer I am, and the customer I will continue to be if you give me a little free stuff respect. I'm fairly easy in this regard....just treat a girl with a little dignity.

The "so what" factor in effective public relations

One of the greatest challenges in working with clients (both with internal clients and in an agency environment) is teaching people what constitutes writing a news release. Often, in the high-tech computing environment, my systems and technology group wanted a news release written for every new improvement made to our enterprise computers. Faster. Better. Bigger. Whatever. To which, I was trained to respond, "so what?"

While it is super-great that the product group created a new and faster computer, what's the real news value in this? How does a communications professional sell this to the media?

Simply announcing a faster, better computer isn't news.

This will inspire eye-rolling among journalists and your credibility level will drop. Your job as a communications professional is to ask your clients what this means for their customers. Your client must be able to produce an actual customer (or a real person who will benefit from the news you are announcing) who can be used in a story and as a reference for the press. When I worked at Unisys, we had a rule with our client groups. We would plan our public relations plan around their new, faster computer, but without an actual customer success story, we'd kill the launch date of any news releases and any media tours (stressful when you have travel booked and interviews scheduled). It's not always pleasant to be the bad guy, but you are doing your company a favor. Media will start to discount everything you put out if you don't have anything substantial to offer.

The media wants more than just the "newer and faster" line. They want a story. A story involves a customer...people...a real world application of how this newer and faster thing improves lives, increases efficiencies or saves money. Without a real case study willing to go on record as a success story, you have nothing but fluff.

So what? This is the question you should be asking yourself on a daily basis. It's the key to pitching better stories to the media and gaining their respect. Always make your clients answer this question before moving forward with issuing a press release. Asking yourself "so what?" on a daily basis as you write and prepare media pitches will make you a better communications professional and will lead to more successful results.

Replaced with a Tweet? Has the bold, printed headline become obsolete?

While enrolled in graduate studies for Journalism at Temple, I developed a fascination of headlines in the printed press. Since this time, I have been collecting historic newspapers, many of them framed and featured around the walls of my dining room. From an original 1860 newspaper announcing Lincoln's presidency to the more captivating headlines of the past century, including the Moon landing, JFK's assassination and Nixon's resignation, they all illustrate how journalism has evolved over time.

I enjoy looking at headlines and how their advancement, which is mostly attributed to improvements in press production and the introduction of electronic publishing. The announcement of Lincoln's presidency in the 1860 paper is found on page two, not page one. Today it seems so unimpressive, as it's positioned a few inches down on column two, page two, with no more than a 12-point header. In just 100 years, the headline had exploded, as evidenced in the JFK story, where the headline and news takes up the entire front page.

While we still have large headlines in print today, the printed paper is not how the majority of people get their news. Radio, television, internet home pages, Twitter, Facebook, texting and other forms of social media comprise our primary sources of media. With all these forms of communication at our fingertips, it's rare that anyone is seeing the "headline of the day" at the subway or street vendor's newsstand. By the time we see a headline in print, it's old news.

Instead of seeing the big, bold headline to know what's the major story of the day, we piece together news "nuggets." Nuggets come in many forms: the news soundbites or breaking news tickers, radio updates, Facebook posts, Tweets, online news streams, texts, YouTube videos, e-mails, etc. Instead of being exposed to a single, captivating headline for the day, we probably see a hundred or more "nuggets" signaling to us the trending topic of the day (or hour). Depending on your industry our line of work, you may be exposed to more than 100 small headlines before finishing your morning cup of coffee.

What does this mean for the pr practitioner? Your job is harder, and changing every day. There is no single, one way to reach your audience. It's neither a press release or a single Tweet. It's everything. Knowing your audience allows you to emphasize certain media outlets over others, but they all need to be acknowledged and dealt with individually.

No longer is public relations about just sending out a press release on the wire. The information needs to be choreographed to hit news outlets, your website, message boards, Twitter, Facebook, e-mail groups, industry bloggers, LinkedIn, YouTube, and other forms of social media simultaneously.

Today, it's not the size of the headline that matters, as much as whether you've saturated enough media outlets with your message. In some aspects, we've shrunk our headlines back down to about the same size of the Lincoln headline in the 1860 paper. A Tweet is about the same size, and limited in characters. The difference between then and now is that the distribution channels have increased considerably. Hitting your target isn't about printing one line in one source, it's now about getting that smaller nugget exposed in dozens of outlets.

As I'm writing this, I'm realizing it won't be long before the printed newspaper becomes entirely obsolete. I suddenly feel an urgency to add to my newspaper collection, as I can't imagine a day where people like myself buy and trade original Tweets highlighting the greatest news moments in the 21st-century.

Say it FIRST...how to control the message before others beat you to it

Many of my examples of what not do do with public relations and communications come from real-world examples of things I see in my own life (and not necessarily situations involving past clients).

One such example under the "say it first" category comes from my boys' charter school. Last year, two students were caught having relations under the stairwell in the upper school. And, yes...I do mean the hard-core variety.

What happens more often than not is that businesses and organizations aren't prepared for this kind of "crisis communications." I can't tell you how many times I see this in daily life. Situations spin completely out of control because a business or organization chooses to say nothing, rather than address a situation. Usually, they are simply too afraid to say anything, for fear that it will be the wrong thing.

Silence often leads to speculation, distrust, frustration and anger. With social media permeating every facet of our lives, there's no such luxury of remaining silent and hoping that people don't hear about something. With our school's situation, the parent Facebook page was inundated with posts as soon as the high school students returned home that day and shared with parents what they heard had happened between two students caught in the act.

Many parents were outraged and felt the school was covering the incident up with their total lack of silence. It led to a massive blow up including conspiracy theories and many parents were quite vocal in asserting that the situation was not being dealt with or handled appropriately by administration. Some of the upset parents turned their ugliness further by singling out the parents of the two involved teens, even questioning their parenting skills and (probable) lack of religion. One parent was adamant that she was going to call the media and legislators in Raleigh over this. (She should probably have included Oprah on the list too....two teens having sex? That's never happened before!) It took a few days, but eventually the board's moderator (a parent) pulled the thread down. In the meantime, however, it was a pr disaster for the school.

What could have been done to avoid this? Saying something...anything. Saying something is always is better than saying nothing. All the school needed to do was to issue an e-mail like the following:

Dear parents,

As you may be learning from your children, there was an incident in the Upper School where two students were engaged in inappropriate conduct on campus. We are addressing this situation with the students and their parents, and hope that you will respect the families and students involved as we work through disciplinary measures and move forward.

While we are not making light of the seriousness of this incident, we hope that you will keep in mind that teenagers often make terrible and inappropriate decisions as they evolve into young adults. As adults, we need to remind ourselves of this and be sensitive in not contributing further to the embarrassment of the involved parties.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me personally.

Best regards,

Principle Hodge (name changed)


Would this have been hard? It acknowledges that something happened (without going into graphic details). It reminds us that we're all human and as adults we probably shouldn't seek to tar and feather the students. It also openly encourages a private discussion for anyone who may have further concerns.

This simple letter would have shut down the rumor mill before it even started. I don't know if there would have been posts about the incident on the parent page. I do know that it would have prevented about 95% of the furor over the incident.

• The parent who started the whole thread about a cover-up and conspiracy wouldn't have anything to yell about.
• We would have all been subtly reminded that most of us have done one or two really horrible things in our youth and as bad as this incident was, these kids don't need their lives and reputations further destroyed.
• Any parents that felt like they needed more information would have felt welcomed to approach the principal by his invitation to call.

Being silent allows others to do all the talking. Do you want the agenda and tone set for you, or do you want to come out first and control the message?

Say something first....anything.

The power of an apology

There's an interesting thing about human nature. We all make mistakes. We can acknowledge we make mistakes, as do others. However, many of this have this unrelenting need to hear someone acknowledge when they've made a mistake through an "I'm sorry."

Why is the "I'm Sorry" so important in daily life and communications? I suppose it resonates with people because they feel their issue was heard...they were right...it cleans the slate and allows both parties to move forward.

While there are hundreds (my husband will likely say thousands) of issues I can think of where a simple "I'm sorry" from someone would have turned things around and allowed me to move forward in a positive tone, one stands out in particular. This was a mind-boggling example of poor customer service:

At my salon, I used to pay for a senior stylist. Women are all familiar that there are different prices charged for haircuts and blow-outs based upon a stylists "level" of training. I was paying $45 for the cut/style (a good ten years ago). My stylist cut my hair as usual, but since she overbooked herself, she sent over "Amber," a stylist in training to blow me out (sounds dirty typing this) and style my hair. Part of why I enjoyed going to the salon was to get that really nice blow dry...the one I have never in decades been able to replicate at home.

I feel awkward and uncomfortable saying anything to my regular stylist and sit fuming while Amber styles my hair with a disappointing show of talent. This defeated the purpose of paying top dollar for the senior level stylist. I decide to sit quiet and say something to the salon manager when I paid.

I ask for the manager when I'm checking out. I discreetly pulled her aside and reminded her that I've been coming to that salon for years, and was disappointed that my regular stylist didn't style my hair and that a trainee was sent to finish me out. I wasn't looking for a free haircut or any kind of a discount, I just wanted to be heard and understood. The manager proceeds to tell me that this was "for my own benefit," as my stylist was quite busy and using Amber helped her. I'm scratching my head at this point, not really understanding how Amber helping my stylist was of any benefit to me, when I was paying for a certain level of experience. I think I somewhat snarkily pointed out to the manager that the real benefit was to the salon and my stylist so they could pack in more clients, rather than focusing appropriate attention to each client.

From there, our conversation spiraled (as they often do when I don't hear what I need to hear). The salon manager remained defensive and rather bitchy about the whole incident, finally throwing her hands up that I was not satisfied with her answer.

All I wanted was a simple apology. "I'm so sorry you had an unpleasant visit, Ms. Rafizadeh. Your stylist was getting backed up, and while I realize this was an error in our over-booking, I thought having Amber style you would be preferable to waiting longer."

Had I heard this, I probably would have apologized in turn for saying anything and expressed appreciation that they tried to rectify the situation (albeit with Amber).

Instead, I left angry and never returned to that salon again. Never underestimate the power of a simple apology to turn around an angry or disappointed customer. There's something very humbling in hearing an apology from someone that can turn anyone, even me, around.