Thursday, November 26, 2009 |
posted by Sue Heuman |
When I was in high school the Edmonton Journal was delivered every afternoon, except Sundays. (Morning editions and seven day coverage would come later, as I recall. In fact, for a time the Journal had two editions daily – morning and afternoon. Double the fun! But I digress...)
I would arrive home from school and eagerly await the afternoon edition, anxious to keep in touch with the news of the day. My brother and I would trade the sections back and forth until all was sufficiently read.
My need for print news has continued over the last 30 years, and even though I am active in electronic communication – Twitter, this blog, other blogs and online news – I still can’t break my addiction to the printed newspaper.
Every morning, I eagerly bounce to the front door to see the day’s edition. Chances are, I’ve already heard or read the news electronically the night before, but there’s something about lingering over the paper with my morning coffee that I look forward to each day. There’s a familiarity, and a sense that, upon reading the paper, I am now fully informed about current events (and, well, the daily comics to be honest!). I’ve tried reading the paper online, and I do check the Journal’s website throughout the day for news updates, but it’s not the same.
Sadly, the newspaper is becoming thinner and thinner. On most Mondays, in fact, it’s more like a newsletter than a newspaper. Advertisers are turning to other means, it seems, or not advertising at all as we continue to recover from the recession. And, although the Journal still devotes attention to local news, more wire stories appear now. I have thought about cancelling my subscription – surely it’s more convenient/better for the environment/timely if I just read the paper online? – but I just can’t. Reading the paper is a comforting routine that I can’t shake, despite all my online connectedness.
Much is being written about the decline of newspapers across North America. Know, however, that there is more to reading the newspaper than getting the news. It’s an experience. So, I would like to thank my local paper for its dependable continuity in news reporting, for being a regular and reliable friend, and part of my daily routine for 30 years.
I’ll be looking for tomorrow’s edition, with coffee in hand.
Measuring communication
Monday, November 9, 2009 |
posted by Sue Heuman |
The age-old debate continues – how to measure PR/communications/social media. I’ve never been sure why this is such a difficult subject, and then in a great Twitter discussion today with Shel Holtz (@shel) it occured to me.
We’ve been looking for the perfect one-size-fits-all yardstick. (ROI has become the recent, but incorrect, favourite.) After all, you can measure weight in pounds, distance in miles, flour by the cup, and cinnamon by the teaspoon (or their metric equivalents). Why is there no standard measurement for communication?
Certainly if there were, we would be able to articulate the value of the communications’ effort eloquently and succinctly in front of our friends in the C-suite.
“Why based on a measurement of 11.2 smackaroons, compared with 9.3 smackaroons when we started, we’re a hit!”
Sigh. Life’s just not like that.
Why, why, why?
Simple. It’s because 11.2 smackaroons is not the answer for every communication issue or opportunity. As varied as the challenges that present themselves, so are the potential measurements.
As usual, the best answers lie in the questions.
What problem/issue/opportunity are you trying to impact? Who are you trying to reach? How is the best way to reach these people? Are you just advising people of something (Fresh bread on sale)? Do you want input (Vote for your favourite fresh bread today!)? Do you want collaborative involvement (Join our Saturday workshop to create new bread flavour)?
Once you have the right questions, the correspondingly right measures will present themselves. Demonstrating the value of your efforts toward achieving the business objectives will win in the C suite every time.
Smackaroons not required.
Twitter is not email
Thursday, November 5, 2009 |
posted by Sue Heuman |
Yo, tweeps. If you need to meet someone for dinner, discuss a private family matter, or get an opinion on your latest hair colour, please do not tweet this!
Twitter is not email. Twitter is meant to disseminate thoughts, ideas, and information...not book a date with your pals.
Why does this bother me? Well, mostly because I am not invited; neither can I share in the private joke. But also, it clogs up my Tweetdeck with back-and-forth arrangements that don’t have any relevance for those of us not involved.
Twitter is a great way to learn new things, generate ideas, discuss theories and generally engage in 140 character conversations. And, it can be a great place to promote an upcoming event to which everyone can attend.
For one-to-one conversations, however, email your friend, or better yet pick up that old-fashioned device and dial a number! My Tweetdeck thanks you!
Canadian spelling, eh?
Monday, November 2, 2009 |
posted by Sue Heuman |
Last week there was a news story about the use of American spelling in Alberta classrooms. Naturally, most of the people interviewed for the story felt that Canadian spelling should taught in schools. After all, language is an important part of our culture. Besides beavers, moose and Mounties, nothing is more Canadian than our own version of the English language.
We maintain our identity through language, such as our pronunciation of the last letter of the alphabet (always zed, never zee), our quirky way of saying “aboot” instead of “abowt” and writing cheques (not checks) to pay bills. As we speak with, and write to, one another we recognize those words that separate us from other English-speaking countries. There may not be many, but those words and spellings are significant distinguishing factors that help reinforce our "Canadian-ness."
So if you have school-aged children, and this issue is important to you, talk to the teacher. Let him or her know that you want your child to learn Canadian spelling. You’ll be doing us all a favour, neighbour, by maintaining our labour of love for Canadian spelling, eh? Colour me red and white!
