derek abdinor

Comment unnecessary: more of a story here

Comment unnecessary: more of a story here 

I’ve just put down a fascinating article in an old issue of IR Magazine, about the differences in IR language between the US and UK. The premise is that while language and verbage are 99% the same, meaning and emphasis is totally different. For example, “challenging” in plc terms may mean ‘dire’, or ‘SELL’; in the US that could translate to ‘we’re keen on going down this track’.

Simple analysis, but it twangs a chord. National characteristics aside, there are big differences in meaning, and when applied to considerable investments (another disputed term: define considerable) it forces the analyst to look for non-rational, body-language cues. I don’t think anyone wants analysis based on that.

What is the solution? Well, websites are mostly packed with annual report, filing and PR speak. Meaning that the company would rather you tire on the drudge stuff and give up and phone the IR people or arrange a meeting. Where, in front of them, you can perspire and look shifty when you’re actually looking to see if the air-conditioner is on.

This is the real reason why IR websites need to be more interactive.

If people find defensive stuff on your IR web pages, they’ll go to a 3rd party where you lose control of the message the instant they leave your site. Other sites have other agendas, other contexts, other ways of categorising your information.

So keep them on your site. But give them blogs and give them video. Now they can gauge the efficacy of your written word, and through video they can see that, indeed, you exist and resemble a dna-carrying member of homo sapiens sapiens.

Turn Social Media into a tool for you.

Web 2.0 is two-way. If your company info is on a video or photo sharing site, or some guy with a grudge and a blog is ranting about you, you can use new tools to find and monitor these conversations.

Be proactive.

It follows that you should use video and blogs to make your message real. If funky brands like Apple and Coca-Cola can have legions of suits in the background and still be seen as legit, your corporate site can have hipsters and baseball-caps front and centre.

I was kindly invited by James Governor (aka Monkchips) of Redmonk, to participate in a pre-conference Wiki, OpenAccountability. James is hyper-passionate about sustainability and web2, and doesn’t mince words or dialectics; I foresee him turning his dab hand to shareholder activism in time. I posted there, thought it would fit here too…

Corporate communication tends to follow a linear trail, a harbinger from the days when paper + letterhead + signature = legitimacy. It is requirement to communicate to all one’s shareholders as a matter of good governance, updating your investors on their investments and punting the company line into the marketplace as a cumulative benefit. The media that spring to mind here are the mailed reports, EDGAR filings and letters to shareholders.

However, lets scrutinise the company’s annual general meeting (AGM). The company publishes a notice to the AGM (usually as an addendum to the annual report) and sets out the agenda for which shareholders can vote at the AGM. These include appointment of directors, adoption of some matters of course but also how the board sets about allocating shares and profit. Very rarely are matters of strategic direction entertained at the AGM; it is assumed the board enjoys the confidence of the shareholders to do just that (much like cabinet and the president/PM).

WIth globalisation and cross-shareholding, voting by proxy accounts for a huge whack of all votes cast at the AGM. This is now moving into the online space to do away with paper and the attendant inefficiencies.

But why is this not more of a collaborative exercise? The agenda is set by the board, about the board, for the board. Why could a company not open a Wiki or Ideastorm to the shareholding public to know what issues they want to discuss? Those suggestions could be tallied by some impartial body (the Bourse, auditors, etc) and brought into the AGM.

This is how I see Web2 thinking infiltrating corporate culture, or rather capitalist culture. Business spend kaZillions on R+D and talent sourcing but assume those that invested in them will be satisfied with some paltry pre-defined choices? With the markets as they are, dialogue with potential investors is about sustainability and survival. Web2 is the key to that kingdom.