The world is confronted with a pandemic that permeates everything. The media world is no exception and business communications need to reflect and adjust to that changed situation.
 
Every publication is prioritising stories related to Covid-19. With staff writers mainly working on corona stories, any news about the space industry tend to exclusively focus on the big names such as SpaceX, NASA and Virgin Galactic/Orbit. Making it near impossible for start-ups to have their news and developments mentioned. Having spoken with journalists and editors, it is vital however to keep sharing announcements about non-Covid-19 stories.  
 
Because the changed situation has an ethical element, greater care has to be given to content and tone of voice though. Press releases that previously would have been perfectly normal and fine could now be conceived as insensitive and even callous. It is therefore prudent to evaluate the risks with each announcement, quote and statement.

C&F has put together seven tips to communicate with journalists during the Covid-19 crisis.

1. Continue to share non-Covid-19 related news. Businesses shouldn't stop sharing relevant news. Depending on the importance of the news beyond the main market/sector publications it might be worth holding off. At the same time, if it involves a household name there still is a good chance of being picked up. News is especially valued if it’s practical announcements about how businesses can help organisations and people.

2. Be extra sensible and cautious in what you publicly say and announce. Businesses are advised to keep their news factual and not be too boastful and self-centred.  This could be ill received and be regarded as detached and dispassionate.

3. Look to the future. It’s not just about what’s happening right now but what can the business do to help going forward? There are also opportunities to talk about how implications that can already be felt are likely to continue and grow. However, predictions especially at an early stage are to be treated with caution. The earlier and further ahead the prediction, the greater the chance to being proven wrong within weeks.

4. Be responsive to journalist requests. Responding to journalist requests is always advisable of course but being extra receptive during stressful times will go a long way. There is great value in providing reactive commentary to journalists, especially during a crisis. It also gives you an indication of what journalists are most interested in. What they are asking could be as important as putting out a news announcement.

5. Be clear in your messages. It sounds obvious, but a legitimate story may be dismissed if the reader feels alienated by the tone of voice.  Communicating in a straightforward and understandable way, using simple words and sentences, supports your efforts. And striking a sincere and human tone, instead of cold-hearted corporate language, is more important than ever.

6. Silence is golden. If you’ve got nothing to say about coronavirus, then don’t force it; rather than adding to the deluge of information.

7. Closely monitor reactions and comments. Similar to other crises, a stressful situation like a pandemic creates tensions and extra sensitivity. As a result people are more likely to be alerted and respond in a negative way. Keeping an observant eye on comments and being careful if and when a response to comments is adequate. To be fair this last point is less about journalists and more about their readers of their articles and followers on social media.

Since it's very unlikely that I'll actually fly to any of our planets or just outer space (contact me if you have a feasible offer), and being born too late to get involved with the Voyager gold disc, this is a fun way to get my name to Mars. Use the button below to add yours.

We've all heard about the apparent demise of the press release so many times; yet it's still the most widely used and basic tool in the communications box. And I doubt journalists have seen a massive decrease of announcements popping up in their inboxes. Quite the opposite in fact. And if the press release isn't really dead as the much lamented Dodo, what's going on then?
 
To find the answer or rather answers I think we'll have to look beyond a simple yes or know and talk about what 'dead' in this case means. I'd agree that the time when sending out a release lead to certain coverage is definitely past its sell-by-date. To achieve guaranteed widespread coverage today you would need at least one of three elements.
 

1. A household name like Apple, SpaceX or Facebook.
   
2. Really large numbers such as USD 1 billion (inching closer to Dr Evil's 100 billion).
   
3. A real first, think the first woman on the Moon (scheduled for 2024), the first asteroid being mined or the first manufactory built in space. 
   

 
Outside of these, it's more difficult to achieve international coverage. And let's face it the vast majority of SME companies can't compete at that level. Certainly not as a regular occurrence. Other factors working against coverage results include journalists skim reading subject lines, reduced journalistic staff to investigate stories and limited space per publication. The last one holds true even for online publications. If you look into the news articles per day of online media it's still a small selection from all the stories that arrived at the news desk. Most of those news stories published will contain familiar names.
 
Right, so if widespread coverage is not the goal, what good is it sending out a press release?  It's worth bearing in mind that only 50 per cent of start-ups survive the first five years. By-the-way the story about how eight out of ten companies fail within the first five years is a myth. There is no data that would support that claim. Still, fifty per cent is a large number and equal to a coin toss guess whether or not a company is still in business.
 
First, to avoid leaving investors, partners, customers and the media guessing about your business' health you should inform them about the progress that your business has made. One of the best ways is through a press release sent to relevant journalists. And adding it to your website. Most people still go there to find out about a business and if the website hasn't seen any update for some time it might raise questions. Social media can have an additional effect. As the main source of information its reach might be too limited for the average company though. Because not everybody that you want inform follows and sees everyone of your posts on Twitter or Linkedin. As mentioned above sending out a release supported by social media might not lead to any coverage but it shows the company is alive and kicking.
 
The second and very valuable reason for writing and distributing a press release also gives you a good ground for contacting selected journalists to either introduce your company or if the journalists is aware of it, to offer a catch up meeting or call. Of course, the journalist might still refuse for various reasons of his own but even that's okay because you are engaging with the journalist and reminded him that you still exist and are making progress.
 
Using a press release to get in contact with journalists will also help to put you on their radar screen and your next announcement will stand a higher chance of being noticed instead of being overlooked. Over time it'll help proving the company value and trust as a source with relevant media and in extension the company's stakeholders. Especially, if you managed to actually speak with the journalist.
 
Coming back to our question at the beginning whether or not the press is dead. The answer is that only value has shifted. Sending out a press release is still important but it should be used in combination with additional forms of engagement. Just don't make the rookie mistake of sending emails or making phone call purely to ask if the release has been read. Equally make sure that the release goes to the right journalist writing about your industry. An annoyed journalist is worse than being overlooked by one. 

There's hardly an aspect of life that doesn't rely to some extent on satellites. From weather forecasts to satnavs to get us somewhere (even when we know the way), when we listen to radio, watch Netflix, make a mobile phone call, when we shop online, in all those cases there's a good chance that some of the data is transmitted via one of these metal boxes orbiting our planet. It follows that losing access to satellites is a significant issue.

Today, about 2,000 operational satellites are in orbit around the Earth. Last year alone, 86 launches placed more than 400 spacecraft into orbit, a number that is to grow substantially over the next decade. But it's not just satellites that fly around our planet.

The United States Strategic Command’s Space Surveillance Network (SSN), which detects, identifies and tracks artificial objects in orbit around the Earth, from an astronaut’s glove to dead spacecraft and disused rocket stages, has a public catalogue of roughly 20,000 items larger than 10cm. That means only ten percent are active satellites and 90% is junk. Let me say that again 90 percent is junk.

It gets worse though. The current estimate of objects larger than a marble orbiting Earth is 750,000. In addition, there are over 170 million items of debris too small to be tracked by the SSN but still large enough to threaten robotic missions and human spaceflight. Enough to make any astronaut a little nervous, I'd imagine. For a fantastic view of an animated realtime 3D map of objects in Earth orbit go to http://stuffin.space.

The largest objects aren't necessarily those that pose the greatest danger.  In August 2016 a centimetre-sized particle hit one of the solar arrays on the European Space Agency's (ESA) Sentinel 1A satellite and produced a small reduction in power and a change in the spacecraft’s orbit and orientation. Sentinel 1A is part of ESA's Copernicus programme and will track many aspects of Earth's environment, for example oil spills, sea ice mapping sea ice and monitoring movement in land surfaces.

It's millimetre-sized orbital debris that have the highest penetration risk because of the high impact speed to most operational spacecraft in low-Earth orbit. These tiny fragments far outpace the punch of a bullet (the average bullet travels at just 2,700 mph) with maximum speeds reaching 48,000km/h. On collision at orbital velocity, a one centimetre speck of debris can have an energy that is comparable to an exploding hand grenade. Ergo, no object in space is benign. 

And while generally speaking space is big, space around the Earth and in particular orbital space is not. Like cars use roads, satellites use orbits and just as some roads are more popular, so are certain orbits. Usually objects below 600km will be brought down by natural forces within 25 years, and burn up in the atmosphere – as the Chinese space lab Tiangong-1 did earlier this year after China lost control in 2016 – everything above needs an active mechanism to lower it.

According to the European Space Agency for many missions, space debris impact represents the third highest risk of losing a spacecraft. The other two are risks associated with launch and deployment in orbit. The US government logged 308,984 potential space-junk collisions in 2017. And the problem is likely to get much worse. In April this year, Dan Hart, Virgin Orbit president and chief executive acknowledged that until recently he 'didn’t see much of a business case for space debris removal, but that is changing with the number of satellites people plan to send into low Earth orbit'.

What everybody is worried about more than the collision itself, is the dreaded Kessler Effect or Kessler Syndrome, where one piece of debris hits another and another so that it becomes an unstoppable runaway disaster cascade, which in the end could make an entire orbit unusable for satellites. The loss of orbital access and of satellites would mean stepping back probably decades in terms of our technology that we taken for granted on Earth.

However, even if all space operators start reducing the creation of space debris right now, resulting in a better than business-as-usual scenario, we would still see a growth in space debris and risking a Kessler Effect. Based on its 2017 analysis revealing that the dangerous tipping point in terms of number of space debris has already been reached, ESA suggests that we need to remove massive objects from orbit, in particular, those that have the potential to fragment into smaller particles.

One of them is the European satellite Envisat, the size of a double decker bus, which stopped working in 2012. Since then it's been circling the Earth, threatening other key satellites in its path. In 2017 alone, the US government counted 308,984 close calls with space debris and issued 655 'emergency-reportable' alerts to satellite operators.

There have been two major space-debris events in the last decade or so. In 2007, the Chinese destroyed one of their weather satellites at an altitude of 865km using a missile launched from Earth. The satellite disintegrated into an estimated 150,000 pieces of additional space debris.
The second occasion was in 2009 when the Russian military satellite Cosmos-2251 and US commercial satellite Iridium 33 crashed into each other, producing more than 1,400 pieces of debris larger than 10 cm.

We don't even fully understand the physics of two satellites colliding. To find out, the European Space Agency is launching a new research project to study satellite collisions in space. Because it's not practical to add to the problem by smashing satellites in space (although I wouldn't be surprised if the guys from TopGear had some ideas around that), researchers will use data from previous crash events and modify it to simulate how satellites behave when they slam into one another. After these simulations, the researchers will turn to practical experiments to smash together 500 kg-scale satellites under lab conditions. The aim is to project the evolution of the debris environment for the next 200 years.

What is clear though is that with a predicted increase of more than tenfold the current payloads (forecasts foresee demand ranging up to 4,040 payloads per annum in 2036) being launched into low Earth orbit over the next twenty years the likelihood of further collisions is going up too. OneWeb is planning to send up over 2,000 satellites. In 2017 SpaceX submitted regulatory filings to launch a total of nearly 12,000 satellites to orbit by the mid-2020s, Boeing has filed for 1,396-2,956 satellites and Samsung announced a constellation of 4,600.

Clearly there is an increasing risk of space debris for existing and future missions, but what can be done to improve tracking of debris, how do we mitigate creating more space junk and how do we clean up the existing trash?

Tracking Space Debris
Tracking space debris is difficult but an essential first step. Before you can remove the trash you have to know where it is, and how it moves. It is an international effort that affects every space-faring nation and every mission. There are various public and private organisations that are tracking junk in space. Here are some examples.

•  The leading organisation for tracking space debris is the above mentioned SSN which uses a global network of public and private partners to identify, track, and share information about objects in space. The SSN supercomputers constantly check the orbits of all satellites and known bits of space junk to see if there's any risk of future collision days in advance.
  
• One of the most recent additions is Seer Tracking. Developed by nineteen year old Amber Young, Seer Tracking uses artificial neural networks (ANNs) to determine orbital patterns of clouds of space debris, debris classification and provide orbital predictions days in advance. Astonishingly, she started to write the software when she was 15 and finished a first version in 2016 when she got her network to make predictions three days ahead with 98% accuracy. Far more accurate than the statistical models developed by NASA.
• In the UK, Damage, draws in information of launches and spacecraft from different space agencies, and uses the data to illustrate the low Earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit regions in as much detail as possible. The UK Space Agency has used the computer model since 2004, allowing them to understand what impact new space systems might have on their environments.
• NASA’s Space Debris Sensor orbits the Earth on the International Space Station. The sensor, a one-metre-square bit of kit around 20cm thick, was attached to the outside of the space station in December 2017. It will detect millimetre-sized pieces of debris for at least two years and will determine whether the impacting object is from space or a man-made piece of space debris.
  
• The Aerospace Corporation is working alongside Lockheed Martin to develop a tracking system known as a space fence, which aims to detect debris in more detail using radar. Another area being looked into by the Aerospace Corporation involves implanting new satellites with transponder packages and reflectors to make it easier for radar to pick up these small objects.
• Russia’s space agency has signed an agreement to install a new debris-tracking telescope in Brazil.
• The Deimos Sky Survey in Spain uses a network of telescopes to detect and track near Earth objects such as asteroids as well as space debris, including Elon Musk’s car in space.

Missions for active debris removal (ADR)
While it's important to know where the junk is, we also need to start removing it from Earth's orbit. Swalloing a spacecraft looked easy in the Bond film You Only Live Twice but in reality if a satellite is tumbling through space synchronising the approaching craft and then somehow capturing it is a more complex issue. Suggested mechanisms include using a robotic arm, net or harpoon. There are various ADR missions under way or planned for testing.

• On 4th April, SpaceX carried on a resupply rocket an experimental payload, two RemoveDebris spacecrafts, developed by the Surrey Space Centre at the University of Surrey to the International Space Station. Four key technologies will be tested on controlled objects: a visual navigation system, a net and a harpoon the size of a pen used to capture debris and a de-orbit sail use to slow the debris so it falls into the Earth’s atmosphere. Removing controlled objects is one thing however; using technologies on uncontrolled pieces of debris is another. For that ESA is also proposing a mission called e.deorbit at the end of 2019 to demonstrate that it's possible to remove an uncontrolled object safely from orbit.
  
• Astroscale wants to build a retrieval mechanism into spacecrafts before they launch. Should a satellite fail prematurely — and about 5 percent or more likely will — an Astroscale spacecraft would launch to snag the derelict satellite using the built-in component and dispose of the satellite. The current plan is to use one retrieval craft per piece of debris. While a reusable chaser spacecraft would be ideal, it isn't yet economically viable to change velocity required for capturing debris, bringing it to a lower orbit where it would degrade and then going back to hunt for more debris. In 2019, Astroscale will launch a mission called ELSA-d, which stands for End-of-Life Service by Astroscale-demonstration.
• British firm Hempsell Astronautics has proposed a system dubbed Necropolis that would collect defunct geostationary satellites and deliver them to a single spot in the so-called 'graveyard orbit'. This area is situated a few hundred kilometres above the roughly 22,000-mile-high (36,000 km) geostationary ring.
• D-Orbit is developing a solid-propellant technology for the commissioning and decommissioning of satellites.
• Launchspace Technologies proposes sending platforms the size of football fields into equatorial low Earth orbit to sweep up space debris ranging in size from one millimetre to five centimetres. The units with replaceable, mesh 'Debris Impact Pads' would clean up debris as it crosses the equator, while steering clear of satellites and debris large enough to track. The platforms, equipped with sensors, could also help the U.S. government to detect and track orbiting satellites and debris.
• A team from the University of Colorado Boulder envisions pushing defunct spacecraft away from the crowded geostationary ring without even touching them. This concept would use a 'pulsed electron gun', an intermittent electron beam of several tens of watts of electrical power.
• JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) suggests using electrodynamic tethers to remove spent rocket stages from LEO (rocket upper stages account for 18 percent of all tracked objects in Earth orbit, experts have said.) JAXA's claims that because of these objects' smooth and regular shapes, compared to satellites, they represent an ideal target for early removal attempts. However, JAXA's experimental system in which a long cable was supposed to be deployed from the Kounotori 6 satellite and once attached the tether would slow down the object, forcing it to re-enter into Earth’s atmosphere where it would burn up. Sadly, the tether didn't deploy properly from Japan's HTV-6 International Space Station resupply spaceship.
• Louis Wei-yu Feng, a student at the University of Cape Town in South Africa envisions a spacecraft fitted with 'shape memory alloy tentacles' that could collect and dispose of cubesats scattered around Earth orbit. The tentacle hand, dubbed MEDUSA, is made of nitinol, a material that can switch from molten to solid state multiple times, giving the collector spacecraft countless chances to grasp an out-of-control tumbling cubesat.
• With a total of €2.8m in funding from the Horizon 2020 programme, a team at Strathclyde University led by Airbus Defence and Space will carry out initial research under the TeSeR programme (Technology for Self-Removal of Spacecraft) for the development of a prototype of a cost-efficient but highly reliable removal module.
  

Mitigating space debris
As yet, there is no international law about the creation of space debris, only voluntary guidelines published by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in 2007. This in turn led to the voluntary ISO standard 24113:2011 on debris mitigation requirements. It's intention is to 'reduce the growth of space debris by ensuring that spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages are designed, operated and disposed of in a manner that prevents them from generating debris throughout their orbital lifetime'.

Economically speaking, there hasn't really been any incentive to do anything about it. In fact, industry and government have a robust financial incentive to launch satellites, but considerably less motivation to clean up the debris. If a significant threat arose, it’s usually possible to move a satellite out of the way. That’s much cheaper than actually clearing the junk. The growing number of satellite missions might change the economies though.

In the geostationary region, where you have a large amount of telecommunication and broadcasting satellites, nearly all of the operators at the end of their mission at least attempt to move their satellites out of the geostationary orbit. The rules have been there for nearly two decades and they are now considered in the design and operation of satellites.

For lower Earth orbits however, the majority of operators are still relying on gravity and the atmosphere to deorbit and burn up the satellites and related junk. This might be fine for up to say 500 or 600 kilometres, depending on the satellites. But for higher orbits or more massive objects, the number of satellites that perform an active deorbit burn is still not growing, and that is a matter of concern.

"Only about 60% of the satellites that should be disposed of at the end of their missions under current guidelines are, in fact, properly managed,” said Holger Krag, head of ESA’s debris office. Particularly with the announcement of large satellite constellations coming up, we have to increase our efforts to mitigate the creation of space debris. Both OneWeb and SpaceX for their Starlink constellation committed to a deorbit plan which will move the satellites into orbits where they will reenter the Earth's atmosphere within approximately one year following their end-of-life. OneWeb's CEO Greg Wyler also suggested to 'look to aviation air traffic control and the spacing between aircraft as a great model for how to deal with constellation collisions'.

Unsurprisingly, we haven’t yet found a way to use space sustainably. Unsurprisingly, because we haven't even found a way to use Earth's in a sustainable manner. It is imperative though that companies and governments eventually de-orbit any new things they launch in a controlled way.

Maybe I got more sensitive to the issue but it seems to me there has been a lot of public apologising by companies, organisations and political parties. Of course, there's nothing wrong about saying 'I'm sorry' when things took an unexpected bad turn. You might also be apologised (sorry, I just couldn't help myself there and sorry again for such an obvious apologetic pun – right I better stop here) for thinking that companies operating in a country (I'm in the UK) where sorry has become almost a synonym for saying 'hello' would be really good at it. However, I cannot tell you how tired, annoyed and offended (offended because they must think I'm stupid enough to believe that drivel) I have become hearing or reading the phrase 'apologies for any inconvenience caused', or similar meaningless expressions. Hold on, actually I can and I will.


The transport industry in particular seems to have adopted 'for any inconvenience caused' as their phrase of the century. If it would be up to me, I'd ban it outright. Instead London's train companies are championing it whenever they can. But they are not the only ones by far. I have seen the same from TalkTalk, HSBC, South Western Railway, Adobe and many more. Here's a random selection of examples from the last few days:


An H&M spokeswoman (after H&M's failure to deliver online goods at the promised time): "We hope for our customers’ understanding and regret any inconvenience caused".


A Conservative spokesperson apologising for a letter sent to an elderly couple but addressed to 'Mr Youmustbe Fuckingjoking' stated: "It is unacceptable that this letter was sent out and we apologize for any offence caused".


Post Office spokesman: "We understand and appreciate how much communities rely on our services and we apologise for any inconvenience caused by this temporary closure."


Managing Director of First Aberdeen: "We would like to thank our customers for their patience during this period while we sought out a solution and we apologise for any inconvenience caused." (Not only a generic apology but also presuming that people had a choice other than having their patience being tried and then having the audacity to thank them for that. And if I would be really picky I would point out that 'we would like to thank' is not quite the same as 'we thank our customers'.)


Sainsbury's in a company statement: "No other products or batch codes are affected by this issue, and we apologise for the inconvenience this has caused."


Primark was on the right track but fell back into bad habits (although, I would start with the apology and not a defence): "We work very hard to ensure our teams provide our customers with the highest level of customer care and we are sorry to hear of the level of customer service you experienced on this occasion. We assure you your comments have been shared with the management in our [...] store to address. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for taking the time to write to us and for bringing these issues to our attention."


Of course, sometimes things just don't go to plan and your customers bear the brunt of it, so you want to express how sorry you are. I get that and it's nice and important to take full responsibility and say you are terribly sorry - no excuses. But it's not just what you say but how you say it that counts. The latter probably even more.


Nothing shouts 'we really don't care at all' like an insincere and generic apology. It probably makes it worse by insulting the customer's intellect. Using a standard apology to cover any scenario of 'inconvenience' for the customer also says that you are lazy. A somewhat passive sentence structure masks or rejects that you are taking responsibility. If you can add 'by a bunch of muppets' you got it wrong. Try saying 'sorry for any inconvenience caused' to a date after you spilled red wine over their white dress and you can hear how stupid and detached it sounds. And this is the bit that the writers and sources of these apologies seem to forget or ignore, the recipient has to find the apology worthy of accepting. When apologising, you really need to pay attention to the recipient and their feelings.


If you have a good reason that explains the circumstances of why the problem happened, spell it out and if you can, include how you are going to fix or make amends. But make sure it's not just another meaningless or silly excuse like 'the train left late', the train is late because 'there might be snow in the afternoon' (heard at 7am in the morning and my all time personal favourite), and the always popular 'signal failure'. They all ask for another explanation as to why the signal failed and why the train didn't leave on time. If I had used excuses like that at school I probably would have faced extra homework at the very least. Real customer care sounds very different.


So next time, your trains are late, flights are cancelled, phone lines not working, your usual service is not available or whatever the particular problem is, why not try something different? Imagine how you would have felt if it would have happened to you. Be and sound sincere. Perhaps even add some personality and humanity to it, something that shouldn't be reserved to ad campaigns only. If you struggle with that, drop me a line – no apology required (and none offered for this shameless plug).


As for Leroy Jethro Gibbs and his rule 6: "Never say you're sorry. It's a sign of weakness." Sure, it's a fun catch phrase for TV and films (John Wayne used it too) but in the real word I say it's rubbish and just rude. Apologising is a sign of strength if you actually mean it, take steps to rectify the issue or mistake and make every effort to improve. Unless of course he meant to say "Say you're sorry but don't make excuses".

A question I get asked a lot is how much interview preparation is necessary and how far should a communications person's influence go? As you can imagine there isn't such a thing as a one-fits-all solution. Each CEO is different and you have to make adjustments. Some are naturals and all you need to tell them is how much time they have got. Others need intensive guidance. There are however ten basic points that I found very helpful for a good interview.


1 The most important thing is to identify the main messages you want the journalist to go away with. Ask your CEO what kind of headlines she or he would love to see. Ideally not more than three. These messages need to be practised and underpinned with stories the CEO can easily relate to. The best stories and anecdotes are personal. Insights into the CEO's life. Even better when these include customers. Sometimes they can lead a follow up interview between the journalist and customer.


2  Practise. That doesn't necessarily mean memorising from a pre-drafted Q&A sheet because it's still written language and could result in the CEO stumbling over remembering the end of each sentence or paragraph. Even professional actors who are used to memorising long dialogues get it wrong. And let's face it, which CEO has the time to memorise two pages of Q&A? By all means have a piece of paper with cues and a few keywords to jog the memory. Use those keywords and related stories to practise the answers. For interviews it's always better to have CEOs using their own words. Unlike speeches that can be read from a script. Make sure the last practice session ends with a CEO feeling stronger towards the interview, not a with a confused and insecure CEO.


3 Have a fact sheet prepared so the CEO can focus on the story and doesn't have to worry about all the latest figures. Of course he should know latest financial figures and main targets and time line, but the CEO is there for the bigger picture, the strategy, the economy not all the tiny details. The journalist will appreciate that too and can focus on personality and content.


4 Set expectations. What is the purpose and what is the outcome of the interview? Will there be coverage, is it purely for background information and to strengthen the relationship? One of my first experiences with a CEO stems from a media trip when I was a junior and the head office didn't relay my briefing document saying that no coverage was expected. Of course, the CEO expected coverage and it took an intense meeting afterwards to smooth things over. And while it became my best client, it's better to avoid this from the beginning.


5 Don't say things you wouldn't want to see in print. 'Off the record' doesn't exist. Even if you have an excellent and long term trusting relationship with the journalist. If the story or comment is worth the risk, and journalists love controversial views and scoops, it will be used. Better to be safe than sorry. Related to that I would advise focusing on things that can be said instead of those not to say. Maybe mention that story A is better than B but under no circumstances, tell him on the day not to talk about 'the lay-off of 3,000 employees because it hasn't gone through legal yet'. In order not to mention it, the brain will have to remember it too, and during a grilling interview it could easily slip out. Better to give the CEO positive things to focus on.


6 Setting of the environment. Especially if photography or filming is involved. The room should have enough light for pictures. Sitting arrangements should be equal. Not the big boss leather chair for the CEO and the journalist on a stool. Don't use the large conference room either and aim for a clutter free background. Clothing patterns and colours need to be suitable. If there are time constraints (radio and TV in particular) I would also agree a signal to indicate how much time is left (fingers indicating minutes). It can also be helpful to agree on a sign if something is factually wrong and the take needs to be shot again.


7  If filmed, the communications manager should check how the interview looks on the monitor and if necessary step in. Classic examples are seeing a pen with a clear logo of a different company, shoe labels under the soles and sometimes 'funny' cuff links that just send the wrong message. Perhaps carry a spare pair in your pocket for those occasions. And the leather trousers stay home of course.


8  I wouldn't worry too much about body language. It's different when speaking on stage in front of a crowd but during a seated interview there is little body language that can be used to enhance a message. Make sure the CEO feels relaxed and friendly. I never had an issue with body language that caused an article or recording to work against the intended purpose. Or a journalist homing in on an idiosyncrasy.


9  If it's the first ever interview for the CEO, a certain element of nervousness is expected. Like in any other new and important situation. If asked I remind people of previous experiences they mastered – CEOs usually have had their fare share. In addition, the journalist has had many nervous spokespeople and often knows a few methods to relax the interviewee, too. 


10  Lastly, make sure the CEO knows the name of the journalist and the media outlet. There is nothing more embarrassing and damaging than forgetting, not knowing the name or using the wrong name. Introduction and a business card ahead of the interview are good reminders.


For a great example of an interview going from tough to catastrophic watch when the CEO of the British Dental Association lost his cool. And seeing the second take towards to end of that video, it would have been avoidable.

Maybe not quite as good as Shakespeare but everybody is a writer. Except when they write on behalf of their company. We all have read meaningless but at first glance good sounding sentences. Here is a 'good' one from the what-we-do section of a company: "By infusing our products with beauty and personality driven by our users, every experience feels made to order". Any clue as to what that company really does on a day-to-day basis? I can tell you that the one thing they don't sell is a physical product. By the way, it gets worse when you read that out loud. Yet it's one of the first things I came across when researching for a job, trying to find out more about the company.

It's a classic example where language is used to sound exciting even though it probably has an effect to the contrary. Daniel M. Oppenheimer, professor of psychology at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, argues in his Nobel prize winning paper "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly" that simple writing makes authors appear more intelligent than complex writing.

Why bother at all you may ask. Well, if it’s an email to your team, and you are the boss, they will most likely read it anyway. But everybody else, who has the freedom to ignore your emails, announcements or offers, will. And if it's a website, they might go to a competitor instead. Unless they find your musings interesting enough to carry on reading.

But shouldn’t business writing be serious I hear you say? After all, it’s business – not personal, right? Maybe. But ask yourself this, would you rather read something that sounds like it’s coming from a machine? An unfathomable entity hiding behind words? Or would you prefer something that clearly was written by another human being? If the latter, making your text more personal is the way to go. And wouldn’t you like to be more persuasive, surprising and interesting?  You do? Excellent. So why don't we write simple and understandable? We do it when we speak to each other. Mostly.

The reason is that we follow the language that is wisely used in companies by colleagues and superiors. It's formal to the point of legal. Don't get me wrong, you don’t have to go the complete opposite become all matey and chummy. Just don’t be unnecessary formal. Let me give you an example. Rather than using the dimensions 51x109x73 metres, NASA describes the size of the international space station, including its large solar arrays, as 'spanning the area of a U.S. football field'. By using an easy to understand visual instead of plain numbers they make it more digestible.

There really is no reason at all why even a disclaimer has to be dull, long winded, bureaucratic and littered with jargon. Or include pesky abbreviations. To be fair, abbreviations allow us to be short and safe time (and writing space). Unfortunately that only works if everybody knows the meaning; take 'laser' for example (yes it's an abbreviation). But lots of abbreviations have more than one meaning.

I use one simple guiding principle that has let to great results: Write more like you speak. The way you speak to friends, family or colleagues. Other than being easily understood, there are more good reasons.

• It helps you stand out
• It can make your customers like you more
• It can make your team like you more
• A convincing email or proposal might even make or save you money
• The tone of voice has an impact on the brand. Just as images, colours and people’s behaviour.
  

Every time a piece of writing was overly complicated and I asked the author, aka a colleague, to explain it to me, I got a “what I meant to say was…”. What usually follows is a simple and easy to understand summary. My usual response is: “excellent, just write that”. Follow your instinct of how you would say it to another person in the room. Make it personal.

So many customers – so little noise. It's a well known fact that having a third party speak about your products or services on your behalf can have more impact than your own voice. The former holds greater trust, objectivity and connection, whereas the latter can easily be seen as blowing your own trumpet. It's why we all like Amazon's review section, essentially mini case studies, instead of just relying on the manufacturer's product description. In addition to being your means of income and profit, customers are also your best source for success stories and support.

But while Amazon has millions of customers and only needs a small percentage to write reviews, how does a b-to-b enterprise or a startup with less or only a few customers come by a case study and without risking a negative one? Asking being the obvious answer of course. That however, isn't as simple as it sounds. Otherwise large enterprises wouldn't struggle with finding customers participating in interviews or writing a success story. It might surprise you that there are astoundingly many companies, including large ones, that don't utilise their customer base for these softer values.

The cause for this failure is not entirely because the customers don't want to. It might be the main one but there's plenty of room to manoeuvre. The second reason is a lack of an orchestrated and serious effort and programme to constantly work on finding those gems that aren't shy of the lime light.

Here are three top tips to build your digital Rolodex (that thing before Linkedin and Salesforce) of customer case studies.

First of all, take what you get. It's like building any relationship or network. You start small and expand over time until they are happy to talk to a journalist/analyst, at your event, post a guest blog or even feature in your corporate video. Your customer just wants to lend his name or logo? Fine, it's a start and can be used for your website or perhaps marketing material. Just a brief quote?  Good enough for Twitter or part of an article.

Second, the approach has to be right. Don't ask them for a favour because it's not about them doing you a favour. Or at least not only. Every time I spoke with sales people (they usually hold the key to customer access) they were very protective of their customers and I had to use the same arguments I had previously employed to reel in customers. Sales people worry that they might be compromising their efforts to flog the goods. Understandable but it's the other way around. Suggesting to work together on a case study it is as much an opportunity to the company as it is for the customer. It's a matter of pointing out the benefits to customers.

• It could help the customer to tell a certain story they are promoting.
• It could position them as innovative, cost effective etc
• It could show progress and successful improvements towards their own customers.
• It gives visibility of their brand, their product, their CEO or an employee, new development, an upcoming event, recognition of their success

Third, make obtaining references part of the sales team's objectives and performance goals. Combine it with an internal incentive programme. That gives sales people good enough reason to ask their customers. It works a lot better than including a lifeless and legal sounding clause about references in your standard contract. Without the incentives and goals, they might just take the part out of a contract. I have seen that many times.



Fourth, use the right words and tone of voice. Less corporate sales pitch and more personal engagement. The worst that could happen when asking nicely and presenting it as an opportunity is a polite no. No harm done. At the very best you get a resounding yes and a customer that keeps asking for more public exposure. I even had a case where the sales department had a customer flagged red (software implementation issues) and I still got great quotes when I asked the CTO spoke to speak with a journalist, because overall he was still happy, which in turn I could tell the sales account manager.