Why PR teams should use Social Media for Online Reputation Management

June 14, 2011 by 3 Comments

“Who owns social media? Who should own social media? Should it be PR? No, it should be marketing.” The debate has been going on since prehistoric times (that’s 2004 and onwards).

Social Network

Marketing should, obviously, since social media is all about collecting consumer information from a captive community. Right? Wrong, says Andrew Bloch in “Why Social Media should control the conversation”: “PR should be at the forefront of managing and shaping brand presences on social media for the reason our business is about seeking third-party endorsement and conversation“.

In “Who Owns the Social Conversation. And Does it Actually Even Matter” Digigen argues that ownership doesn’t really matter: “there is no need for one person, one agency type to own the conversation. [...] There are so many different elements of social that each agency can find its own field and adapt. There are some great modern PR exponents of this [...] But then there are some great creatives who understand what can drive social conversation.”

And, in their excellent post “Why PR Should Always Be Part of the Social Media Conversation“, Epic PR write that “PR does not have to control all aspects of social media, but a communications professional should always at least be involved in the conversation.” And this for three reasons: “PR people know how to answer the tough questions [...] The Media are connecting more on social media than ever and [...] (Social media are) still about communications and should never be thinly disguised marketing”.

The many uses of social media

A large part of the problem of ownership is due to the overlapping goals of a presence on social network such as Facebook or Twitter:

  • On the one side, marketing, has evolved to a real-time interaction with community members and extracting precious focus-group like information from the interaction.
  • On the other, PR teams are able to spread information and corporate messages, starting conversations around them, being at the source of all information about their companies and clients, and increasing the likelihood of articles being published on these topics.

Naturally, the two cannot and should not be separated. But, as Epic PR state, PR should always be involved in social media and particularly for online reputation management.

3 ways social engagement will help your online reputation

Spreading your news on social media and answering questions from your community will help in three major ways:

  1. It prevents rumour. Rumour is worse than bad news and gets amplified rather than simply spread. By being at the source of all information for your company or clients, you make sure this does not happen. Once your message gets out, it will be commented upon, perhaps very negatively, but you can then engage in conversation to share your side of the story. This is far more difficult if you are trying to stop something that didn’t emanate from you in the first place.
  2. It makes you a worthwhile source of information. If all important information on your business and products comes from you, people will come back for more. Not only that, but any out of line messaging by detractors will more likely happen on your ground (your Facebook page, for instance) than somewhere else much more difficult to monitor and catch very early. The earlier you intercept bad news, the more likely you are to stop it and at a much lower cost.
  3. It increases the chances of journalists writing about you. This is a double bonus. First of all, articles that contain correct messaging have been shown to be far less negative in tone than those where the corporate message has not been understood. Secondly, online articles containing links to your website increase your visibility in search engines, thereby making your side of the story more visible than your detractor’s.

    &nbrsp;

    The key successful use of social media is to provide engaging content. As Andrew Bloch puts it “Bolt-on content created to show, not to share, is never going to work”. It is also key to include social media in a broader communication plan aiming at traditional media : while it is true that some stories are picked up on social media (particularly on Twitter), then published in traditional media it is more often the case that social media is tweeting & updating about news published traditionally.

    What are your thoughts? Is your PR team having its fair share of social media time?

    ——-
    Creative commons image by martin.canchola.

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , ,

Let policies and guidelines power your social media engagement

June 3, 2011 by 4 Comments

As noted in Should companies fear social media blunders?, the fear of employee misconduct on social media is a recurring corporate executive nightmare. So much so that many companies still shy away from social media engagement, missing out altogether on the potential benefits of direct engagement with their public, simplified customer support, increased media coverage …

Social media guidelines and policies are the cure to this. But they should follow certain rules to be effective.

Making guidelines usable

First of all, these are not legal documents! Remember your goal is to promote engagement, not scare everyone away. Education and encouragement are key. Anything that looks legally binding will detract even the most enthusiastic of your employees.

Forbidden

Secondly, understand the distinction between guidelines and policies. Although there is no hard rule,

  • Policies usually describe how to interact with social media on behalf of the company, while
  • Guidlines are sets of recommendations for employees using social media privately, to avoid any misconduct that could reflect badly on the company’s image.

Your actual naming is not important, but acknowledging the two situations is.

Third, keep it simple. Two well understood pages are better than 20 long and boring pages that no one will read and follow. There is nothing special in social media that warrants such lengthy documentation. You expect good conduct of your employees in any situation: at work, in a bar, on the road, in public buildings. These policies and guidelines should simply explain how social media work, what is considered good etiquette or not and what kind of messaging is accepted or not (no hard marketing, for instance).

Some examples of good practise

Many companies that have successfully embraced social media have made their own guidelines and policies public.

Intel is one such company. Their ‘on behalf-of Intel’ guidelines are brief, no-nonesense and to the point. Interesting quotes are:

What you write is ultimately your responsibility. Participation in social computing on behalf of Intel is not a right but an opportunity, so please treat it seriously and with respect.
Are you adding value? There are millions of words out there. The best way to get yours read is to write things that people will value.
Did you screw up? If you make a mistake, admit it.

Intel’s guideline are kept short because they refer to a more general code of conduct and privacy policies.

Recenlty, TNT also made their ‘private use’ TNT-Social-Media-Guidelines public. The document is more comprehensive but manages to pack an introduction to social media, potential risks, practical DO’s & DON’Ts and how to react online in 4 easy-to-read pages.

There are as many possible ways of presenting these documents as there are corporate cultures. Laurel Papworth presented a digest of 40 examples on her blog and you will access hundreds more on the excellent social media governance website.

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Social sharing in Augure’s reputation management suite

April 15, 2011 by 1 Comment

Regular readers know I never pitch Augure products on this blog, but today is different! The pitch will be short and the topic is not so much what I’m writing about as how I am writing about it !

Today, Augure shipped Version 6 of its PR and reputation management suite and this version is largely dedicated to pushing documents and information to social media and blog platforms and to monitoring stakeholder publications on all available channels directly from the software. Hence this post :)

Mixing it up! Social and traditional publication rolled into one

PR and Corporate Reputation Management are sometimes viewed very differently in different companies. Our vision is based on two main foundations:

  • A collaborative platform, to ensure consistency and speed
  • An integrated workflow, to ensure stakeholders can be reached using the most appropriate channel and protocols but also using the same process. Again, this is to avoid functional silos and disruptive actions.

Facebook update about the launch of Augure V6

V6 is a natural extension of these principles that helps users extend their reach to new channels and audiences without leaving familiar grounds or breaking the engagement and measure feedback loop.

So go on, pitch it!

OK! I promised I’d keep it short so here is a link to the new feature list and explanations on Augure V6 on our website: the sharing features, the analysis of impact on reputation and stakeholder relationship quality, how to use engagement history to plan new campaigns & how to use media coverage analysis in ComDecision, it’s all there.

The first piece of online content published via ComSuite

I’ll simply say that by publishing this link to Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, email and wire from ComSuite I’ll finally be able to compare the efficiency of all these messages in one place. R&D even wrote its own URL shortener for more flexibility in analysing clicks.

Yeah, it may seem like a shameless pitch, but I’m actually pretty chuffed :)

So, please click-through so I can have fun analysing my reach and leave your thoughts and comments below !

Filed under Augure News Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Managing online reputation and new influencers in the pharmaceutical industry

April 1, 2011 by 3 Comments

In march 2011, Augure and consulting company BearingPoint held a joint event to present reputation challenges and solutions for the pharmaceutical industry. The slides are presented in French below, but further analysis and context follows:

 

What does corporate reputation mean?

First discussed is what the term reputation actually means. While the term has received more coverage in recent years, this has often been at the expense of exactitude.

A company’s reputation is the sum of perceptions of its stakeholders. Pragmatically, differences in reputations will create tangible differences in stakeholder reactions to a same event. Which is why identifying local stakeholder issues and mapping them into a global framework is so important to business success.

Since the global financial crisis, top reputation drivers have changed from financially ones to trust and other ethical considerations such as “High quality products, Transparent practises, Company that can be trusted, Company that treats employees well”. Profit has generally been replaced by Profit with a purpose.

Reputation in the pharmaceutical industry

Two specificities of the pharmaceutical industry make corporate reputation management complex:

  • First, global reputation is average but a very mixed bag. On a global scale, the pharmaceutical industry sits right in the middle of a list spearheaded by the technology and automotive industries and their promise of innovation and escape from the recession and ended by banks and financial services. But this averaged value sees strong variation across the globe:
    • In the US, according to Edelman’s 2011 Trust Barometer, the pharma industry has very low score and trails behind all other industries except banking & finance. And in a Harris survey of December 2010, US adults place it in the list of industry most in need of regulation, with only 11% of respondents truly trusting it.
    • In Asia, trust in institutions is very high in China, but lower in other markets. More than in any other continent, there is vast variation between individual markets. Trust in and use of media is also very different, with traditional media held in high esteem wherever free media has not yet emerged and very strongly distrusted in others. One major common aspect is very high trust in NGOs, making engagement essential and very local.
    • In Europe trust in pharma companies lies midway between the two previous continents but trust in NGOs is also very high.
  • As described in the slides, consumers can interact freely to exchange experiences but communications from pharmaceutical companies is heavily policed.

Monitoring and engagement to manage online reputation

A consequence of the above is that engagement with stakeholders must be performed on a very local level to understand the material issues of each community: tailored medication, market access, reimbursement and vaccination will not have the same resonance in all markets or communities.

Monitoring is equally essential to understand online opinion and segment it into markets, communities and media types. Health related topics are in the top three searches on Google. And even through traditional media are still the leading source of influence in China and Indonesia, search engines, online news and social media are catching up fast.
In spite of this, there is very little pharmaceutical presence on social network, through which to engage with the public. Hubspot research has shown that the vast majority of social media discussions about pharmaceutical companies are happening on Linkedin. But that is a professional network dedicated to B2B marketing and networking.

In Consumers Don’t Trust Pharma, So What Can We Do?, Eileen O’Brien writes:

pharmaceutical companies and brands will have to do the hard work of regaining the trust of consumers one by one

That task will necessarily be achieved through global stakeholder engagement and monitoring.

Filed under Augure News, Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

6 new insights on shaping corporate reputation

January 26, 2011 by 2 Comments

For Corporate Reputation Management, surveys are precious tools of the trade. And Edelman’s annual Trust Barometer is one many pros look forward to eagerly. This year’s edition, conducted in 23 countries, was published yesterday and, while it shows a continuation in trends of previous years, several statistics ans insights are really worth discussing.

Trust Statistics

It appears that 2011 sees:

Trust by Industry

  • Increased trust in institutions of all types (Businesses, Government, Media and NGOs), up by an average of 4 points.
  • Trust in media and businesses being much higher in emerging markets than in the old world developed markets (broadly the US, Europe & Japan) where NGOs are also more trusted than businesses.
  • In spite of Toyota’s massive recall, a rising trust the Automotive sector, probably due to the efforts of visionary leaders such as Ford’s Allan Mullany. Predictably, banks and financial institutions still lie at the bottom of trust rankings, particularly in developed countries.
  • Expectations are high for companies to invest in society.
  • Corporate websites trail far behind the media and search engines as first and second choice for finding credible information on companies.

Search engines are most trusted sources for credible information

6 reputation Management insights

More important than statistics are the insights you can gain from this study.

  • First of all, companies need to be proactive in their work with NGOs and governments rather than wait for government enforced regulation.
  • Secondly, the public needs exposure from multiple sources (3-5 impressions for 59% of respondents) in order to believe information. That’s multiple sources, not multiple channels. Posting a message on the corporate website, the Facebook page and twitter feed won’t do. Companies need to educate and empower their employees to talk publicly on social media on their behalf (particularly the highly trusted internal experts) and need to engage actively with middle-men such as academics, experts, bloggers in order to have their story told by independent and credible sources. As written previously on this blog, stakeholder engagement is the only sustainable way to maintain corporate reputation.
  • Thirdly, this need for repetition is greatly influenced by trust: a trusted company’s good news is believed much more quickly (1-2 repetitions) than the good news of a distrusted one. Figures are reversed for bad news. It sounds obvious, but the implication is that trust acts as a powerful protective barrier against crises.
  • Fourth. Interestingly, there is renewed trust in CEOs as a source of credible and CEOs are also the preferred spokesperson in all types of crises, which explains the world’s reaction to Tony Hayward’s “I’d like my life back” attitude the BP disaster. However, credible sources ratings are still dominated by academics and experts (external but also internal to the company). So the ideal spokespersons for your company trio would be the CEO, your own company experts and independent experts in your field.
  • Fifth, the fall of “a person like me” as a source of reliable information continues after a severe plunge in 2010. need to engage with real people. This is new evidence that, contrarily to what online reputation “experts” pretend, reputation management is not only about turning to Facebook and forums to listen to peer-to-peer customer recommendations. That is only one component of reputation monitoring, that should be mixed with offline monitoring and online media. This was already discussed on this blog here and here.
  • And finally, trust factors are topped by “product and service quality” (after a slight drop in previous years). But “honest business practises” & “a company I can trust” still remain on the podium, showing that social conduct is as important as a focus on quality.

You can view the entire presentation here:

So are you still a corporate control freak or letting others help you protect your reputation?

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Is social search impacting your reputation?

January 21, 2011 by 2 Comments

It has often been written that your reputation is what Google says it is. A fact supported by search statistics showing that over 2/3 of all internet searches transit via the Mountain View giant’s servers. However, that would be missing one major point: conversations between internet users are one of the highest sources of influence on buying decisions and reputation factors.

Flickr image by Lee Haywood

Google may not always dominate search

Social consumer are using their networks more and more to ask for and share recommendations about companies and their products. Much as the more traditional internet goers, they use traditional search (read Google, and sprinkle a pinch of Bing, if you don’t live in China) to find information. But once initial awareness of a product has been gained, much word of mouth is exchanged on forums, Facebook and other social networks. Quora seems poised to become a crucial actor in this field, for instance.

Of course, Google has added many social features to its social search and integrated social presence to its social search results. But Facebook sees things differently and, as the Palo Alto rival approaches the demographic limits of new user acquisition, its strategy for future expansion seems to suck discussions about the world’s brands onto its own turf. “Like” buttons and Fan page serve exactly this purpose and while some Fan pages have rapidly become enormous, some (many?) have not grown fast enough to compensate for the corresponding decline in traffic of corporate websites. That alone can constitute a threat to your reputation management efforts. But if Facebook succeeds in attracting the world’s brand-centric conversations, its search may well dethrone Google’s as purveyor of image and reputation.

Influencer engagement and social CRM

This interesting post discusses whether you should embark on the much hyped real-time route and, since social has gained so much momentum, the question is certainly valid for reputation management. The author argues that influencer engagement is a selective PR exercise, at the risk of seeming biased, while the latter requires a more profound transformation of the company, particularly if you wish to engage in interactions, not simply provide asynchronous responses to questions and issues.

For reputation management purposes, it makes sense to focus on influential stakeholders and on answering the most representative issues rather than engage in systematic real-time interactions (marketing and crisis management are different, of course).

So how do you manage your reputation in a social world?

First, integrate offline, online and social in your monitoring plan. Social may be the new buzz-king, leading surveys (see for instance Edelman’s 2010 Trust Barometer) indicate that top influencers are industry experts, who do not express their views through a “XXX sucks” Facebook update.

Second, use engagement best practises to identify stakeholder groups and their respective issues.

Third, feed your social CRM with reports of your interactions to enrich it as you go and create a priceless engagement repository that will let your plan campaigns with far greater accuracy and confidence.

SO, is social search impacting your reputation, and how are you addressing that? Please describe your experience in comments.

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Public Relations, Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Reputation

January 7, 2011 by 3 Comments

On this blog, we’ve been talking alternatively about Public Relations, Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Reputation Management. But comments have shown just how these activities relate.

It is no longer news that reputation has a huge impact on business. Companies with higher reputations have more numerous and more loyal customers, recruit better employees and see a lower turnover, establish more fruitful partnerships, are more easily supported by their stakeholders when controversy strikes …

In fact, it has been established that corporate reputation, as an intangible asset, amounts to over 60% of the market value of a company. In a recent post, I described the financial value of reputation. And, according to Leslie Gaines Ross, nearly one half of a company’s reputation is tied to that of its CEO.

What is less clear is the role of communications and stakeholder engagement in creating, maintaining and recovering a reputation:

  • And yet, the definition of an enterprise’s reputation is the global trust its various stakeholders have in it. So it becomes evident that engaging with these communities of stakeholders to identify their needs and align business practises with the most salient ones is an essential aspect of any business. As a KRC survey of 200 executives of major companies shows, Community action and communications work best together.
  • And, while it is true that “reputation wounds are self-inflicted” and that corporate misconduct, bad products, accidents are the source of reputation failings, their reconstruction is almost the exclusive territory of communication. Immediate, transparent and relentless communication.

The continuous emergence of new channels and forms of communications has made this a daunting process for many but we believe that best practises are to be found in the methodology described in engagement standards such as the AA1000SES and GRI G3. To help understand these matters, we are offering two FREE white papers that can be used as guides:

And these are the beginning of a series. Chief executives are almost unanimous in recognising that corporate reputation plays an important role in the achievement of business objectives, yet few have a formal measurement system in place to evaluate it. Our next two white papers will deal with measuring reputation and the tools that need to be used for this.

We hope you enjoy these two first documents and look forward to your comments.

A Happy, Successful and Engaged New Year to you all !!

Filed under Augure News, Engagement, Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

7 reasons email still rocks PR and 3 rules to use it well (2)

October 20, 2010 by 1 Comment

In the previous post, I wrote about 7 reasons why email wasn’t being pushed out of the PR scene by social media . As I tweeted about it, the following tweet caught my eye: a French minister addressing the police force via a telegram.

Proof enough that not everyone is using social media to communicate ;o) So, why the big buzz?

One major (unformulated) appeal is the high degree of connection between social media users. The degrees of separation (the number of intermediaries needed to communicate a message from any person to any other) on social media is lower than in the rest of the world: 5.7 on average for Facebook, 4.7 on twitter against 6.6 via email world. However, this somewhat mitigated by the low propagation of messages observed on these networks: on average, only one in 318 tweets are being retweeted. And, thanks to Facebook’s EdgeRank algorithm, only one update in 500 is actually seen by a company’s fans.
One real reason social networks see more engagement is because their content is often more … engaging. A tweet is short and sweet, as is a Facebook update. Tweets can be repeated at regular intervals to reach most of your followers. Social updates also feel more fun and personal compared to much more ponderous newsletters having the potential to bore the wits out of most of their subscribers.

Engaging content, engaging strategy

Professional bloggers devote a large part of their time writing good headlines. And maybe as much again writing a compelling first paragraph. Whereas some newsletters make you want to chew your brains in despair. Three simple rules can help you make the best of email in a social media world:

  • Target your audience! Spamming millions doesn’t works. Period. Public Relations and Stakeholder engagement needn’t be complex processes but knowing your audience, their topics of interest and material preoccupations will boost your open/click-through rate tremendously. Use your data.
  • Make your content interesting! Simple and informal aren’t necessarily the exclusive attributes of Facebook updates. Press releases can also benefit from this, as well as most newsletters. Jargon is not read, jargon is not shared. Jargon and self-promotion repulse readers, destroying SEO (and damaging online reputation). When searching online, people are mainly looking for information. Three quarters of journalists are looking for new sources of expertise, mostly browsing websites such as Wikipedia and corporate websites. Provide people with useful information. Write well, follow the inverted pyramid pattern and provide links to more in-depth content. Your traffic will thank you.
  • Use both! Interrelated media work best and getting your fans and followers to subscribe to your newsletter is a very good practice to multiply impressions and angles. The additional step is meaningful as research shows that LIKEs and Follows are not considered by their authors as implicit permission to market (an Opt-In), only an expression of interest in a brand or product. Jeff Bullas suggest 10 ways to integrate social media and email. Integrating the two (mail and social media) requires unified content, strategy and teams.

There are many more reasons to use mail (better tracking, stable platform vs evolving commercial social networks, better edition possibilities in email, one email several for social accounts …) but integration is the way to go. If you’ve started along these lines, I’d love to hear from you in the comments.

Filed under Engagement Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Is your online reputation management sustainable?

September 27, 2010 by 3 Comments

Securing a healthy online reputation and business requires search engine results for your brand and products to be positive. Particularly at a time when most buying processes, both in mainstream consumer products and B2B projects, begin with online research. But approaches to achieving a stellar web record follow very different schools of thought.

Last Friday, a post on a reputation management company’s blog discussed an alleged ethics row about online reputation management. The post and its title referred to a “growing debate over whether the practice of burying bad publicity and minimising the exposure of negative blog and forum comments was ethical”.

The post went on to equate reputation management with the practice of using various technologies to monitor and hide damaging news: “Firms like XXX use their in-depth understanding of search engines and how they work to make sure only the results that clients want are shown when people search for their name, business name or brand”.

While I agree with careful monitoring and striving to have your version of the story told on the Internet, the other half of the proposition is not nearly as engaging (pun intended) and reveals two very different approaches to reputation management.

Burying the bad news

Search Engine Optimisation experts use their understanding of Google, Yahoo and Baidu’s ranking algorithms to create strategies that promote positive company coverage so that any unwanted news shows up much further down the search results list, in pages that no-one ever views. Several techniques allow this mechanism to work, mostly based on the multiplication of inbound links from websites owned, financed or otherwise controlled by the reputation management company or its client, or on paid-for ranking schemes.

Stakeholder Engagement

The alternative, which Augure supports and facilitates, is to leverage your stakeholder engagement process to achieve the same goal. By sending out well targeted email information campaigns or newsletters insuring high open rates, link-rich press releases via wires, posting documents to your virtual newsroom, engaging with bloggers, journalists and industry experts, you insure the propagation of your story and promote an organic SEO that achieves equally high ranking.

So, which should you choose ?

Two arguments appear to favour the first approach. First, organic growth takes time. Most online marketing strategies are hybrid in that they combine fast PPC campaigns with organic SEO growth hormones and phase out the former once the effects of latter are felt. Secondly, a rule of stakeholder engagement is that you do not control your message once it leaves your company’s owned media, which could appear to leave more potential for things to go awry.

However, the arguments in favour of stakeholder engagement far outweigh these. For one thing, highly optimised search-engine savvy strategies exploiting loopholes in ranking algorithms are fragile beasts indeed, constantly at the mercy of a change of parameter in the algorithm itself. Companies such as Google change their ranking methodology frequently to optimise their business and favourable rankings obtained by exploiting the previous version’s specificities are very likely to sink to the bottom of the list the very next day. Secondly, and to return to the initial discussion on ethics, some link schemes are indeed somewhat dodgy. And organisations and agencies actually risk damaging their reputation through these link building practices. Finally, it would take one mighty link farm to counter a severe attack such as Greenpeace’s Orang Utang Sinar Mas video or Kevin Smtih’s twitterant about SouthWest Airlines. I doubt that it’s even possible. Think of the number of accounts needed to counterbalance the NGO’s Facebook fans or Smith’s twiterati followers, particularly given the high credit Google gives to active twitter accounts.

A long term bilateral relationship with your stakeholders means the public and your key constituencies know what you stand for which, at the very least, dampens unexpected blows[i]. Besides, the communication channels put in place during the months and years of stakeholder engagement are there for you to respond quickly and efficiently if/when crisis strikes. And stakeholder engagement well done leaves traces for your reports and gets your story told by more trusted authorities than the company’s marketing team. This alone explains why SEO companies are hiring more and more PR talents to do the job.

So, is your online reputation management sustainable?

[i] For more on this read Once Brand Takes Flight, It’s Hard to Bring it Down:         http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=143631.

Filed under Engagement Tagged with , , , , , ,

Augure in action: how our company stays in shape – literally!

April 12, 2010 by Leave a comment

Every month, health magazines come out with the latest and greatest tips on how to lose weight in the office, claiming that the sedentary nature of the modern work environment leads to obesity and whatnot.

But at Augure, we have a better way of keeping our team healthy – that’s a lot more fun than the rather trivial “tricks” that magazines suggest: that’s right – our team works out and plays sports together. Check out what we do:

1. Organized football games: every two weeks, we hold an organized football game where it’s R&D vs. the operations team – which means that we’re right on schedule for our next game. The last game was won by the operations team, which is not unusual (sorry R&D) - with a final score of 9 to 7. And while our CEO is currently out of the office on vacation, rumor has it that he’ll still show up for the game. Now that’s dedication! (PS: No, that is not our CEO in the photo.)

2. Yoga classes with our VP of Product Marketing: For those that may be less inclined to run around with the rowdy footballers, our VP of Product Marketing, Juliette Vignes, holds yoga classes every Tuesday at the dance studio down the street from our Paris offices. Yes, she’s a certified yoga instructor and the last class was focused on energizing positions and postures - titled Salutation au soleil or greeting the sun.

We’ll be sure to let you know who wins the next football game but don’t put your money on the R&D team! :p

Filed under Augure News Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,501 other followers

%d bloggers like this: