Developing a social media presence did not rank high on Dr. Armitage’s list of practice-related priorities as he neared retirement. As he explained to a classmate he met at a conference, “We already have a website and e-mail and snail mail newsletters, so I’m not too keen about adding another form of client communication unless it would benefit the practice measurably.”
But as the pressure increased from his younger associates and staff members, various veterinary and business publications, and his own children, he eventually capitulated.
Several months later when that same colleague asked about the practice’s foray into social media Dr. Armitage replied, “It’s been one of the most complex communications experiences of my career.”
In response to his friend’s request for more details, Dr. Armitage summarized those parts of the process that proved the most challenging.
“I immediately recognized that if this was going to work, quality communication needed to be the top priority every step of the way for me and every member of the staff, the same as it is in the practice,” he began. “Even though the younger staff members knew a lot more than I did about communicating with their friends on social media, I knew a lot more about communicating with our clients. Because of this, I insisted that before anything went online I needed to be sure we were all on the same page regarding content.”
To that end, Dr. Armitage set up a series of working lunches to address 3 fundamental issues before the design of the page began:
What is the message the clinic’s social media presence should communicate; what is their social media purpose?
What is the intended audience?
Who will update and respond to any comments on the page?
At that time he also noted that he had the final say and admitted that he had some strong views regarding content. However he also acknowledged that some of the staff had more experience in this genre than he did and he wanted their input too.
Unfortunately rather than his preface encouraging full staff participation and open communication, it stifled it. During the first meeting, staff opinions regarding the purpose of social media were slow in coming. When they finally did, they fell into three 3 categories. Some perceived the goal as generating as much response from others as possible as determined by the number of shares, likes, followers, or some other metric built into the social media software. They believed that any content should carry a strong emotional charge that would grab and hold visitors’ attention. Their examples included pictures or video clips of cute animals or animals doing clever things, links to stories about animals which rescued people or people who rescued animals, or those regarding natural disasters that threatened wild and domestic animal lives.
Others believed that such information was posted in social media so often that seeing it on the clinic’s page could be perceived as repetitive and unimaginative or, worse, annoying. They thought that the clinic’s presence should be a source of veterinary information of interest to animal owners in general with an emphasis on that most relevant to their own clients. Meanwhile those in the third segment thought their presence should function more like a chat room in which clients and others could ask questions about their animals’ health or share experiences with their animals with the veterinarians or staff members. Within this group there were those who thought access to such a page should be limited to their own clients.
Dr. Armitage then announced that their social media presence would be more educational and professional, a pronouncement that effectively silenced the group. The meeting ended with one of his associates, Dr. Santerre, tactfully explaining that for legal and ethical reasons the page should not encourage visitors to share confidential information about themselves and their animal’s medical condition in what was essentially a public forum.
A family emergency precluded Dr. Armitage’s presence at the second meeting which he asked Dr. Santerre to lead in his absence. Upon his return, he learned from his associate that the meeting had been very productive. They had agreed that addressing their clients’ interests made more sense than trying to appeal to a broader audience. The office manager noted that they had no idea what their clients’ interests were, and one of the technicians added that they had little idea which of their clients would be likely to visit such a site, either. This led another technician to suggest that they survey their clients to gain this information. By the end of the meeting they had created a short client survey designed for this purpose.
When Dr. Armitage saw how much more constructive the second meeting was he jokingly asked his younger associate, “Was it because I wasn’t there?”
Dr. Santerre hesitated just long enough for her employer to interpret this as an affirmative but she continued before he could become defensive.
“It was, but not for the reasons you think, at least not entirely. We’re all used to taking orders from you because, well, you run the practice sort of like a benevolent monarch who tells us what to do. That’s fine relative to the clinic setting because you have lots of knowledge and experience as well as good instincts when it comes to veterinary medicine and surgery. And you want the best for our patients and clients like we do too. But…”
“But even though I acknowledged that there were staff members who knew a lot more about social media than I did and made my reluctance to go that route known from the beginning, you folks didn’t believe me because I stated it in my usual ‘“benevolent’” but nonetheless autocratic way,” Dr. Armitage completed his associate’s sentence with a smile. “I need to think about this for a while.”
Eventually Dr. Armitage came to the conclusion that his lack of knowledge regarding yet another new technology made him feel vulnerable. That caused him to want to dominate the meeting rather than truly encourage staff participation. After openly admitting this to them, he announced that Dr. Santerre would run the meetings and he would stay in the background. At first some staff members doubted he could do this. But as it became clear from his relaxed demeanor that he genuinely was interested in and valued their input just like Dr. Santerre did, they relaxed too.
While they waited for survey responses, they tackled the issue of who should select the content, monitor and reply to any comments regarding it, and add or delete content on the page. Relative to the first, the practice owner proposed that they all be on the lookout for worthy content, links to which they would send to the others for feedback. The entire staff readily agreed that the 3 veterinarians should have final say regarding material related to veterinary medical issues and monitor all comments on a daily basis to ensure the page’s quality. But the non-veterinarians asked for and received more say relative to less specialized content. Additionally all agreed that their cyber-savvy veterinary technician should be in charge of uploading approved content and maintaining the page with assistance if needed from the webmaster who maintained the clinic website.
By then, the client survey results were in and tabulated. Dr. Armitage and his staff learned that their clients wanted brief entries that provided material of value to them and their animals with links to more detailed information they could follow if they desired. But they also wanted the site to provide some entertainment. Nor were these desires age-related. Much to Dr. Armitage’s great relief, only a small minority wanted to use the page for one-on-one interactions with the veterinarians. When an associate suggested they add information to the page instructing those with specific questions about their animals how to contact one of the veterinarians privately, he readily agreed.
When Dr. Armitage brought his classmate up to date on the project he admitted there were times he thought it demanded more than he wanted to give.
“But even if the survey results had indicated that our clients had no interest in seeing us on social media, I have no regrets and I think most of the staff feels the same way,” he continued. “Laying the groundwork for what did become another valued client resource taught all of us to think about client and employer-employee issues we never would have otherwise.”
In such a way, Dr. Armitage learned how easy it is for veterinarians and staff members who work together to assume that the communication skills that allow them to accomplish the sometimes complex medical tasks experienced in a busy veterinary practice will carry over into other areas. He also learned that working together on projects outside the practice norm can provide an opportunity for all to gain insights and skills that enhanced their ability to communicate with others more effectively.
Footnotes
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office (hbroughton@cvma-acmv.org) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere.