Table of Contents as agreed August 14 2005
Preface
Introduction
• The challenge of information overload
• The rise of info-mania
• The search for authenticity
• Lets clean up corporate graffiti
• People buy people – the participation age
Section I: Message definition
1. What is a message?
- Why is messaging important?
2. The Messengers
3. Anatomy of a message; what makes a good
message?
4. Message architecture
5. Message taxonomy
6. The ACE Model (Advocacy, Communication, Engagement)
Section II: Messages in Context
7. Situational messaging
8. The message grid
9. Messages as conversations:
10. Message Delivery
Section III Personal Engagement
11. How to inspire others with your words
12. Connecting personally with the message
13. Storytelling to create impact
Conclusions
Bibliography
Introduction to Messaging
Sell More Messages
August Busch III, head of Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest brewer,
once ended his section of an annual report with a single exhortation:
‘‘Sell more beer.’’ Interestingly, this command related to the company’s
commitment to protecting natural habitats, aluminum recycling, and
other activities, voiced elsewhere in the report. Busch was creating the
virtuous circle of enlightened self-interest. Help others but never forget
that if we do not drive our business (which is selling beer) we won’t
be around to help anyone.
It raises an important issue: how do the activities of a company and
the ways in which they are presented influence sales activity? Was
Busch stating the unvarnished truth or was his message and how it was
communicated actually likely to damage sales?
How senior managers communicate corporate messages is of increasing
importance. Indeed, everything they say is a corporate message,
dissected and analyzed by a range of audiences.What they communicate
has a direct effect on the bottom line. Consider how the Body Shop’s
stance on animal testing and fair trading has helped to differentiate
its products from those of other cosmetic retailers. Anita Roddick, the
company’s founder, is unlikely to call for Body Shop employees to
‘‘sell more moisturizer.’’ Indeed, she says: ‘‘I can’t take moisture cream
too seriously – what interests me is the revolutionary way trade can be
used as an instrument for change.’’1
Corporate communication can look to and shape the future. It
can take up indirect or long-term topics to create or maintain sales;
for example, by lobbying regulatory authorities to permit the use of
genetically modified foodstuffs.
Some dismiss corporate communication as mere tactical maneuvering.
Some argue that a company needs to be more than just the
sum of its sales and marketing parts; that a company must offer
more than just employment, tax revenue, and, of course, its goods or
services.
Academic Sumantra Ghoshal has argued that corporations create
social value. To see them merely as vehicles for shareholder value
is blinkered: ‘‘Amid a general decline in the authority of other institutions
– political parties, churches, the community, even the family
unit – corporations have emerged as the most influential institutions
of modern society; not only in creating and distributing a large part
of its wealth, but also providing a social context for most of its
people, thereby acting as a source of individual satisfaction and social
succour.’’2
Thus, if a company is to communicate effectively, it must have a clear
sense of what it is as an entity. In this sense, corporate communications
should be applied common sense.
The starting point for corporate communications is the area that
needs most attention: setting out the objectives of the business. A
snapshot of most activity would contain some or all of the following:
» donorship to charities or artistic foundations;
» corporate advertising;
» initiatives with non-governmental organizations, such as Friends of
the Earth;
» meetings with analysts; and
» local community initiatives.
If a company is unsure how its business interests are being served by
any of these activities, then both the activity and any communications
surrounding it are likely to lack rigor. In poorly communicating companies,
explanations range from the traditional (‘‘we’re doing it because
we’ve always done it’’) to patronage (‘‘the chairman thinks it’s a good
idea’’) and philanthropy (‘‘it’s a good cause’’).
It may well be a good cause. But there are many good causes
and selection must be based on rigorous criteria. Formulating a clear
objective takes good leadership; to implement and assess it takes good
management.
Often managers both fail to communicate the business objectives
and are poor examples of communication in action. Management
consultancy SKAI believes that when leaders communicate badly it is
because they:
» abdicate responsibility to the corporate communications department;
» blandly give out the ‘‘corporate’’ message, giving nothing of themselves
in either content or delivery;
» talk at too high a level, which rarely works internally;
sanitize their words; and
» don’t have a decision-making process on making information available,
and therefore never get information out in a timely manner.
At a company-wide level, corporate communications require staff to
have a clear picture of what they are trying to achieve as a business. A
consistent message should be delivered through credible channels and
timed for maximum impact. The company must:
» acknowledge business objectives;
» define the type of organization (what is the corporate culture?); and
» decide what it expects to gain from communicating either its corporate
values or its corporate activities.
This work will examine the management of reputation at a corporate
level – as distinct from brand or product reputation management. In
this way, it will look at how you as an overall organization communicate
key messages to a range of key audiences in order to enhance the achievement of
your business objectives.
The Message Backstory
Back to Beer
In the late 19th century, Adolphus Busch, operating out of St. Louis in
the US mid-west, launched what has become the world’s biggest selling
beer – Budweiser. Today that brand alone commands some 5% of the
total beer market.
Busch laid down not only the foundations for strong product and
brand development – he also worked on creating a network of business
stakeholders. As the business was much later to claim: ‘‘making friends
is our business.’’
Part of this business success lay in the vision to create first a truly
national beer brand (hitherto beers were all local), and then toward
the latter end of the 20th century a truly international beer brand. The
corporate logo featured what is termed the ‘‘A & Eagle’’ – an eagle
resting on the bridge of the letter ‘‘A.’’
Busch had a special one designed as a fob for his pocketwatch – made
from some 14 parts and featuring semi-precious stones. The whole
ensemble was very eye catching. When on business, the A & Eagle fob
attracted comment and admiration from the other businesspeople with
whom Adolphus liaised. So at a cosmetic level, Adolphus was already
pushing the corporate message.
Adolphus was operating at more than one level. Quite often, when
complimented on the fob, Adolphus would magnanimously donate it
to the other party, who would wear it with pride. This perpetuated
the corporate logo and marked out a discreet club of stakeholders: the
‘‘friends’’ of Adolphus were clearly demarcated. Of course, Adolphus
had many of these fobs made up and would have the next one in place
ready to donate it to the next admiring (relevant) person.
THERE’S A BEAR IN THE AIR
One of the most powerful and effective (non-product) messages created
was that of Smokey the bear, first utilized by the US forest service
in 1944. The aim of the bear was to prevent forest fires and was the
brainchild of a group of foresters together with the advertising council.
The bear won out over other forest creatures because of its human-like
posture and the universality of its appeal. The use and subsequent
success of the bear might appear deceptively simple, but essentially
what was going on was a sophisticated branding process. Remember
product and brand marketing was still in its infancy.
What the foresters were actually branding was not a tangible
commodity, such as coffee or wheat flour, but good practice. This
is, of course, quite an abstract process and open to interpretation.
The campaign worked because it concretized/personalized good practice
(the bear) and kept the message positive (looking after Smokey’s
habitat) rather than negative (don’t do this; don’t do that . . .).
Finally, through the right choice of symbol, it maximized the range
of the message’s appeal. So while Adolphus’ corporate branding was
discreet, targeted, and exclusive; Smokey was broad-ranging and inclusive.
The Message Profession
The more formal practice of public relations (as a business) was born
in times of pressurized media scrutiny on some major US corporates.
American journalist Ivy Lee Ladbetter initially handled PR for the
anthracite coal industry and the Pennsylvania railroad. In establishing
some principles of this work (which was essentially media relations)
he claimed to:
‘‘supply prompt and accurate information concerning subjects
which it is of interest and value to the public to know about.’’
Of course this was just a version of the journalist’s remit, which is,
according to Brill’s Content, the US magazine that monitors the media,
concerned with:
» accuracy – stories should be true;
» labeling and sourcing – information should be clear and unnamed
sources labeled as such; and
» conflicts of interest – content should be free of any motive ‘‘other
than informing its consumers.’’
In 1906 Ladbetter was hired to represent George F. Parker and his
associates in the coal strike of that year. Within this campaign Ladbetter
issued a ‘‘Declaration of Principles,’’which was extremely influential in
the field of public relations. As Eric Goldman observed, this declaration
marked the emergence of a second stage of public relations. The
public, who up to that point had been had been ignored and fooled,
now needed to be informed.
Ladbetter’s famous declaration was mailed to all city editors:
‘‘This is not a secret press bureau. All our work is done in the
open. We aim to supply news. This is not an advertising agency; if
you think any of our matter ought properly to go to your business
office, do not use it. Our matter is accurate. Further details on
any subject treated will be supplied promptly, and any editor
will be assisted most cheerfully in verifying directly any statement
of fact . . . In brief, our plan is, frankly and openly, on behalf of
business concerns and public institutions, to supply to the press
and public of the United States prompt and accurate information
concerning subjects which it is of value and interest to the public
to know about.’’
This open approach was used by Ladbetter in the anthracite coal
strike – new channels of information were open as Ladbetter provided
reports to reporters on developments of the strike after meetings.
Ladbetter, by giving out these reports, was one of the first to use ‘‘press
releases.’’
Message Pioneers: Theodore Roosevelt
Roosevelt was a talented president as regards astute messaging and used
this talent to his political advantage. It has been said that Roosevelt
ruled America from the front pages of newspapers. On coming
to power, Roosevelt came to an understanding with the press, as
he ‘‘knew the value and potent influence of a news paragraph
written as he wanted it written and disseminated through the
proper influential channels’’ (quote from veteran reporter David S.
Barry1). Roosevelt’s conservation policies in the government’s first
large-scale publicity program saved much of America’s resources
from gross exploitation. He knew how to create a story so that it
would get maximum attention, and his enemies had to develop
THE EVOLUTION OF REPUTATION MANAGEMENT 21
similar tactics. Roosevelt exploited the newsmedia and established
a new form of presidential leadership in the process.
Henry Ford
David Lewis, who wrote about Henry Ford and his public relations
techniques, states ‘‘The industrialist is revealed . . . as perhaps
the most astute self-advisor in the whole history of a land that has
produced its full share of promoters and showmen.’’2 From as early
as 1908, Ford developed a message production line within the automobile
industry. He sought publicity, which was not the norm at this time
as businesses wanted to stay as far from the public eye as possible.
This may show why Ford was so successful compared with the
competition.
Samuel Insull
Insull, a businessman who in the late 1890s relied on sophisticated
sales strategies for his Chicago Edison Company, also cut
charges to increase the use of electricity. In 1901, he created an
advertising department to deal with his messages to the public,
and in 1902 built a demonstration ‘‘electric cottage,’’ and in
1903 started the Electric City, an external community publication,
‘‘to gain understanding and good will’’ in Chicago. In
1909, Insull began using films for PR uses and was possibly the
first to do this. In 1912, he employed ‘‘bill stuffers’’ and later
used these for political messages. Insull knew that ‘‘those identi-
fied with an institution are the prime determinants of its public
reputation.’’3
Although government relations in the UK can be traced back some 200
years, the UK and rest of Europe lagged behind the US in terms of the
growth of the consultancy business.
Between the two world wars (i.e. the 1920s and 1930s) there was
a boom in the availability of consumer products – e.g. radios, automobiles
– which in turn fed a hungry media. This saw the development of
some ‘‘in-house’’ capacity to churn out a healthy supply of material that
became known as ‘‘advertorial’’ (sales promotional material dressed up
as editorial copy).
22 REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
After the Second World War, many who had been dutifully employed
in the art of propaganda looked to apply their well-honed skills to more
explicitly commercial ends. (Interestingly, in the 17th century the
Catholic Church created the word ‘‘propaganda’’ with its congregatio
de propaganda fide which means ‘‘congregation for propagating the
faith.’’)
We now turn our attention to more recent times.
INTERNAL Messages
AT&T
An example of a major organizational reshuffle came about in the early
1980s with the court-ordered split-up of the Bell system. AT&T, the
world’s largest company, which dominated America’s communications
industry, split into eight separate companies to form AT&T and seven
regional companies.
AT&T needed to change not only because of legal obligations, which
it fought against, but also because it needed to take this company
that employed one million people and develop a new strategy to
meet the new evolving technical America. AT&T gave in to the
inevitable break-up of the company and decided to use it to its
advantage with advertisements at the time announcing ‘‘we’ve been
working to make the biggest change in our lives a small change in
yours.’’
To see why a company like AT&T can make a success of a major
upheaval like its court-ordered break-up we need to take a look at its
public relations philosophy. AT&T has traditionally had great pioneers
managing social change. Arthur Page became vice-president of AT&T
in 1927 and from the outset Page established that he would have an
input to policy and that the company’s performance would be a result
of its reputation. We see here what Page meant:
‘‘All business in a democratic country begins with public permission
and exists by public approval. If that be true, it follows that
business should be cheerfully willing to tell the public what its
policies are, what it is doing and what it happens to do. This seems
practically a duty.’’4
In his 20 years with AT&T Page formulated a strategy of integrated
message theory and practice in the Bell system and paved the
way for a new company that would lead worldwide communications.
Page had a society founded in his name in 1983 when AT&T
anticipated their break-up. The Arthur Page Society is ‘‘committed to
the belief that public relations as a function of executive management
is central to the success of the corporation.’’ According to the society
Page practiced six principles while at AT&T that are now known as
‘‘the Arthur W. Page principles.’’
‘‘1. TELL THE TRUTH. Let the public know what’s happening and
provide an accurate picture of the company’s character, ideals and
principles.
2. PROVE IT WITH ACTION. Public perception of an organization
is determined ninety percent by doing and ten percent by talking.
3. LISTEN TO THE CUSTOMER. To serve the company well,
understand what the public wants and needs. Keep top decision makers
and other employees informed about public reaction to
company products, policies and practices.
4. MANAGE FOR TOMORROW. Anticipate public reaction and
eliminate practices that create difficulties. Generate goodwill.
5. CONDUCT PUBLIC RELATIONS AS IF THE WHOLE COMPANY
DEPENDS ON IT. Corporate relations is a management function.
No corporate strategy should be implemented without considering
its impact on the public. The public relations professional is
a policy-maker capable of handling a wide range of corporate
communications activities.
6. REMAIN CALM, PATIENT AND GOOD HUMORED. Lay the
groundwork for public relations miracles with consistent, calm
and reasoned attention to information and contacts. When a crisis
arises, remember that cool heads communicate best.’’
By the 1990s, AT&T with their seven regional companies had established
their product lines well beyond the original ‘‘telephone company,’’
manufacturing computers, entering publishing, and becoming
leaders in all forms of communication. AT&T adapted and adjusted
itself from a telephone company to a major player in a new digital,
24 REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
wireless, and multimedia environment. Long-time AT&T consultant
Chester Burger, on recalling how the company succeeded with their
split, states that in ‘‘the early 80s there were 1,700 full-time PR executives
within the company with a budget of some $170mn’’ and AT&T’s
public relations strategy was to defend the company as an historic
monopoly. Burger claims that:
‘‘1. Public relations strategy can’t overcome broad social factors. 2.
It is easy to convince yourself that corporate self-interest coincides
with the public interest and 3. technology is changing the world.’’5
Paid for Messaging
One of the most dramatic uses of issues advertising has been that of
Mobil Oil’s ‘‘op-eds’’ which first appeared on October 19, 1970. The
New York Times introduced a second editorial page facing the original
one and offered a quarter of the new page as space for image advertising.
These opinion editorials were placed in the New York Times as well
as the Washington Post and other periodicals. The ‘‘op-eds’’ cover all
manner of topics not necessarily to do with the oil industry, including
economic, political, and social issues important to the consumer and the
company. It was Mobil’s objective to encourage thought and dialogue
by informing the public about the oil industry while explaining Mobil’s
views on key issues of the day and by presenting responsible policy
proposals. While these public issues may seem outside the corporate
image, in a Harris survey in 1976 on how the American public regarded
40 corporations, including 7 oil companies, Mobil came out well and
was seen as the industry’s pacesetter on 19 out of 21 issues set out
in the survey. These ‘‘op-eds’’ have been a great success for Mobil Oil
and continue to run in the New York Times and other publications
today.
Believe the Message!
The 1980s introduced a new era of public relations and corporate
social responsibility. A seminal moment occurred when healthcare
giant Johnson & Johnson was faced with one of the seminal moments
in its corporate history in its classic handling of the tylenol poisonings
in 1983. This was an event which was to transform the need to manage
one’s reputation at a corporate level from being the occasional luxury
of Fortune 500 players to being a necessity.
The fundamental reason why the handling of this crisis was not an
accident of fortune can be seen in the Johnson & Johnson ‘‘Credo.’’
General Robert Wood Johnson, who guided Johnson & Johnson from
a small, family-owned business to a worldwide enterprise, wrote the
Credo in 1943. It consisted of a one-page document that put customers
first, and stockholders last, and was a refreshing approach to the
management of a business.
We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and
patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our
products and services. In meeting their needs everything we do
must be of high quality. We must constantly strive to reduce our
costs in order to maintain reasonable prices. Customers’ orders
must be serviced promptly and accurately. Our suppliers and
distributors must have an opportunity to make a fair profit.
The Credo allows the company to respond swiftly, consistently, and
altruistically. For the first time, the world could see that open and frank
dealings between a company and its stakeholders in times of extreme
difficulty could ultimately be good for business.
It could be argued that this same approach (swift, consistent, and
altruistic) could also be of value when in non-crisis circumstances. The
Body Shop’s successful corporate history is testimony to this.
Intro by Andy Lark
I Love You.
It was probably one of the first messages you ever received. It was wrapped in emotion and delivered with passion. It is, and remains the perfect message. Authenticity is critical. It is very difficult to fake. It’s impact hinges on delivery. And it’s situational – delivered at the right moment it elicits an immediate response. At the wrong moment it falls between the cracks of everyday chatter.
So what’s this got to do with the business of messaging? Simple. Business success hinges on effectively delivering messages. Without them differentiation might exist, but goes unrecognized. Value is then depleted. And products and services fall between the cracks.
Think of your favorite brands, companies, people. In nearly every instance a simple and compelling message screams at you. For others the message isn’t so clear but imbedded in the brand. Nike screams “Just Do It”. BMW drives you to “The Ultimate Driving Machine”. For Virgin it isn’t so clear – no tag-line captures the messages delivered so clearly by its founder Sir Richard Branson – fun, maverick. Equal doses of this can be found at Southwest Airlines who over the years have distilled this same spirit to one word “Nuts!”.
Just like the words “I Love You”, messages by government and corporate needn’t be spelt out in black and white, emblazoned across billboards, or the first lines of every press release. In fact, some of the most effective manifest themselves in action and behavior. As thousands of Virgin Airlines’ and Southwest Airlines employees do every day, the deliver the message through their actions.
For decades marketers and activists have sought to craft the perfect message. But the rules for effective messaging now extend well beyond how to create a message – they extend to the rules for sharing and receiving messages as well. We have entered a new “participatory era”. Those that once transmitted messages are now faced with consumers not only keen to create the message and engage in conversations based upon them – but also consumers armed with digital printing presses and streaming media channels. New rules of engagement call for new kinds of messaging.
Messaging Anxiety
We are bombarded with messages. Email, websites, employers, TV, and now podcasts surround news and imbed content with messages.
Richard Saul Wurman coined the phrase Information Architect in 1975 went on to explore Information Anxiety - our love-hate relationship with information and gives some practical strategies to control it as both consumers and producers. Most anxiety emerges not from messaging overload but from consumers unable to receive the message they are searching for.
"The first question that most consumers are going to ask about your company is what do you do? This is one of the most profound questions that the business world will ever answer; yet, most do an abysmal job of answering it. You can open the pages of any technology magazine to see how poorly many companies answer this question...
...What does your organization really do?...Companies trying to sound hip and sophisticated deprive their potential customers of an opportunity to understand their business."
Technology companies have answered this simple question with the largest effort to create new phrases ever mounted. We provide “technology solutions”, “platforms”, services orientated architectures”. As a result, the buyer is required to not only understand the company and product – all they really wanted to understand in the first place – but also a plethora of catch-phrases and buzzwords. Wurman then proposes that every company have a company story that "tells the world what your business is all about. It should be a tale of passion, triumph, motivation, and opportunity." He adds, however, "It shouldn’t have anything to do with your company mission statement."
Too often problems with messaging focus on creativity, message proliferation or the right media. Marketers efforts center on developing the right message for the right product. They are doomed to failure. At the heart of effective messaging is a clear understanding of what the consumer needs to hear in order to act. Great marketers start with the space in the buyers mind that they want to occupy.
The graveyard of failed product launches and companies is full of products and services that failed to capture the mind of buyers. A failure that Al Reis describes clearly – “These products didn't fail in the marketplace, they failed in the mind. They tried to stand for something that didn't fit prospects' perceptions about the brands.”He goes on to point out a stunning example of how to do this right:
“Take Pepsi-Cola, for example. What comes to mind when you think of Pepsi? Back in 1963, the brand launched an advertising program that has to be the "ultimate" cola campaign. "The Pepsi Generation." This idea took advantage of a key psychological principle. The younger generation looks for ways to rebel against the older generation. Since the older generation was drinking Coca-Cola, it was easy to convince the younger generation that they should be drinking Pepsi.”
Great messages drive to a space in the mind. Bad messages drive anxiety.
Messaging Success
Messages from corporations are paradoxical. When you know you are receiving them you generally don’t want them. When you don’t know you are receiving them they find a way of imbedding themselves in your brain like a child’s nursery rhyme. Sometimes, as brand groupies, we seek them.
Each year corporations and governments spend billions of dollars shaping and delivering messages that walk the fine line between what we want, and what we refuse to accept. Most fail to resonate and a select few become home runs. BMW is the ultimate driving machine. Nike shouts “Just Do It”. Coke invites you to the “Coke Side Of Life”. You could probably based a generational game show on what Coke tagline you can remember. The oldest I can remember is “Coke Is It”. And here-in lays the key ingredient to messaging success. Repetition.
1. Repetition
There is no question that creativity matters, particularly in delivery. But without repetition even the most creative messages are lost. Backed by hundreds of millions of dollars of spend and countless hours of prime-time television “Life Tastes Good” has little resonance for any consumer. Compare that to BMW. For 31 years[i] they’ve asserted themselves as the Ultimate Driving Machine.
The Coke Side Of Life
Responding to Coke’s messaging effervescence, “The new work “understands that Coke trade dress -- the red color, the ribbon, the contour glass, the logos -- are magical icons with immeasurable power,” wrote Advertising Age's Bob Garfield. “It understands that the fizzing, bubbling sound of a soft-drink pour is one of the most fetching, evocative and appetizing sounds on earth.
“Owning the mind” is central to any marketing activity. No matter how you look at it – geography, market or category, leading brands are brands that can be identified by a single word or concept. BMW owns "driving." Mercedes-Benz owns "prestige." Volvo owns "safety." Southwest Airlines own “value”. What Coke owns is best evidenced by the dramatic rise in Pepsi as a brand in recent years.
In his book, Adcult USA, James Twitchell tells a story about Rosser Reeves. An executive of Minute Maid once complained about Reeves's refusal to fiddle with the advertising, saying "You have 47 people working on my brand, and you haven't changed the campaign in 12 years. What are they doing?" Reeves replied: "They're keeping your people from changing your ad."
2. Creativity
Creativity – or the demand for it – is probably the greatest culprit for killing great messages. Under it’s halo we take the obvious and obfuscate it.
If brands are promises, so are messages. How messages are delivered are as important as the product they promote or promise they deliver. At their recent launch Coke attempted to bring the ”Coke Side Of Life“ to life. Unfortunately their site is pretty much a conventional corporate site and if I want to learn more it directed readers to a press kit. Yawn. No wonder kids are switching to Pepsi. In fact, something called ”Make Every Drop Count“ figures more prominently. My Coke – the portal through which the message is delivered is even more confusing and certainly doesn't directly help bring this to life - take a look at the wallpapers. Nothing there.
Change is confusing enough. Poorly executed change is devastating.
If you are going to create a new message - which does amount to a value proposition - you'd better make sure your communities and customers can experience and live it. And for it to work, it has to be able to live freely across all your mediums, unencumbered by other slogans, taglines, ideas... Just look at Nike.
Tom Pirko, of consulting firm Bevmark said it all the the WSJ piece: ”Marketing magic cannot be re-created. It has to be created with an original thought that is breakthrough.“
3. Conversation
Great messages are, by default, a conversation. They elicit and become framed within dialogue. What separates yet another banal tagline from a great message is the effect.
Tagline = Cold Message = WarmthTagline = Transmission Message = ConversationTagline = Anonymous Message = PersonalTagline = 1:Many Message = 1:1Tagline = Fixed Message = MutableTagline = Closed Message = Participatory
Andrew Lark
chief marketing officer
loglogic.com
blog.loglogic.com
T. 408 215 5912
F. 408 215 5962
C. 408 656 9446
E. alark@loglogic.com
I. kiwilark
Chapter 9 (part of). Messages as conversations
Conversations are the building-blocks of communication. They’re everywhere. They’re how we transmit information and feelings. They’re also how we make sense of the world and the people in it. They’re how we make and keep friends. It’s easy for us to take them for granted, but is there a better means to carry messages? Let’s take a look at them. Maybe if we understand conversations a little better, we can put them to more effective use as a means of conducting our business messages.
It Takes Two Baby
The world of theatre is full of soliloquies. An actor or actress stands on the stage, alone, and talks to themselves. This is rather weird, because we don’t encounter it in real life. Sure, there are those people who say they talk to themselves habitually because they see themselves as the only worthy conversationalist they know. Then there are those who say that they are the only people they can trust to be discreet and confidential. Yet apart from these social dysfunctional types most people accept that for a conversation you need at least two consenting human beings.
So what is a conversation? Is there a need to define something we’re all so accustomed to? Maybe not define, but it’s a good idea to take a closer look. Conversations are not to be taken for granted. They’re quite complex and they’re really interesting.
Let’s start negatively, what is not a conversation. A conversation is not a meaningless string of words or sounds. It should be based on an exchange of verbal signifiers (words to you and me), which carry meaning. Conversations are opportunities for information exchange. This can be practical: “How I do stuff” or “Check out the watering-hole in the next valley”. The information might be subjective: “You know I don’t like that watering-hole much. The people who drink there suck etc.”
Conversations are also a means of making sense of the world around us and establishing meaningful social relations.
A very very brief history of conversations.
We have been having conversations since we first started to talk as humanoids. It’s only relatively recently we’ve started calling them conversations though. Until the time of the Renaissance “conversation” meant a whole lot of different things. It could mean a manner of living, or behaviour. It could mean a transformational process. Late Medieval Latin described digestion as the “conversation stomachii”. “Conversatio” could mean living with someone, and that did not necessarily mean that you talked to them It could also refer to the act of conversion to a faith or creed, so Saul’s change of direction when Damascus-bound was termed “Conversatio Sancti Pauli.” And if there is any more tangible evidence that your messages have worked, it is the knowledge that you’ve made some new converts. Yet it was in the sixteenth century that the word entered the English language to imply a familiar and relatively friendly discourse. Two centuries later, during the height of the Grand Tour, when English Gentlemen with more money than sense travelled to Italy, they brought back the fashion for conversaziones. These were inevitably places for the best forms of social and intellectual exchanges.
An element of snobbery has long hung over the conversation. In a vain attempt to distinguish it from the humble, even vulgar chat. There are still those who claim conversation is an art form, and one which, like all “true art” is in danger of dying out.
But the fact is nobody ever tells us how to converse. We start doing it as little children.
So what is a conversation?
In the late ‘60s sociologists like Harvey Sachs started to devote their attention to conversations. They started to analyse them. They weren’t interested in the content of what people were talking about. What seized their attention was how they talked. How long did they talk for? Did they “hand over the microphone” in an orderly fashion, or were they interrupted by someone else seizing the conversational initiative? How long did it take for someone to but in? Were conversations orderly things or were they more like free-for-alls? Were there rules, as in sport, and were they obeyed? What they found is commonsensical. A conversation is based around a sometimes complex system of turn taking. A and B decide to have a chat. A talks, maybe at length about a subject dear to him, but then, maybe because he’s exhausted his stock of trivia, he stops talking. He’s giving B an opportunity to respond. B has been handed the microphone. It’s fair. It is an opportunity for B to agree with A, to tell him that he is wrong, or maybe to change the topic of conversation.
Conversations can be of the simple question and response type.
A. How are you?
B. I’m fine.
These can be drawn out a bit but not indefinitely.
B could say “Fine thanks. And how about you?” and A could respond that he too is fine and that everything is fine in Glockamaura. Alternatively A might seize the opportunity to complain about what an awful life he has, how his wife doesn’t understand him, how his kids don’t respect him, how his boss is a moron etc.
Another type of conversation works on embedded questions and answers, each one dependant on a response but not independent.
A. Have you spoken with Peter yet?
B. Is he here?
A. Haven’t you see him then?
B. No, not yet. Why?
A. Well he’s in the bar, telling everyone who’ll listen what a lousy firm he works for.
B. Oh dear. I haven’t been in there.
D’ya get ma drift bro?
So conversations are made up of words strung together to give meaning. They have structure. As we’ll see also have rules. These include the ways we interpret conversational content. We’ve all heard of the hilarity of literalism, where people on comedy shows do things in a literal way. The daddy of social linguistics, William Labov, has pointed out that adults tend to be better at interpreting conversations than children. Hardly surprising, they (should) know more. I remember once seeing a kid who was told to put his soda on his head i.e. to drink it up. He followed the command to the letter, putting the glass on his head from where it flowed down.
Conversations can be linked to “good manners”. So children, in many cultures, apart from being told to be seen and not heard, are told that it is rude and impolite to butt in. It’s like farting, picking your nose etc. It just isn’t done. This “genteel” approach is often followed into adulthood. In the world of politics parliamentary debates are structured according to the “ideal” conversation. One person has the floor. They have to be heard out, without interruption. Yet this is culture specific. North Americans are often considered to be less restrained. They will jump in when they have something, anything to say. This can lead to unfortunate and unfavourable stereotyping.
But do we always rely on what is said or do we sometimes have to fill in the blanks? In the 1950s and ‘60s American philosopher Herbert Grice took a hard look at our conversations. His conclusion was that it was full of implications or implicatures. These were implied assumptions we made about the content of a conversation. Taken as a whole these were conversation maxims. Unspoken rules underlying discourse. They help us to cut corners, to not have to spell everything out. Most people accept them and internalise them. Funny thing is no one ever learns them far less teaches them. They are conventions which everyone signs up to out something Grice called the “Co-operative Principle”. They helped people to co-operate and they enhanced mutual comprehension.
According to Grice there are four maxims.
(1) the maxim of quality. A person is expected not to tell downright lies, or offer opinions for which they have no evidence.
(2) The maxim of quantity. A speaker is expected neither to give too much nor too little factual information
(3) The maxim of relation. The speaker is assumed not to say things which are irrelevant.
(4) The maxim of manner. The speaker is always expected to be brief, well-ordered in their speech and never to waffle on endlessly.
We can mention a fifth. The maxim of continuity. This is an extension of the maxim of relation. Basically when two (or more) people are talking about a topic, none of the participants will unilaterally start talking about a different, unrelated topic without flagging the change of tack in some way.
Let’s take an example of the maxim of quantity. Someone says “Nick has two kids”.
Actually Nicky has four kids. The statement is not accurate. But strictly speaking Nick does have two kids - and two more. Yet the statement is an inadequate because it gives too little information. Those hearing it feel that the speaker wants his hearers to believe that Nick has only two children. On finding out the truth, they may feel cheated, especially if the person they asked is a close friend of Nick. This person should have known the truth, and they should have given an adequate representation of it.
And for an example of the maxim of relation let's have a joke. This one was told by the legendary, fez-wearing British comic Tommy Cooper. Two men are standing at a bar with a dog. The first man asks the second. "Excuse me. Does your dog bite?"
"Oh no, not at all" replied the second man. The first man puts his hand down to the dog, which bites him severely.
"Ouch" he shrieks. "I thought you said your dog didn't bite..."
"That's not my dog", answers the second man.
They are observed because they apply themselves quite rigorously in practice. Suppose two people meet coming out of the office after work finishes. One says to the other “Are you coming for a drink Frank?” to which Frank answers “That’s a really nice briefcase you have Brian.” This Frank’s answer to Brian’s question is irrelevant. It flouts the maxim of relation. Yet Brian will probably gather from Frank’s response that he’s not interested in going for a drink and will change the subject.
One aspect of Grice’s maxims is that they are based on assumptions of other people. We as participants in a conversation are always relevant, we never rabbit on etc. …
Silence Please
Let’s return to our two conversationalists A and B. A has spoken perhaps at some length about something. Maybe he’s got tired. Anyway he decides to let B have a go, so he stops talking. In many cultures not only does B now have the right to speak, he also has an obligation to speak. If he says nothing it will certainly not go unobserved. Maybe he is completely bowled over by the intellectual rigour of A’s argument; or maybe he just does not know what to say. Usually though B makes some sort of sound and is rarely completely silent. How does A respond? Sometimes by embarrassment, but rarely is the silence considered golden. So after a few seconds off he goes again.
But the lack of conversational cut-and-thrust may be a cultural and a psychological thing. We may like to talk because it makes us feel safe. When we encounter a complete stranger we want to be able to assess quickly whether he’s a friend or a foe. Does he belong to the same tribe or social caste? Answers to these can be got pretty speedily by attempting conversation. If he does he’s more likely to be a friend, or at least not an enemy, so you can relax. We use conversation to establish relationships, even of the most trivial kind. Yet the members of the Navajo and Apache nations in the American south west view conversational triviality with disdain. They only speak when they’ve got something important to say. And when they come together with people from a culture like ours which views any topic as fair game for conversation, misunderstandings can occur. The encounters between Europeans and Athabaskans in British Columbia have been studies. The Athabaskans have an attitude to trivial discourse similar to their distant relatives further south. What’s more when they are unsure about the appropriateness of establishing contacts, even at the level of the conversational, their response is usually to stay silent. They have to be fairly confident of who they’re talking to and what they’re talking about. The Europeans when they met the Athabaskans, were invariably the first to speak. Then they went on and on, often about little things. The Athabaskans (who understood them perfectly) were a little taken aback. They weren’t sure whether verbal communications with these strangers was appropriate, so they kept silent, even when the Europeans stopped and indicated it was their turn to speak. The Europeans, discomforted by the silence, started talking again. The exchanges were, as a result, somewhat one-sided. The two groups were then asked what they thought of each other based on these encounters. The Europeans couldn’t make up their minds about the Athabaskans. They seemed shy, but also quite haughty and surly. The Athabaskans considered the Europeans to be rude, garrulous and domineering.
Some cultures consider silence, or lack of conversation, to be the norm during certain activities. Anyone who has ever been fortunate enough to get invited to a dinner party in Finland soon remarks upon a few things. The food is invariably delicious. It is consumed by all in almost deadly silence. No chit-chat, no small-talk. Eating is serious stuff. Your mouth has far more important things to do than make sounds. This can cause deep discomfort for non-Finns not in the groove.
The Sound of Silence
Silence isn’t something that should frighten message deliverers. It’s often a good thing to deliver your message well and then disappear for a while. Many marketers would think this suicidal. You are giving your turf to the competition. But message delivery should be seen as a conversation, a dialog. If one person to a conversation keeps yapping on they’re viewed rightly as a pain in the neck. Remember too conversational implicatures. Your willingness to deliver your message and wait for a response gives your message credibility. It won’t get trashed by constant repetition. It will take on the aura of a quality message – just the thing if you’re selling a quality product. Too often it seems dialogues between business and customers are like the interfaces with the Athabaskans – one-sided affairs. Companies may say they want feedback – all types of feedback – but they don’t know how to get it, or what to do with it if they get it. If it is good copy it may get recycled into customer testimonials. If it’s bad it causes squirms of embarrassment. And if there is no recognisable feedback, well you just keep on talking.
Messages for business
Now what has all this to say about messages? Lots.
Let's go back to Grice's maxims. Number one is the maxim of quality. This is a big problem for message senders, whether in business or politics. Marshall McLuhan said "The medium is the message". The fact is that Mr or Mrs Average's automatic response to messages coming from business is "Oh yeah?". They somehow expect message senders to be on a spin-trip, always putting the best possible spin on any issue. In late 2006 Hungarian prime minister was taped making a very injudicious speech to party insiders. He stated that his government had done nothing for years and that it had lied through its teeth to get re-elected. Thousands of angry Hungarians took to the streets demanding the premier's resignation, but many people couldn't see what the fuss was about. They rationalised their sang-froid by saying "So he lied, but that's what politicians do."
There is a fundamental issue to be tackled here if message senders want to use messages effectively. They have to regain the trust of their listeners or hearers. They can do a lot to make their messages stickier by working on the maxims of manner, maybe of relativity as well, but unless they reestablish a trust channel they might as well be shouting down a disconnected telephone line.
A start can be made by remembering that effective communication depends on seeing the whole process at first as a transaction. You have something you want to give. The success of the transaction depends on the other guy taking it. He may not like it, or even know what to do with it, but it’s important to establish the transfer transaction for your message. Even rejection is better than being ignored – ask any speed-dater. Rejection is something that can be worked with. Eventually your message is taken on board. The more times the message transaction is repeated the more trust is established. Eventually the transaction framework dissolves, leaving a communications channel.
It takes two to tango. It's a truism that messages form an important part of any conversation but they should be tailored to your audience. But maybe that's a part of the problem: All the world's a stage etc. An evening at the theater can be great fun but the best actors and actresses are the ones who can engineer a suspension of belief. Great entertainment but not great for building trust. We might say that the job of the corporate message adviser is how to engineer the audience to suspend its disbelief. Talk about audience implies an immediate distance between message sender and receptor. It is all too easy for this to get filled by distrust.
so let's forget about stage and audience, them and us. Let's try to attain participation. A conversation is a series of messages, but it isn't a one-way process. It's something everyone who's at the party can participate in. If a real and effective conversation is established it is never a dialogue des sourdes or a dialog of the deaf. The other person must be listened to. This gives you their response to your messages. Too often business pays lip-service to customer feedback. Sure, the importance of listening to the customer has been preached eloquently for years: it is part of Management by Walking Around, postulated by Tom Peters among others. But it has to be about more than a clickable link at the bottom of a web page labelled “feedback”. We have to see customers in a new light, maybe not as an audience to be entertained but as a community we have to serve. And who is our community? It’s any company’s stakeholders, not just present ones but even those it is likely to acquire. A business’s community is anyone likely to be affected (hopefully beneficially) by the business’s operations. The conversations with this community have to be on-going, 24/7, 365 days a year. Going back to the earlier meaning of conversation, it involves a cohabitation with this community, actually living and breathing in it. Corporate organisation will have to respond to this environment by appointing a Community Liaison director, but this won’t be just another functional silo with its own discreet budget and rules of engagement. Community Liaison must run throughout the organisation.
The cultural context of conversations is imperative to a proper communications interchange. We’ve looked at cultural conflicts where the gap appears big. But the same cultural conflicts can stymie conversations within a culture, say between rich and poor, old and young and even between male and female. The American socio-linguist Dorothy Tannen demonstrated in her book You Just Don’t Understand that men and women have different ways of participating in a conversation. Failure to recognise this causes tension.
Preface
Introduction
• The challenge of information overload
• The rise of info-mania
• The search for authenticity
• Lets clean up corporate graffiti
• People buy people – the participation age
Section I: Message definition
1. What is a message?
- Why is messaging important?
2. The Messengers
3. Anatomy of a message; what makes a good
message?
4. Message architecture
5. Message taxonomy
6. The ACE Model (Advocacy, Communication, Engagement)
Section II: Messages in Context
7. Situational messaging
8. The message grid
9. Messages as conversations:
10. Message Delivery
Section III Personal Engagement
11. How to inspire others with your words
12. Connecting personally with the message
13. Storytelling to create impact
Conclusions
Bibliography
Introduction to Messaging
Sell More Messages
August Busch III, head of Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest brewer,
once ended his section of an annual report with a single exhortation:
‘‘Sell more beer.’’ Interestingly, this command related to the company’s
commitment to protecting natural habitats, aluminum recycling, and
other activities, voiced elsewhere in the report. Busch was creating the
virtuous circle of enlightened self-interest. Help others but never forget
that if we do not drive our business (which is selling beer) we won’t
be around to help anyone.
It raises an important issue: how do the activities of a company and
the ways in which they are presented influence sales activity? Was
Busch stating the unvarnished truth or was his message and how it was
communicated actually likely to damage sales?
How senior managers communicate corporate messages is of increasing
importance. Indeed, everything they say is a corporate message,
dissected and analyzed by a range of audiences.What they communicate
has a direct effect on the bottom line. Consider how the Body Shop’s
stance on animal testing and fair trading has helped to differentiate
its products from those of other cosmetic retailers. Anita Roddick, the
company’s founder, is unlikely to call for Body Shop employees to
‘‘sell more moisturizer.’’ Indeed, she says: ‘‘I can’t take moisture cream
too seriously – what interests me is the revolutionary way trade can be
used as an instrument for change.’’1
Corporate communication can look to and shape the future. It
can take up indirect or long-term topics to create or maintain sales;
for example, by lobbying regulatory authorities to permit the use of
genetically modified foodstuffs.
Some dismiss corporate communication as mere tactical maneuvering.
Some argue that a company needs to be more than just the
sum of its sales and marketing parts; that a company must offer
more than just employment, tax revenue, and, of course, its goods or
services.
Academic Sumantra Ghoshal has argued that corporations create
social value. To see them merely as vehicles for shareholder value
is blinkered: ‘‘Amid a general decline in the authority of other institutions
– political parties, churches, the community, even the family
unit – corporations have emerged as the most influential institutions
of modern society; not only in creating and distributing a large part
of its wealth, but also providing a social context for most of its
people, thereby acting as a source of individual satisfaction and social
succour.’’2
Thus, if a company is to communicate effectively, it must have a clear
sense of what it is as an entity. In this sense, corporate communications
should be applied common sense.
The starting point for corporate communications is the area that
needs most attention: setting out the objectives of the business. A
snapshot of most activity would contain some or all of the following:
» donorship to charities or artistic foundations;
» corporate advertising;
» initiatives with non-governmental organizations, such as Friends of
the Earth;
» meetings with analysts; and
» local community initiatives.
If a company is unsure how its business interests are being served by
any of these activities, then both the activity and any communications
surrounding it are likely to lack rigor. In poorly communicating companies,
explanations range from the traditional (‘‘we’re doing it because
we’ve always done it’’) to patronage (‘‘the chairman thinks it’s a good
idea’’) and philanthropy (‘‘it’s a good cause’’).
It may well be a good cause. But there are many good causes
and selection must be based on rigorous criteria. Formulating a clear
objective takes good leadership; to implement and assess it takes good
management.
Often managers both fail to communicate the business objectives
and are poor examples of communication in action. Management
consultancy SKAI believes that when leaders communicate badly it is
because they:
» abdicate responsibility to the corporate communications department;
» blandly give out the ‘‘corporate’’ message, giving nothing of themselves
in either content or delivery;
» talk at too high a level, which rarely works internally;
sanitize their words; and
» don’t have a decision-making process on making information available,
and therefore never get information out in a timely manner.
At a company-wide level, corporate communications require staff to
have a clear picture of what they are trying to achieve as a business. A
consistent message should be delivered through credible channels and
timed for maximum impact. The company must:
» acknowledge business objectives;
» define the type of organization (what is the corporate culture?); and
» decide what it expects to gain from communicating either its corporate
values or its corporate activities.
This work will examine the management of reputation at a corporate
level – as distinct from brand or product reputation management. In
this way, it will look at how you as an overall organization communicate
key messages to a range of key audiences in order to enhance the achievement of
your business objectives.
The Message Backstory
Back to Beer
In the late 19th century, Adolphus Busch, operating out of St. Louis in
the US mid-west, launched what has become the world’s biggest selling
beer – Budweiser. Today that brand alone commands some 5% of the
total beer market.
Busch laid down not only the foundations for strong product and
brand development – he also worked on creating a network of business
stakeholders. As the business was much later to claim: ‘‘making friends
is our business.’’
Part of this business success lay in the vision to create first a truly
national beer brand (hitherto beers were all local), and then toward
the latter end of the 20th century a truly international beer brand. The
corporate logo featured what is termed the ‘‘A & Eagle’’ – an eagle
resting on the bridge of the letter ‘‘A.’’
Busch had a special one designed as a fob for his pocketwatch – made
from some 14 parts and featuring semi-precious stones. The whole
ensemble was very eye catching. When on business, the A & Eagle fob
attracted comment and admiration from the other businesspeople with
whom Adolphus liaised. So at a cosmetic level, Adolphus was already
pushing the corporate message.
Adolphus was operating at more than one level. Quite often, when
complimented on the fob, Adolphus would magnanimously donate it
to the other party, who would wear it with pride. This perpetuated
the corporate logo and marked out a discreet club of stakeholders: the
‘‘friends’’ of Adolphus were clearly demarcated. Of course, Adolphus
had many of these fobs made up and would have the next one in place
ready to donate it to the next admiring (relevant) person.
THERE’S A BEAR IN THE AIR
One of the most powerful and effective (non-product) messages created
was that of Smokey the bear, first utilized by the US forest service
in 1944. The aim of the bear was to prevent forest fires and was the
brainchild of a group of foresters together with the advertising council.
The bear won out over other forest creatures because of its human-like
posture and the universality of its appeal. The use and subsequent
success of the bear might appear deceptively simple, but essentially
what was going on was a sophisticated branding process. Remember
product and brand marketing was still in its infancy.
What the foresters were actually branding was not a tangible
commodity, such as coffee or wheat flour, but good practice. This
is, of course, quite an abstract process and open to interpretation.
The campaign worked because it concretized/personalized good practice
(the bear) and kept the message positive (looking after Smokey’s
habitat) rather than negative (don’t do this; don’t do that . . .).
Finally, through the right choice of symbol, it maximized the range
of the message’s appeal. So while Adolphus’ corporate branding was
discreet, targeted, and exclusive; Smokey was broad-ranging and inclusive.
The Message Profession
The more formal practice of public relations (as a business) was born
in times of pressurized media scrutiny on some major US corporates.
American journalist Ivy Lee Ladbetter initially handled PR for the
anthracite coal industry and the Pennsylvania railroad. In establishing
some principles of this work (which was essentially media relations)
he claimed to:
‘‘supply prompt and accurate information concerning subjects
which it is of interest and value to the public to know about.’’
Of course this was just a version of the journalist’s remit, which is,
according to Brill’s Content, the US magazine that monitors the media,
concerned with:
» accuracy – stories should be true;
» labeling and sourcing – information should be clear and unnamed
sources labeled as such; and
» conflicts of interest – content should be free of any motive ‘‘other
than informing its consumers.’’
In 1906 Ladbetter was hired to represent George F. Parker and his
associates in the coal strike of that year. Within this campaign Ladbetter
issued a ‘‘Declaration of Principles,’’which was extremely influential in
the field of public relations. As Eric Goldman observed, this declaration
marked the emergence of a second stage of public relations. The
public, who up to that point had been had been ignored and fooled,
now needed to be informed.
Ladbetter’s famous declaration was mailed to all city editors:
‘‘This is not a secret press bureau. All our work is done in the
open. We aim to supply news. This is not an advertising agency; if
you think any of our matter ought properly to go to your business
office, do not use it. Our matter is accurate. Further details on
any subject treated will be supplied promptly, and any editor
will be assisted most cheerfully in verifying directly any statement
of fact . . . In brief, our plan is, frankly and openly, on behalf of
business concerns and public institutions, to supply to the press
and public of the United States prompt and accurate information
concerning subjects which it is of value and interest to the public
to know about.’’
This open approach was used by Ladbetter in the anthracite coal
strike – new channels of information were open as Ladbetter provided
reports to reporters on developments of the strike after meetings.
Ladbetter, by giving out these reports, was one of the first to use ‘‘press
releases.’’
Message Pioneers: Theodore Roosevelt
Roosevelt was a talented president as regards astute messaging and used
this talent to his political advantage. It has been said that Roosevelt
ruled America from the front pages of newspapers. On coming
to power, Roosevelt came to an understanding with the press, as
he ‘‘knew the value and potent influence of a news paragraph
written as he wanted it written and disseminated through the
proper influential channels’’ (quote from veteran reporter David S.
Barry1). Roosevelt’s conservation policies in the government’s first
large-scale publicity program saved much of America’s resources
from gross exploitation. He knew how to create a story so that it
would get maximum attention, and his enemies had to develop
THE EVOLUTION OF REPUTATION MANAGEMENT 21
similar tactics. Roosevelt exploited the newsmedia and established
a new form of presidential leadership in the process.
Henry Ford
David Lewis, who wrote about Henry Ford and his public relations
techniques, states ‘‘The industrialist is revealed . . . as perhaps
the most astute self-advisor in the whole history of a land that has
produced its full share of promoters and showmen.’’2 From as early
as 1908, Ford developed a message production line within the automobile
industry. He sought publicity, which was not the norm at this time
as businesses wanted to stay as far from the public eye as possible.
This may show why Ford was so successful compared with the
competition.
Samuel Insull
Insull, a businessman who in the late 1890s relied on sophisticated
sales strategies for his Chicago Edison Company, also cut
charges to increase the use of electricity. In 1901, he created an
advertising department to deal with his messages to the public,
and in 1902 built a demonstration ‘‘electric cottage,’’ and in
1903 started the Electric City, an external community publication,
‘‘to gain understanding and good will’’ in Chicago. In
1909, Insull began using films for PR uses and was possibly the
first to do this. In 1912, he employed ‘‘bill stuffers’’ and later
used these for political messages. Insull knew that ‘‘those identi-
fied with an institution are the prime determinants of its public
reputation.’’3
Although government relations in the UK can be traced back some 200
years, the UK and rest of Europe lagged behind the US in terms of the
growth of the consultancy business.
Between the two world wars (i.e. the 1920s and 1930s) there was
a boom in the availability of consumer products – e.g. radios, automobiles
– which in turn fed a hungry media. This saw the development of
some ‘‘in-house’’ capacity to churn out a healthy supply of material that
became known as ‘‘advertorial’’ (sales promotional material dressed up
as editorial copy).
22 REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
After the Second World War, many who had been dutifully employed
in the art of propaganda looked to apply their well-honed skills to more
explicitly commercial ends. (Interestingly, in the 17th century the
Catholic Church created the word ‘‘propaganda’’ with its congregatio
de propaganda fide which means ‘‘congregation for propagating the
faith.’’)
We now turn our attention to more recent times.
INTERNAL Messages
AT&T
An example of a major organizational reshuffle came about in the early
1980s with the court-ordered split-up of the Bell system. AT&T, the
world’s largest company, which dominated America’s communications
industry, split into eight separate companies to form AT&T and seven
regional companies.
AT&T needed to change not only because of legal obligations, which
it fought against, but also because it needed to take this company
that employed one million people and develop a new strategy to
meet the new evolving technical America. AT&T gave in to the
inevitable break-up of the company and decided to use it to its
advantage with advertisements at the time announcing ‘‘we’ve been
working to make the biggest change in our lives a small change in
yours.’’
To see why a company like AT&T can make a success of a major
upheaval like its court-ordered break-up we need to take a look at its
public relations philosophy. AT&T has traditionally had great pioneers
managing social change. Arthur Page became vice-president of AT&T
in 1927 and from the outset Page established that he would have an
input to policy and that the company’s performance would be a result
of its reputation. We see here what Page meant:
‘‘All business in a democratic country begins with public permission
and exists by public approval. If that be true, it follows that
business should be cheerfully willing to tell the public what its
policies are, what it is doing and what it happens to do. This seems
practically a duty.’’4
In his 20 years with AT&T Page formulated a strategy of integrated
message theory and practice in the Bell system and paved the
way for a new company that would lead worldwide communications.
Page had a society founded in his name in 1983 when AT&T
anticipated their break-up. The Arthur Page Society is ‘‘committed to
the belief that public relations as a function of executive management
is central to the success of the corporation.’’ According to the society
Page practiced six principles while at AT&T that are now known as
‘‘the Arthur W. Page principles.’’
‘‘1. TELL THE TRUTH. Let the public know what’s happening and
provide an accurate picture of the company’s character, ideals and
principles.
2. PROVE IT WITH ACTION. Public perception of an organization
is determined ninety percent by doing and ten percent by talking.
3. LISTEN TO THE CUSTOMER. To serve the company well,
understand what the public wants and needs. Keep top decision makers
and other employees informed about public reaction to
company products, policies and practices.
4. MANAGE FOR TOMORROW. Anticipate public reaction and
eliminate practices that create difficulties. Generate goodwill.
5. CONDUCT PUBLIC RELATIONS AS IF THE WHOLE COMPANY
DEPENDS ON IT. Corporate relations is a management function.
No corporate strategy should be implemented without considering
its impact on the public. The public relations professional is
a policy-maker capable of handling a wide range of corporate
communications activities.
6. REMAIN CALM, PATIENT AND GOOD HUMORED. Lay the
groundwork for public relations miracles with consistent, calm
and reasoned attention to information and contacts. When a crisis
arises, remember that cool heads communicate best.’’
By the 1990s, AT&T with their seven regional companies had established
their product lines well beyond the original ‘‘telephone company,’’
manufacturing computers, entering publishing, and becoming
leaders in all forms of communication. AT&T adapted and adjusted
itself from a telephone company to a major player in a new digital,
24 REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
wireless, and multimedia environment. Long-time AT&T consultant
Chester Burger, on recalling how the company succeeded with their
split, states that in ‘‘the early 80s there were 1,700 full-time PR executives
within the company with a budget of some $170mn’’ and AT&T’s
public relations strategy was to defend the company as an historic
monopoly. Burger claims that:
‘‘1. Public relations strategy can’t overcome broad social factors. 2.
It is easy to convince yourself that corporate self-interest coincides
with the public interest and 3. technology is changing the world.’’5
Paid for Messaging
One of the most dramatic uses of issues advertising has been that of
Mobil Oil’s ‘‘op-eds’’ which first appeared on October 19, 1970. The
New York Times introduced a second editorial page facing the original
one and offered a quarter of the new page as space for image advertising.
These opinion editorials were placed in the New York Times as well
as the Washington Post and other periodicals. The ‘‘op-eds’’ cover all
manner of topics not necessarily to do with the oil industry, including
economic, political, and social issues important to the consumer and the
company. It was Mobil’s objective to encourage thought and dialogue
by informing the public about the oil industry while explaining Mobil’s
views on key issues of the day and by presenting responsible policy
proposals. While these public issues may seem outside the corporate
image, in a Harris survey in 1976 on how the American public regarded
40 corporations, including 7 oil companies, Mobil came out well and
was seen as the industry’s pacesetter on 19 out of 21 issues set out
in the survey. These ‘‘op-eds’’ have been a great success for Mobil Oil
and continue to run in the New York Times and other publications
today.
Believe the Message!
The 1980s introduced a new era of public relations and corporate
social responsibility. A seminal moment occurred when healthcare
giant Johnson & Johnson was faced with one of the seminal moments
in its corporate history in its classic handling of the tylenol poisonings
in 1983. This was an event which was to transform the need to manage
one’s reputation at a corporate level from being the occasional luxury
of Fortune 500 players to being a necessity.
The fundamental reason why the handling of this crisis was not an
accident of fortune can be seen in the Johnson & Johnson ‘‘Credo.’’
General Robert Wood Johnson, who guided Johnson & Johnson from
a small, family-owned business to a worldwide enterprise, wrote the
Credo in 1943. It consisted of a one-page document that put customers
first, and stockholders last, and was a refreshing approach to the
management of a business.
We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and
patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our
products and services. In meeting their needs everything we do
must be of high quality. We must constantly strive to reduce our
costs in order to maintain reasonable prices. Customers’ orders
must be serviced promptly and accurately. Our suppliers and
distributors must have an opportunity to make a fair profit.
The Credo allows the company to respond swiftly, consistently, and
altruistically. For the first time, the world could see that open and frank
dealings between a company and its stakeholders in times of extreme
difficulty could ultimately be good for business.
It could be argued that this same approach (swift, consistent, and
altruistic) could also be of value when in non-crisis circumstances. The
Body Shop’s successful corporate history is testimony to this.
Intro by Andy Lark
I Love You.
It was probably one of the first messages you ever received. It was wrapped in emotion and delivered with passion. It is, and remains the perfect message. Authenticity is critical. It is very difficult to fake. It’s impact hinges on delivery. And it’s situational – delivered at the right moment it elicits an immediate response. At the wrong moment it falls between the cracks of everyday chatter.
So what’s this got to do with the business of messaging? Simple. Business success hinges on effectively delivering messages. Without them differentiation might exist, but goes unrecognized. Value is then depleted. And products and services fall between the cracks.
Think of your favorite brands, companies, people. In nearly every instance a simple and compelling message screams at you. For others the message isn’t so clear but imbedded in the brand. Nike screams “Just Do It”. BMW drives you to “The Ultimate Driving Machine”. For Virgin it isn’t so clear – no tag-line captures the messages delivered so clearly by its founder Sir Richard Branson – fun, maverick. Equal doses of this can be found at Southwest Airlines who over the years have distilled this same spirit to one word “Nuts!”.
Just like the words “I Love You”, messages by government and corporate needn’t be spelt out in black and white, emblazoned across billboards, or the first lines of every press release. In fact, some of the most effective manifest themselves in action and behavior. As thousands of Virgin Airlines’ and Southwest Airlines employees do every day, the deliver the message through their actions.
For decades marketers and activists have sought to craft the perfect message. But the rules for effective messaging now extend well beyond how to create a message – they extend to the rules for sharing and receiving messages as well. We have entered a new “participatory era”. Those that once transmitted messages are now faced with consumers not only keen to create the message and engage in conversations based upon them – but also consumers armed with digital printing presses and streaming media channels. New rules of engagement call for new kinds of messaging.
Messaging Anxiety
We are bombarded with messages. Email, websites, employers, TV, and now podcasts surround news and imbed content with messages.
Richard Saul Wurman coined the phrase Information Architect in 1975 went on to explore Information Anxiety - our love-hate relationship with information and gives some practical strategies to control it as both consumers and producers. Most anxiety emerges not from messaging overload but from consumers unable to receive the message they are searching for.
"The first question that most consumers are going to ask about your company is what do you do? This is one of the most profound questions that the business world will ever answer; yet, most do an abysmal job of answering it. You can open the pages of any technology magazine to see how poorly many companies answer this question...
...What does your organization really do?...Companies trying to sound hip and sophisticated deprive their potential customers of an opportunity to understand their business."
Technology companies have answered this simple question with the largest effort to create new phrases ever mounted. We provide “technology solutions”, “platforms”, services orientated architectures”. As a result, the buyer is required to not only understand the company and product – all they really wanted to understand in the first place – but also a plethora of catch-phrases and buzzwords. Wurman then proposes that every company have a company story that "tells the world what your business is all about. It should be a tale of passion, triumph, motivation, and opportunity." He adds, however, "It shouldn’t have anything to do with your company mission statement."
Too often problems with messaging focus on creativity, message proliferation or the right media. Marketers efforts center on developing the right message for the right product. They are doomed to failure. At the heart of effective messaging is a clear understanding of what the consumer needs to hear in order to act. Great marketers start with the space in the buyers mind that they want to occupy.
The graveyard of failed product launches and companies is full of products and services that failed to capture the mind of buyers. A failure that Al Reis describes clearly – “These products didn't fail in the marketplace, they failed in the mind. They tried to stand for something that didn't fit prospects' perceptions about the brands.”He goes on to point out a stunning example of how to do this right:
“Take Pepsi-Cola, for example. What comes to mind when you think of Pepsi? Back in 1963, the brand launched an advertising program that has to be the "ultimate" cola campaign. "The Pepsi Generation." This idea took advantage of a key psychological principle. The younger generation looks for ways to rebel against the older generation. Since the older generation was drinking Coca-Cola, it was easy to convince the younger generation that they should be drinking Pepsi.”
Great messages drive to a space in the mind. Bad messages drive anxiety.
Messaging Success
Messages from corporations are paradoxical. When you know you are receiving them you generally don’t want them. When you don’t know you are receiving them they find a way of imbedding themselves in your brain like a child’s nursery rhyme. Sometimes, as brand groupies, we seek them.
Each year corporations and governments spend billions of dollars shaping and delivering messages that walk the fine line between what we want, and what we refuse to accept. Most fail to resonate and a select few become home runs. BMW is the ultimate driving machine. Nike shouts “Just Do It”. Coke invites you to the “Coke Side Of Life”. You could probably based a generational game show on what Coke tagline you can remember. The oldest I can remember is “Coke Is It”. And here-in lays the key ingredient to messaging success. Repetition.
1. Repetition
There is no question that creativity matters, particularly in delivery. But without repetition even the most creative messages are lost. Backed by hundreds of millions of dollars of spend and countless hours of prime-time television “Life Tastes Good” has little resonance for any consumer. Compare that to BMW. For 31 years[i] they’ve asserted themselves as the Ultimate Driving Machine.
The Coke Side Of Life
Responding to Coke’s messaging effervescence, “The new work “understands that Coke trade dress -- the red color, the ribbon, the contour glass, the logos -- are magical icons with immeasurable power,” wrote Advertising Age's Bob Garfield. “It understands that the fizzing, bubbling sound of a soft-drink pour is one of the most fetching, evocative and appetizing sounds on earth.
“Owning the mind” is central to any marketing activity. No matter how you look at it – geography, market or category, leading brands are brands that can be identified by a single word or concept. BMW owns "driving." Mercedes-Benz owns "prestige." Volvo owns "safety." Southwest Airlines own “value”. What Coke owns is best evidenced by the dramatic rise in Pepsi as a brand in recent years.
In his book, Adcult USA, James Twitchell tells a story about Rosser Reeves. An executive of Minute Maid once complained about Reeves's refusal to fiddle with the advertising, saying "You have 47 people working on my brand, and you haven't changed the campaign in 12 years. What are they doing?" Reeves replied: "They're keeping your people from changing your ad."
2. Creativity
Creativity – or the demand for it – is probably the greatest culprit for killing great messages. Under it’s halo we take the obvious and obfuscate it.
If brands are promises, so are messages. How messages are delivered are as important as the product they promote or promise they deliver. At their recent launch Coke attempted to bring the ”Coke Side Of Life“ to life. Unfortunately their site is pretty much a conventional corporate site and if I want to learn more it directed readers to a press kit. Yawn. No wonder kids are switching to Pepsi. In fact, something called ”Make Every Drop Count“ figures more prominently. My Coke – the portal through which the message is delivered is even more confusing and certainly doesn't directly help bring this to life - take a look at the wallpapers. Nothing there.
Change is confusing enough. Poorly executed change is devastating.
If you are going to create a new message - which does amount to a value proposition - you'd better make sure your communities and customers can experience and live it. And for it to work, it has to be able to live freely across all your mediums, unencumbered by other slogans, taglines, ideas... Just look at Nike.
Tom Pirko, of consulting firm Bevmark said it all the the WSJ piece: ”Marketing magic cannot be re-created. It has to be created with an original thought that is breakthrough.“
3. Conversation
Great messages are, by default, a conversation. They elicit and become framed within dialogue. What separates yet another banal tagline from a great message is the effect.
Tagline = Cold Message = WarmthTagline = Transmission Message = ConversationTagline = Anonymous Message = PersonalTagline = 1:Many Message = 1:1Tagline = Fixed Message = MutableTagline = Closed Message = Participatory
Andrew Lark
chief marketing officer
loglogic.com
blog.loglogic.com
T. 408 215 5912
F. 408 215 5962
C. 408 656 9446
E. alark@loglogic.com
I. kiwilark
Chapter 9 (part of). Messages as conversations
Conversations are the building-blocks of communication. They’re everywhere. They’re how we transmit information and feelings. They’re also how we make sense of the world and the people in it. They’re how we make and keep friends. It’s easy for us to take them for granted, but is there a better means to carry messages? Let’s take a look at them. Maybe if we understand conversations a little better, we can put them to more effective use as a means of conducting our business messages.
It Takes Two Baby
The world of theatre is full of soliloquies. An actor or actress stands on the stage, alone, and talks to themselves. This is rather weird, because we don’t encounter it in real life. Sure, there are those people who say they talk to themselves habitually because they see themselves as the only worthy conversationalist they know. Then there are those who say that they are the only people they can trust to be discreet and confidential. Yet apart from these social dysfunctional types most people accept that for a conversation you need at least two consenting human beings.
So what is a conversation? Is there a need to define something we’re all so accustomed to? Maybe not define, but it’s a good idea to take a closer look. Conversations are not to be taken for granted. They’re quite complex and they’re really interesting.
Let’s start negatively, what is not a conversation. A conversation is not a meaningless string of words or sounds. It should be based on an exchange of verbal signifiers (words to you and me), which carry meaning. Conversations are opportunities for information exchange. This can be practical: “How I do stuff” or “Check out the watering-hole in the next valley”. The information might be subjective: “You know I don’t like that watering-hole much. The people who drink there suck etc.”
Conversations are also a means of making sense of the world around us and establishing meaningful social relations.
A very very brief history of conversations.
We have been having conversations since we first started to talk as humanoids. It’s only relatively recently we’ve started calling them conversations though. Until the time of the Renaissance “conversation” meant a whole lot of different things. It could mean a manner of living, or behaviour. It could mean a transformational process. Late Medieval Latin described digestion as the “conversation stomachii”. “Conversatio” could mean living with someone, and that did not necessarily mean that you talked to them It could also refer to the act of conversion to a faith or creed, so Saul’s change of direction when Damascus-bound was termed “Conversatio Sancti Pauli.” And if there is any more tangible evidence that your messages have worked, it is the knowledge that you’ve made some new converts. Yet it was in the sixteenth century that the word entered the English language to imply a familiar and relatively friendly discourse. Two centuries later, during the height of the Grand Tour, when English Gentlemen with more money than sense travelled to Italy, they brought back the fashion for conversaziones. These were inevitably places for the best forms of social and intellectual exchanges.
An element of snobbery has long hung over the conversation. In a vain attempt to distinguish it from the humble, even vulgar chat. There are still those who claim conversation is an art form, and one which, like all “true art” is in danger of dying out.
But the fact is nobody ever tells us how to converse. We start doing it as little children.
So what is a conversation?
In the late ‘60s sociologists like Harvey Sachs started to devote their attention to conversations. They started to analyse them. They weren’t interested in the content of what people were talking about. What seized their attention was how they talked. How long did they talk for? Did they “hand over the microphone” in an orderly fashion, or were they interrupted by someone else seizing the conversational initiative? How long did it take for someone to but in? Were conversations orderly things or were they more like free-for-alls? Were there rules, as in sport, and were they obeyed? What they found is commonsensical. A conversation is based around a sometimes complex system of turn taking. A and B decide to have a chat. A talks, maybe at length about a subject dear to him, but then, maybe because he’s exhausted his stock of trivia, he stops talking. He’s giving B an opportunity to respond. B has been handed the microphone. It’s fair. It is an opportunity for B to agree with A, to tell him that he is wrong, or maybe to change the topic of conversation.
Conversations can be of the simple question and response type.
A. How are you?
B. I’m fine.
These can be drawn out a bit but not indefinitely.
B could say “Fine thanks. And how about you?” and A could respond that he too is fine and that everything is fine in Glockamaura. Alternatively A might seize the opportunity to complain about what an awful life he has, how his wife doesn’t understand him, how his kids don’t respect him, how his boss is a moron etc.
Another type of conversation works on embedded questions and answers, each one dependant on a response but not independent.
A. Have you spoken with Peter yet?
B. Is he here?
A. Haven’t you see him then?
B. No, not yet. Why?
A. Well he’s in the bar, telling everyone who’ll listen what a lousy firm he works for.
B. Oh dear. I haven’t been in there.
D’ya get ma drift bro?
So conversations are made up of words strung together to give meaning. They have structure. As we’ll see also have rules. These include the ways we interpret conversational content. We’ve all heard of the hilarity of literalism, where people on comedy shows do things in a literal way. The daddy of social linguistics, William Labov, has pointed out that adults tend to be better at interpreting conversations than children. Hardly surprising, they (should) know more. I remember once seeing a kid who was told to put his soda on his head i.e. to drink it up. He followed the command to the letter, putting the glass on his head from where it flowed down.
Conversations can be linked to “good manners”. So children, in many cultures, apart from being told to be seen and not heard, are told that it is rude and impolite to butt in. It’s like farting, picking your nose etc. It just isn’t done. This “genteel” approach is often followed into adulthood. In the world of politics parliamentary debates are structured according to the “ideal” conversation. One person has the floor. They have to be heard out, without interruption. Yet this is culture specific. North Americans are often considered to be less restrained. They will jump in when they have something, anything to say. This can lead to unfortunate and unfavourable stereotyping.
But do we always rely on what is said or do we sometimes have to fill in the blanks? In the 1950s and ‘60s American philosopher Herbert Grice took a hard look at our conversations. His conclusion was that it was full of implications or implicatures. These were implied assumptions we made about the content of a conversation. Taken as a whole these were conversation maxims. Unspoken rules underlying discourse. They help us to cut corners, to not have to spell everything out. Most people accept them and internalise them. Funny thing is no one ever learns them far less teaches them. They are conventions which everyone signs up to out something Grice called the “Co-operative Principle”. They helped people to co-operate and they enhanced mutual comprehension.
According to Grice there are four maxims.
(1) the maxim of quality. A person is expected not to tell downright lies, or offer opinions for which they have no evidence.
(2) The maxim of quantity. A speaker is expected neither to give too much nor too little factual information
(3) The maxim of relation. The speaker is assumed not to say things which are irrelevant.
(4) The maxim of manner. The speaker is always expected to be brief, well-ordered in their speech and never to waffle on endlessly.
We can mention a fifth. The maxim of continuity. This is an extension of the maxim of relation. Basically when two (or more) people are talking about a topic, none of the participants will unilaterally start talking about a different, unrelated topic without flagging the change of tack in some way.
Let’s take an example of the maxim of quantity. Someone says “Nick has two kids”.
Actually Nicky has four kids. The statement is not accurate. But strictly speaking Nick does have two kids - and two more. Yet the statement is an inadequate because it gives too little information. Those hearing it feel that the speaker wants his hearers to believe that Nick has only two children. On finding out the truth, they may feel cheated, especially if the person they asked is a close friend of Nick. This person should have known the truth, and they should have given an adequate representation of it.
And for an example of the maxim of relation let's have a joke. This one was told by the legendary, fez-wearing British comic Tommy Cooper. Two men are standing at a bar with a dog. The first man asks the second. "Excuse me. Does your dog bite?"
"Oh no, not at all" replied the second man. The first man puts his hand down to the dog, which bites him severely.
"Ouch" he shrieks. "I thought you said your dog didn't bite..."
"That's not my dog", answers the second man.
They are observed because they apply themselves quite rigorously in practice. Suppose two people meet coming out of the office after work finishes. One says to the other “Are you coming for a drink Frank?” to which Frank answers “That’s a really nice briefcase you have Brian.” This Frank’s answer to Brian’s question is irrelevant. It flouts the maxim of relation. Yet Brian will probably gather from Frank’s response that he’s not interested in going for a drink and will change the subject.
One aspect of Grice’s maxims is that they are based on assumptions of other people. We as participants in a conversation are always relevant, we never rabbit on etc. …
Silence Please
Let’s return to our two conversationalists A and B. A has spoken perhaps at some length about something. Maybe he’s got tired. Anyway he decides to let B have a go, so he stops talking. In many cultures not only does B now have the right to speak, he also has an obligation to speak. If he says nothing it will certainly not go unobserved. Maybe he is completely bowled over by the intellectual rigour of A’s argument; or maybe he just does not know what to say. Usually though B makes some sort of sound and is rarely completely silent. How does A respond? Sometimes by embarrassment, but rarely is the silence considered golden. So after a few seconds off he goes again.
But the lack of conversational cut-and-thrust may be a cultural and a psychological thing. We may like to talk because it makes us feel safe. When we encounter a complete stranger we want to be able to assess quickly whether he’s a friend or a foe. Does he belong to the same tribe or social caste? Answers to these can be got pretty speedily by attempting conversation. If he does he’s more likely to be a friend, or at least not an enemy, so you can relax. We use conversation to establish relationships, even of the most trivial kind. Yet the members of the Navajo and Apache nations in the American south west view conversational triviality with disdain. They only speak when they’ve got something important to say. And when they come together with people from a culture like ours which views any topic as fair game for conversation, misunderstandings can occur. The encounters between Europeans and Athabaskans in British Columbia have been studies. The Athabaskans have an attitude to trivial discourse similar to their distant relatives further south. What’s more when they are unsure about the appropriateness of establishing contacts, even at the level of the conversational, their response is usually to stay silent. They have to be fairly confident of who they’re talking to and what they’re talking about. The Europeans when they met the Athabaskans, were invariably the first to speak. Then they went on and on, often about little things. The Athabaskans (who understood them perfectly) were a little taken aback. They weren’t sure whether verbal communications with these strangers was appropriate, so they kept silent, even when the Europeans stopped and indicated it was their turn to speak. The Europeans, discomforted by the silence, started talking again. The exchanges were, as a result, somewhat one-sided. The two groups were then asked what they thought of each other based on these encounters. The Europeans couldn’t make up their minds about the Athabaskans. They seemed shy, but also quite haughty and surly. The Athabaskans considered the Europeans to be rude, garrulous and domineering.
Some cultures consider silence, or lack of conversation, to be the norm during certain activities. Anyone who has ever been fortunate enough to get invited to a dinner party in Finland soon remarks upon a few things. The food is invariably delicious. It is consumed by all in almost deadly silence. No chit-chat, no small-talk. Eating is serious stuff. Your mouth has far more important things to do than make sounds. This can cause deep discomfort for non-Finns not in the groove.
The Sound of Silence
Silence isn’t something that should frighten message deliverers. It’s often a good thing to deliver your message well and then disappear for a while. Many marketers would think this suicidal. You are giving your turf to the competition. But message delivery should be seen as a conversation, a dialog. If one person to a conversation keeps yapping on they’re viewed rightly as a pain in the neck. Remember too conversational implicatures. Your willingness to deliver your message and wait for a response gives your message credibility. It won’t get trashed by constant repetition. It will take on the aura of a quality message – just the thing if you’re selling a quality product. Too often it seems dialogues between business and customers are like the interfaces with the Athabaskans – one-sided affairs. Companies may say they want feedback – all types of feedback – but they don’t know how to get it, or what to do with it if they get it. If it is good copy it may get recycled into customer testimonials. If it’s bad it causes squirms of embarrassment. And if there is no recognisable feedback, well you just keep on talking.
Messages for business
Now what has all this to say about messages? Lots.
Let's go back to Grice's maxims. Number one is the maxim of quality. This is a big problem for message senders, whether in business or politics. Marshall McLuhan said "The medium is the message". The fact is that Mr or Mrs Average's automatic response to messages coming from business is "Oh yeah?". They somehow expect message senders to be on a spin-trip, always putting the best possible spin on any issue. In late 2006 Hungarian prime minister was taped making a very injudicious speech to party insiders. He stated that his government had done nothing for years and that it had lied through its teeth to get re-elected. Thousands of angry Hungarians took to the streets demanding the premier's resignation, but many people couldn't see what the fuss was about. They rationalised their sang-froid by saying "So he lied, but that's what politicians do."
There is a fundamental issue to be tackled here if message senders want to use messages effectively. They have to regain the trust of their listeners or hearers. They can do a lot to make their messages stickier by working on the maxims of manner, maybe of relativity as well, but unless they reestablish a trust channel they might as well be shouting down a disconnected telephone line.
A start can be made by remembering that effective communication depends on seeing the whole process at first as a transaction. You have something you want to give. The success of the transaction depends on the other guy taking it. He may not like it, or even know what to do with it, but it’s important to establish the transfer transaction for your message. Even rejection is better than being ignored – ask any speed-dater. Rejection is something that can be worked with. Eventually your message is taken on board. The more times the message transaction is repeated the more trust is established. Eventually the transaction framework dissolves, leaving a communications channel.
It takes two to tango. It's a truism that messages form an important part of any conversation but they should be tailored to your audience. But maybe that's a part of the problem: All the world's a stage etc. An evening at the theater can be great fun but the best actors and actresses are the ones who can engineer a suspension of belief. Great entertainment but not great for building trust. We might say that the job of the corporate message adviser is how to engineer the audience to suspend its disbelief. Talk about audience implies an immediate distance between message sender and receptor. It is all too easy for this to get filled by distrust.
so let's forget about stage and audience, them and us. Let's try to attain participation. A conversation is a series of messages, but it isn't a one-way process. It's something everyone who's at the party can participate in. If a real and effective conversation is established it is never a dialogue des sourdes or a dialog of the deaf. The other person must be listened to. This gives you their response to your messages. Too often business pays lip-service to customer feedback. Sure, the importance of listening to the customer has been preached eloquently for years: it is part of Management by Walking Around, postulated by Tom Peters among others. But it has to be about more than a clickable link at the bottom of a web page labelled “feedback”. We have to see customers in a new light, maybe not as an audience to be entertained but as a community we have to serve. And who is our community? It’s any company’s stakeholders, not just present ones but even those it is likely to acquire. A business’s community is anyone likely to be affected (hopefully beneficially) by the business’s operations. The conversations with this community have to be on-going, 24/7, 365 days a year. Going back to the earlier meaning of conversation, it involves a cohabitation with this community, actually living and breathing in it. Corporate organisation will have to respond to this environment by appointing a Community Liaison director, but this won’t be just another functional silo with its own discreet budget and rules of engagement. Community Liaison must run throughout the organisation.
The cultural context of conversations is imperative to a proper communications interchange. We’ve looked at cultural conflicts where the gap appears big. But the same cultural conflicts can stymie conversations within a culture, say between rich and poor, old and young and even between male and female. The American socio-linguist Dorothy Tannen demonstrated in her book You Just Don’t Understand that men and women have different ways of participating in a conversation. Failure to recognise this causes tension.
posted by Ciaran Parker at 9:11 AM
0 comments
