Top Five - who cares?
One week ago today I mentioned I was doing a presentation based on my opinions about the top ten “trends and issues” for communicators and suggested Café visitors share their personal top five. Well, the response has been overwhelming and has consumed me for days - NOT. So far the Café has heard from a whopping four people - thanks Judy, Robert, Priya and Brian.
So, what is your host/barrista/dishwasher supposed to make of this? There are half a dozen options actively under consideration.
1. No one cares.
2. Communicators are too busy trying to meet the next deadline to be worried about what is around the corner.
3. There has been a horrendously complex technological glitch that has resulted in only four people having access to the Café.
4. Only communicators about to turn 50 care to gaze at our professional navels (sorry Judy, Robert, Priya and Brian). Excuse me sir, is that available in fire engine red? - but I digress.
5. No one is stopping by the Café (see previous posts about your host’s insecurities).
6. Café customers don’t feel comfortable enough to voice an opinion (as, unfortunately, there are some in the blogosphere who are quick to open fire flamers).
Hmmm. . .your host/barrista/dishwasher will continue to scratch his head and gaze thoughtfully into the distance. For the record, my money is on a combo of #s 2 and 5.
PS - Still in Edmonton where I’m feeling comfortable in my aged skin as they are hosting the World Masters Games next month. I wonder if there is a blogging event?
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
And I only did one, not five, and now I’m away again from my notes, and up to my ears in a project.
It happens to be a project that relates to IABC Toronto — and I draw the attention of CAFE Society to the latest Fortune magazine cover story, fired at 50.
And there’s a good pr job in India, for a Canadian company, for $5700 a year. That’s fifty-seven hundred — not a typo with a missing zero.
Next week I’ll fill out my list.
I do appreciate the turning fifty comment though. That was quite a while ago.
BAK
June 3rd, 2005 at 1:02 am
I saw your post, went away to noodle and… must admit… got distracted by other stuff.
1. Ethics. More precisely, the perception of ethics. I’ve been in communication for nearly 20 years, and I have never, to my knowledge, met an unethical communicator. Yet, the perception of our industry? Spin doctors, hacks, flacks, the hottie from the event marketing agency.
You have a bully pulpit, Warren, to bang, bang, bang on about the value communicators provide to their companies and clients. We all know what we do, but you are in a position, as IABC Chairman (pretty soon), to get this message out. BAK has pointed out how rarely IABC Chairmen get interviews with local press when they travel — change that!
2. New Media. Companies and organizations have always been scrutinized, but it’s only in the last 10 years or so that they could be hung out to dry in public. Blogs accelerate the trend, and the growth in blogs and podcasts accelerate the acceleration. You’ve seen it: one obscure blogger kvetches, others — less obscure — pile on, and … changes happen at the top.
Most companies, most communicators, don’t get this at all. To use a military metaphor, most communicators and companies plan for a set-piece, Napoleonic battle. But every blogger and podcaster is, by nature, a guerilla.
3. New Media (2). The Long Tail idea is almost too trendy these days, but the point is right and isn’t going to go away. Media is splintered; and the media that is “common ground” is increasingly “dissed”. Corporate communicators will need to seek out the Long Tail, because it’s a lot more important for influencers and those of us who look first to influencers. If Shel, Neville, and Steve Rubel cover a story, it’s far more important to me than a NYT article.
4. I’m 43 (and how did that happen?), so you can strike No. 4.
June 3rd, 2005 at 7:08 am
Okay, so I’m now embarassed to reply and no longer just be a blog watcher.
Top 5 from my point of view, which to clearly articulate any bias or prejudice, is from the perspective of a small communications consulting company owner.
1. The increase in the number of single practitioners is stagnating the growth in professionalism and development of our industry. Communications, some would say, has struggled to get consideration on the business agenda. Too many single practitioners in one market reduces communications to task delivery, where clients decide based on price not professionalism.
2. Ethics. Too many communication practitioners remain willing to bend our professional ethics and then justify them through their own self-definition. I wonder if IABC has had the horrendous debate about how to recall an ABC when that member operates in an unethical manner?
3. Demonstrating value through transformational as opposed to transactional outcomes. Far too many communications plans use transactional, number-defined metrics to justify their activity. I ran into a substantial corporation recently who actually uses a metric in their yearly communication plan of “preparing and distributing a minimum of 6 media releases a month.” And yes, readers, there was no other context added - they just want releases.
4. Focusing on pragmatic solutions for organizations. Having reviewed a number of strategic communications plans lately, I’m shocked at how many simply grab ideas they’ve read in IABC or from Melcrum or another source, and just thought “hey, that’s a neat idea, let’s put it in our plan too.” Communicators need to refocus their knowledge on their organizational context. Using ideas is great - as long as they fit. Two values need to be discussed in all communications: pragmaticism and true-to-perception which predisposes stakeholder understanding.
5. Get to know the numbers. We’ve all been talking about this for a long time. You don’t need an MBA or MSc or M anything to understand financial management concepts. Get on a board of directors of something - not-for-profit or other organization - and volunteer for the audit committee. I believe communications can, should, and does have bottom line value - but you have to understand the balance sheet, consolidated statements, and income statement to better make your case.
Okay, I’m done.
Barrista! Grande latte, light foam, extra espresso shot to go please!
June 3rd, 2005 at 8:05 am
Roger, I’m interested in your first point, about single practioners and professionalism.
(Full-disclosure: I’m an individual practitioner.)
I’m not sure what you mean here, why individual practioners are less likely than those working in a big organizations to deliver “professionalism,” or more likely to focus on “task delivery.”
Not defensive–I’m a proud task-delivery man myself, and I understand and agree with many of your other points–just honestly curious to hear more about why the preponderance of me and my ilk might be bad for the business.
June 3rd, 2005 at 8:43 am
In reply to #2, I’ve been too busy to read any blogs or even my personal e-mail for that matter. And in reply to #4, I’m in my late 20s.
My top trends/issues, off the top of my head:
1. For me, the big issue in new media aren’t blogs, PDA access, etc.; my issue is keeping web sites accurate and updated! Everyone agrees the site is important, but somehow care of a web site is always last on the “to do” list.
2. Ethics
3. Greater recognition of the profession
I’m getting tired of explaining what I do, only to have the other person latch onto a keyword like “speechwriting” and assume that’s the only important part of my job.
4. ROI
5. Experience levels of practitioners
Is it just me, or is there a shortage of mid-level practitioners? Almost everyone I’ve met are either at a senior-level or are fairly new in the profession. Because of this, I’m starting to see people, who in some cases don’t have enough experience, be thrust into assistant directorships and other management-level jobs.
June 3rd, 2005 at 8:50 am
Roger:
I suspect the single practitioner trend is in direct relation to the down-sizing trend that saw people who were performing tasks as part of a full-time job shipped out the door. The tasks still need to get done (write the newsletter article, write the speech, take the photo). Should these people, who would typically get an assignment if they were an employee, start forcing their clients to complete a full communications strategy linked to business objectives before agreeing to write the speech?
A lot of these functions were outsourced because it was decided they weren’t strategic in nature. They were just tasks that could be assigned to any old freelancer.
So whose fault is it, the company or the freelancer lining up work?
June 3rd, 2005 at 9:00 am
David,
I hear you (read you) - my comments probably arise more from my frustration with the local business climate. But here’s what’s happening in my marketplace.
Many single practitioners hanging out their shingle are focusing on producing price-driven solutions: Says the client “We need a communications plan with no research or key messages just something that supports our desire to use the newsletter better, for a couple of grand.” Says the local practitioner: “Okay, Tuesday good?”
Another example: client wants a multi-stakeholder assessment completed to help understand brand acceptance and relevance. Communicator says “What you really need is a better logo - let’s do that first.”
What is happening in this kind of environment, is that everyone - client and service provider - are rising to their own level of mediocrity and the professionalism required for communications to be considered valuable is consistently lost.
I’ve met many single, established communicators who as individual practitioners epitomize excellence. I too started as an individual practitioner. But collectively as a group, (individual or business) I believe one issue continues to be - raising the bar of excellence and acceptance, so that none of us compete solely on price and the perpetuation of mediocrity.
June 3rd, 2005 at 9:44 am
Well, I hear you, too, but I think I disagree with your unspoken implication that corporate practitioners may be relied upon any more than sole practitioners not to do the quick, easy, splashy thing and, instead, to advise and follow a long, thoughtful strategic course.
Business itself has such a short attention span these days–rightly so, because everything moves so fast–that the longview isn’t rewarded nearly as much as the brilliant short-term campaign or communication vehicle. Nothing to do, really, with either kind of communication practitioner, but rather with the nature of the world we all work in, I think.
At any rate: Warren, we’re talking now. Are you feeling better?
June 3rd, 2005 at 9:55 am
Warren, your original head-scratching/navel-gazing post detailed potential reasons why visitors weren’t visiting the café and/or commenting.
I don’t think any of the subsequent commentators have really touched on that commentary. Instead you’re getting more top fives and/or an interesting side debate about validity of solo practitioners and standards, outsourcing, etc. All very fine and dandy. My question to you is to you still want to debate the whys and wherefores of lack of comments now that you’re once again getting comments? Or shall we just move on and continue to comment about earlier queries and other Things That Matter?
And hey! For the record my navel wasn’t around to gaze at in 1955 or earlier.
June 3rd, 2005 at 10:20 am
I am still very much interested in the “whys and wherefores” of the lack of comments on this blog and on may other blogs I review regularly. One of the criticisms of the blogosphere I often hear is that “it seems like a relatively small group of people having an extended conversation with themselves.” On the surface, it often appears that way. However, as we all know, there are many people who read blogs regularly but don’t choose, for whatever reason to participate in the discussion. I find this a curious phenomenon (mostly because I have the annoying trait of having an opinion on everything!) worthy of further exploration.
My initial thoughts have been around the “silent majority” that we know exists on most issues. These are the folks that choose to remain silent yet make their mark by voting with their feet (or at the ballot box) or by rising up at times when issues reach a critical tipping point. Thoughts?
June 3rd, 2005 at 11:01 am
Just passing through …
Communicators need to get out of the office more. They need to see inside their own organizations, branch after branch after branch.
And they need to go visit the customers and suppliers of their organizations. Regulators, too, if appropriate. Getting to know these folks, for most of us, is more important than meeting reporters nowadays.
They need to travel with sales reps, or visit stores they supply, and on and on.
They need to meet members, if they are communicators for associations. Is the new IABC PR woman coing to Washington? And is she being allowed out of the back room? For that mattter, is she hosting a breakfast roundtable?
For this to happen, senior executives must be convinced that communications people (I’m not talking about “communicators” who write job descriptions for HR “professionals” who are too lazy to do this themselves — step right up BIOVAIL, and dental plan brochures) are important enough, and responsbile enough, to justify travel expenses and be allowed out without a leash.
That’s where the IABC Chairman’s massive campaign aimed externally at business leaders comes in.
And I’ll match many an independant PR practioner against some corporate flack reporting to a dunce of a marketing director or some loser in personnel any day, ethics-wise.
Which is not to say I have anything against the poor people stuck wioth jobs at Nortel. But I won’t trust anything said to me by Air Canada.
Apparently 6 per cent of IABCers are self-employed, but I’d love a breakdown by major cities, major regions, countries, etc. It seems to me one, two and three-person shops make up more than 6 percent of Toronto’s membership. Or is it just that the small shop folks get involved ourt of proportion to their numbers, and so I notice them?
And, just a final grenade rolled into the room before I leave and get back to work writing the best presentation ever given at the Rotman School of Management (you can ask some IABC Toronto people next week if this is ture) — IABC should revamp its membership requirements, and decide just what part of the business communicators spectrum it wants to serve, because the bandwidth is way too wide right now.
BAK
June 3rd, 2005 at 11:22 am
If that is the case, how about this one: a lot of people (especially those in their 20s and 30s) are cynical, jaded and world weary and can’t be bothered to participate because they don’t think it will make a difference.
The currency of this suggestion comes courtesy of the latest U of T Reading Series lecture I attended, which has really stuck with me. Only this past Monday, I went to check out Laura Penny as a potential conference keynote speaker. She read from the first chapter of her mew book, Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit, then did a Q&A with the audience. She’s somewhere in her early-to-mid 30s, and feels she’s been fed a line since the day she was born….
Rather than going into a lot of detail, I trolled around and found a couple of representative articles from Quill and Quire and Maclean’s that give a fair description of her book:
http://www.quillandquire.com/reviews/review.cfm?review_id=4435
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20050328_102805_102805
She is very amusing and quick thinking (at least in responding to questions), although she has a mouth like a sewer. She doesn’t offer solutions; rather, she believes her role is to serve as a crank in pointing out the ubiquitous use of relentless spin…everywhere and about everything, whether it is in regards to customer service, advertising, news outlets (especially TV news shows), public relations, politics, the professions, etc.
What has been bothering me since Monday was Penny’s honest commentary that she feels she’s been fed bull her entire lifespan. (She indicated her childhood all took place in the 1980s, the beginning of the dawn of serious bullshit.) Unlike her parent’s generation, Penny claims there is not a single public institution (government, community, dad’s benevolent company, etc.) in which she believes. All Penny knows is that she’s fed up with being spoon fed crap.
(She does seem to derive great sustenance and comfort from literature and philosophers. And she also feels her academic community isn’t as bad as most…probably because, as an aggregate, they have so little influence on society and therefore can’t or don’t “abuse” the position. She also admitted, “I don’t shit where I eat.”)
Before I wander too far off this topic that is holding my current fascination, I’m wondering if other communications or PR practitioners feel the same about their job or association: what’s the point? I can state my bit, but in the end nothing will change. And I’ll still get fed the same party line. And that this translates to less traffic and/or commentary in the café?!
(Sidenote: I also find it fascinating that Penny’s book and Harry G. Frankfurt’s ever-so-cute little On Bullshit book came out within weeks of one another! Is this purely a coincidence that so much crap is hitting the fan? Or is it the dawn of a new era of excrement?)
June 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 am
The way I comment on blogs is the same way I involve myself in “real life” conversations. I only speak up when I have something to contribute.
June 4th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
1, 5 and 6, mostly. 2 is semi-legit, but only rarely.
Most peole who think they are busy are only pretending; their real problem is an inability to think, and a bit of chicken-ness.
But 2 is semi-legit in the sense that most people who want to go on the record on a really imporant topic actually require thinking time.
The nature of blogs takes then away from reminders that they should get around to this.
Ethics is over-rated. It ain’t a problem, and harping on it makes it seem like a problem. We are not all that dishonest; we just have bosses and quasi-bosses who want us to convey their lies and distortions and misleadingness to other people.
Wal-Mart’s PR people are not creating the numbers in those news releases about pay, but I bet the numbers are not clean.
If you want to gt into ethics, go pick on the personnel department; most are run by con artists and grade seven girls stabbing each other in the back.
Can any CAFE diner tell us about a really good personnel department run by honest people who everyone can trust?
BAK
June 4th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Hi Brian. Just wanted to let you know that I don’t think it is fair to generalize about any profession. I know many human resource professionals that are highly ethical and dedicated to their chosen profession, just as you and I are dedicated to ours. And, as someone who is frequently busy - with family, work and giving back to my community and my profession, my problem is not an inability to think (at least I don’t think thinking is a problem). Having time to think can sometimes be a problem, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have the capacity - at least that’s what I’m thinking.
June 5th, 2005 at 6:36 am
My €0.02 on the lull in Café activity (save for this thread, which has been a shot of caffeine)…
1. How many IABC members are aware that the Café even exists? I haven’t seen any real effort to publicize it to the membership at large, save for a passing reference in a recent Update. We shouldn’t count on the grapevine to do the job, nor to expect members to “discover” it when they visit iabc.com (many people aren’t frequent visitors). If we publicized the Café with the same zeal as our webinars and other programs, activity might very well perk up. How about a “dedicated” email to members to formally (belatedly) announce that the Café is open?
2. If people are feeling jaded or cynical, then we have a problem that transcends the Café and is at the heart of how members perceive IABC’s relevance, vitality and value. That’s already a topic of discussion here and elsewhere, and I hope that discussion continues. Which underscores the importance of the Café.
3. We have to accept that, like “SK,” a lot of people may lurk without contributing unless they feel they have something to *add* to the conversation. But that’s okay.
Warren, here’s an historical perspective that I hope will comfort you: Back in the 80’s (before Al Gore had finished inventing the internet as we know it today), mid-way through my IBM career, I began to lurk in IBM’s internal forums — mainframe network-based discussions that spanned virtually every topic imaginable, from scientific to spiritual. Some of them were as thoughtful, lively and provocative as anything online today, anywhere. I posted occasionally, but only when I thought I could add value to the conversation. Sysops monitoring activity discovered that there were far more lurkers than active participants, yet few people ever viewed that as a negative. There were activity peaks and valleys, too, but it really didn’t matter. Quality endured, as have the forums themselves. My guess is that this is just as valid today, 20 years later — not only in the Café, but across the net.
I’ll take quality over quantity any time.
June 5th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Good points, Michael. As I have said before, it is great that there are many visitors to the Café - as they say, the more the merrier. As well, someone pointed out earlier this week that the Café is tracking at 6/10 on Google’s PageRank which is, I’m told, a good thing. At the end of the day, I’m just happy there is a place for IABC members and other communication professionals to meet and share their ideas and comments on the association and the profession.
June 5th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
G’day Warren,
Michael’s post re IBM and lurkers takes me back to when I worked for DEC in the UK — exactly the same experience. Bulletin boards full of insight, vim and vigour - an about a 90% lurk rate. Just because I didn’t feel that I had anything to add didn’t mean that I didn’t love reading some of the posts.
And further to the lack of traffic/involvement in the cafe itself — that could be just because we are slow to add the rss feed into our aggregators (well, that’s my story, anyway).
But in the very short time I have been an IABC member I have come across a cycle of views ranging from ‘IABC is a waste of time’, to ‘IABC is great to join’, to ‘IABC is becoming less relevant’ to ‘IABC is joining the 21st century and hope is up for its survival’. It’s all a cycle, as Michael pointed out, and organisations reinvent themselves for their new audiences to stay relevant.
That you have embraced the new comms tool of this current cycle, blogs, is a fabulous signal that you intend the IABC to remain relevant… and thus you come across the ‘big hidden truth’ of blogging — that the vast majority of us who blog suffer from a lack of comments to our posted wit and wisdom.
As Pink Floyd sang in The Wall, “is anybody out there?” and as Eric Idle sang in The Meaning of Life, you have to hope that there’s intelligent life somewhere out in the universe, because there’s bugger all down here on earth. {smile}
June 5th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Good to hear from you Lee. With 13,000 members in 67 countries plus a number of interested “commentators”, it isn’t surprising to hear comments from on end of the relevance continuum to the other. What is relevant to me may well not be relevant to someone else. I have no doubt that IABC will continue to move forward - and that’s the important thing to me.
Regarding cycles, I guess one advantage of age is that we’ve been around long enough to recognize them.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:32 am
I’m laughing at Lee; I had forgotten the Eric Idle quote.
Like you, Warren, I’ve wondered why some of my blog entries attract many viewers, but no comments, and others attract vehement commentary, but relatively few viewers. And wondered why some attract no interest for days, then later become “interesting”.
It could be that the “conversation” metaphor in blogging — “me and you is gonna talk!” — is overused and overrated.
I liken blog “conversation” to a large, noisy party with friends and friends-of-friends and some friends of friends of friends. While you probably could have a meaningful chat with everyone in the room you a) aren’t going to meet everyone in the room, b) are going to miss meaningful chats elsewhere no matter what, c) are going to drift in to chat-pods simply because you hear an interesting phrase or spot an interesting person in the pod.
In that sense, blogging in our field is much like an IABC Opening Reception. Just drift through, shake hands, speak intelligently about the things that move others and you.
Sometimes you won’t get a blink in response; sometimes you will open up a fire-ant nest.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:47 am
As you know, Allan, I am always up for a good party so I highly approve, endorse and agree with your metaphor - it works for me. And yes, I laughed out loud when I read Lee’s Eric Idol quote. I am a MP fan from waaay back. Spam, spam, spam, spam.
June 7th, 2005 at 5:03 am
See Allan? I told you it wasn’t just blogspot bloggers who were spammers!
June 7th, 2005 at 8:04 am
Hi Warren,
I’m one of those nefarious lurkers (”long-time listener, first-time caller), but my rationale is that I don’t post comments unless I feel compelled to do so. Reading Judy Gombita’s post about Laura Penny’s book was enough to provoke a response out of me.
First off, let me acknowledge that yes indeed, there is a LOT of BS being flung at us on a daily basis (and as communicators, we have a responsibility to not let it flow from our shops). And secondly, I think “cranks on a rant” like Penny have an important role to play in pulling back the curtain and shedding the light of day on the BS dispensers.
What provoked me, though, was Judy’s comments that Penny “offered no solutions” and that she’s “fed up with being spoon fed crap.” That’s fine and dandy, but my question is - just because you’re being spoon-fed, does that mean you have to eat it? Is anyone FORCING you to drink the Koolaide?
It’s one thing to fling poop against the wall for fun (which is what monkeys do), and while we share 98% of our DNA with the apes, the other 2% gives us the capacity to get out of the trees and actually DO something about it.
In IABC terms, this is similar to the members that complain about the cost, the programming, the leadership, etc. but never actually get involved in order to change the things they don’t like.
Call me old-school, old-fashioned or quaint (by the way, I’m in my “cynical” early-to-mid 30’s), but I believe what you put in is what you get out - and if you want to be a subversion and change the world order, better to do it from the inside, as opposed to hollering from out on the street corner.
My challenge to the cynical folks is - “OK, there’s lots of BS out there. So what - what are YOU going to do about it?”
June 7th, 2005 at 10:01 am
Hey - there’s a great name for a book, Judy, The Era of Excrement. And welcome Richard.
I have to comment on your question - “I’m wondering if other communications or PR practitioners feel the same about their job or association: what’s the point? I can state my bit, but in the end nothing will change. And I’ll still get fed the same party line. And that this translates to less traffic and/or commentary in the café?!”
Those that know me well would generally not describe me as the most optimistic person on the planet and I confess I have been around long enough to have developed a healthy cynicism toward the world. As well, my BS sensors are well tuned and actively engaged at all times. That being said, however, I never hesitate to continue ’stating my bit’ if I feel there is an opportunity to make a difference. The only thing that has changed for me as I get older (man, I hate saying that) is I am more judicious in picking my battles. If nothing changes in the end, at least I can look at myself in the mirror and know I did what I could.
June 8th, 2005 at 7:15 am
If I only provoked one café visitor into commenting on Penny’s viewpoints and book then I’ll know and feel I did what I could, too. Particularly as I’ve always considered Kool-aid to be a vile chemistry set and a cruel beverage to force on gullible kids, let alone thinking adults (talk about your acid test).
Richard, Laura Penny may only claim to be a crank, but her actions and answers revealed a lot more depth. Definitely her main impetus is as a provocateur, but I believe she is slowly, incrementally (excrementally?) playing an important role in building awareness of how several generations of adult society have been acquiescent in being taken in and, in some cases participating, in the problem. Her actions and words revealed more depth last Monday evening.
For example, although she teaches in Halifax, quite a few of her students were in the Toronto audience that evening (several were sitting on the floor in front of me, as once again this was a booked-to-capacity event in the Music Room at Hart House). Prior to beginning, she greeted many of them by name with warmth, gave them hugs and thanked them for attending. When she was addressing the audience, I observed their satisfaction, nodding heads, shining eyes and smiling faces. It was obvious they were proud of their professor and felt she was voicing their truths, not just her own.
(Interestingly, the majority of attendees weren’t 20 to 30 somethings. I’d estimate the average age to be 50 or older, and based on the type of words chosen and questions asked this was a highly educated group, mainly of professionals.)
Another indicator that this isn’t a passing fad was the fact that TV Ontario (a public television network) filmed the Reading Series event, for later broadcast on its “Big Ideas” show. This is a network that specializes in educational television. (And it doesn’t bleep out swe*r words.)
Not surprising, considering the current political climate in Canada, a lot of the questions for Penny involved politicians. One youngish-looking man (I’d estimate about 40) admitted to being a political speechwriter. (I’ve never seen so many heads swivel so fast to try and figure out whose crap he puts to paper.) Anyhow, he asked Penny what he SHOULD be writing in future. She was quite blunt: tell us the unvarnished truth, without excuses or embellishments. She indicated she’d react better to an honest recounting of sins or omissions from a politician than empty platitudes and future promises. (For the Canadian readers in this blog, when asked about the possibility of a federal election in the near future she expressed her horror at the prospect, saying, “Who on earth would you vote for? The corrupt people, the scary people or the flakey people? There are simply NO true options at present for the thinking individual.”)
When it came to advertising, she was equally dismissive of the likelihood of purchasing products that were spun beyond recognition. (The hyperbole of claims and jargon of pharmaceutical companies incite incredible wrath from Penny. There was an amusing anecdote relating to Viagra, but I’ll be darned if I can remember it…I just remember the hysterical laughter. Speaking of which, Penny has a most unusual gasping for air, almost barking laugh. Infectious and annoying in equal turns. But perhaps I’m “thin-slicing” here….)
For my part, I know that since I attended her talk I’ve been looking at key messaging and documents—some of it imposed on me—with a really jaundiced eye. I’ve already made some small adjustments and I will attempt more whole sail trimming down the road in new publications. So, I’m committed to substituting some plain and healthy juice for any existing sugared beverages. This dovetails nicely with earlier efforts to incorporate generational-specific, language and visuals in regards to promotional materials (studies and recommendations that have been conducted for several years by an organization in which I’m involved as a volunteer). Now I’ll also considering age-specific “attitudes and emotions” in the messaging, by appreciating the absolute need for precision and honesty demanded by this generation (because if I don’t, I know they won’t bother looking at things or participating).
Richard, despite growing up in the same age, and with similar influences as Laura Penny, you sound like you’ve developed a fine-honed appreciation for the need to be honest in your communication efforts. Congratulations on that and may you retain your clear-sightedness. And please participate more often in the IABC Café, for your unique imagery if nothing else!
FYI, Penny indicated she hits the U.S. speaking circuit in July. (She’s already been on 60 Minutes.) So the squeamish might want to cover their ears and eyes.
In conclusion Warren, if YOU consider it crap worthy perhaps I should copyright The Era of Excrement now. (As I wrote it, part of me wondered if Edith Wharton was politely spitting or applauding—in her adroit, lady-like way—in her grave.) And now I leave you with visions of bit-stating, poop-throwing monkeys dancing (oh-so carefully) in my head. “No offence, Warren and Richard.”
June 8th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
OK, this is getting interesting. In case you haven’t noticed, I still have not listed my top ten. I’m enjoying this too much. For those of you who may have missed it, Leslie posted a very interesting top five in the comments section of the Thanks. I’m feeling better now. post. I will be taking some time (hopefully over the next day or so) to summarize the discussions and post an initial top five. We can then kick that around for a while before we send it off to the IABC Research Foundation.
Thanks everyone who has contributed to date. Keep ‘em coming.
June 9th, 2005 at 11:41 am
I’ll have you know that I have a long way to go before I’m 50! I haven’t even gotten to 40??
June 9th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Warren, can you name a well run personnel department with a vice president or other senior executive who is fully deserving of respect? That would be a department where humans review resumes, rather than habing them run through machines. Where people other than ignorant twinkies — people who actually know something about the job under discussion- interview people applying for jobs? An personnel department that actually calls people back when it says it does? One that actually reads resumes to the end? One that sends nice thanks but no thanks letters, in a timely fashion, to people waiting anxiously to hear about a job they applied for?
A personnel department that actually runs an employee recognition program that, when the employees get good and start winning lots of awards, does not cut back? A department that, when managers start abusing employees, actually fights for the employees instead of rolling over for the bosses? When the abusive manager gets canned, rather than the abused employee getting either fired at worst or bought off at best.
A department that does not do its best to force out senior, experienced staff, so that benefits are minimized — see the latest Fortune magazine and the cover story Fired At 50. BCE doe not have such a personnel boss — it’s firing older people constantly.
A department that actually fights to keep jobs in the country, instead of exporting them to India and China so the CEO can get a big bonus when quarterly numberrs are good?
A department that gets the layoff announements right, rather than scaring the shit out of tens of thousands of people, as General Motors did this week?
A personnel department that runs a good employee-oriented public web site; that ensures employees are treated with respect when the public face of an organization is put forward?
One that ensures managers treat people well?
One that writes honest job postings, and clearly identifies the organization? One that makes it easy to contact the relevant staff?
I can’t find a single prsonnel deapartant that meets these criteria, but I certainly would be delighted to interview some senior-most personnel executive in a significant company for a feature story in BAK’s Report.
Assuming anyone can name one person in North America who heads personnel, and does the job well and honestly.
Names? The human and the organization?
BAK
June 9th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
What’s up with the rant? It appears to me you have already made up your mind that there is not a human resource professional or department on the planet that can live up to your expectations. Don’t be surprised if no one offers up a “human or an organization”. Why would they? You have already written the story, why do you need to interview anyone? I’m afraid this could be an example of why people have issues with “the media”. As I’ve said before, I don’t think it is fair to make sweeping generalizations about an entire profession.
June 15th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
[...] t seemed to bubble to the top of the pile. You can review all of the comments for yourself here. Number 5: The education/preparation of communicators It appe [...]
June 17th, 2005 at 4:44 am
Warren, I’ve got to tell you how much I appreciate your willingness to engage critics like our resident curmudgeon Brian Kilgore. There’s a place for everyone in the Cafe’ and it’s refreshing to see such a lively debate. It’s especially refreshing that the chairman of IABC would feel comfortable writing things like, “What’s up with the rant?”
As long as leading communicators do exactly what we urge our clients not to do — use only reserved, stilted “corporate-speak” — we will remain stuck in neutral. But if we demonstrate there is a place for open dialogue, even refreshing candor, then perhaps we can make a real difference in business communications.