Does your organization have a story? Put another way, I believe every organization has a story to tell, but few know how to tell it properly. Or, worse yet, every individual within an organzation tells different versions of "The Story," based on their specific viewpoint, needs, prejudices and (lack of) information. An organization's story is the narrative outgrowth of its positioning and messages. Positioning is what results from an analysis of the convergence of a company's aspirations, its current reality, and its competitive environment. Messages support that positioning -- credibly and creatively -- and answer a variety of fundamental questions that all lead to one answer: why should anyone care? Taken together these elements will form a framework for how an organization talks about itself to most any audience via every communications medium. Building the foundation of "The Story" is not as easy as it sounds, but the most difficult part of telling the tale is enrolling all of an organization's executives and other spokespeople in "sticking to the script." In no way does that mean a purely robotic regurgitation of the party line, but in a communications age that is hallmarked by a complete lack of boundaries between audiences, the core of the story must be consistently delivered. In my career, I've been a part of the story/positioning/messaging development process countless times. At the end of the process there is always universal agreement among the executives, communications professionals and other stakeholders that what has been created is good, true, compelling and inspirational. The excitement is palpable, as the company begins to convey its shiny new story to its various audiences. The story tellers are eager to talk, the audiences eager to listen. Then someone staggers through the "so what" portion of the story or a listener poses a tricky (read: thoughtful) question and all hell breaks loose. It takes time, practice and compassionate correction for most stakeholders to fully absorb and understand the positioning, marinate in the messages, and get completely comfortable telling "The Story" in their own voice and in a dialogue. The ability to impartially monitor and coach executives through the storytelling process is one of the great values a seasoned communications pro brings to the table. Which is why I've packed a taser and airhorn in my PR toolkit for years -- just for compassionate correction, really....
This morning's WSJ features an academic exercise in corporate calculus by Dr. Aneel Karnani of the U. Michigan's Ross Business School that tries to make the case against corporate social responsibility. Put simply, Dr. Karnani's argument is that corporations are driven by a profit motive. As such, any action by corporate executives that does not seek to maximize profit is ill-advised and doomed to failure. As an example, he cites McDonald's addition of ostensibly healthy menu items as driven solely by a need to expand market share, not in response to corporate concerns over the ever-expanding American waistline. Additionally, he notes Detroit's recent infatuation with hybrids and plug-in vehicles is a reaction to cratering sales of less fuel-efficient vehicles and not a sudden infatuation with daisies and dolphins. Blistering insight there, eh? Actually, the most stunning element of the column is Karnani's assertion that the best way to balance social responsibility with profit, is through governmental regulation -- stunning not for the originality of the statement but because it actually was allowed to appear in a Murdoch media outlet. Part of the problem here is that Dr. Karnani focuses strictly on what for years has been known as "doing well by doing good." To my mind this is a too narrow and old-fashioned definition of CSR. Karnani's calculation is just that -- highly limited academic equation grinding that assigns no value to CSR efforts that many corporations deploy which have nothing to do with products and pricing. Dr. Karnani's view reads like the accounting department's take on CSR. It is not (and should not be) the CEO's point of view on the multitude of benefits of CSR to his or her organization. Let's ignore for now all of the brand enhancement, reputation management, and relationship strengthening that accrues to a company that deploys a sincere CSR campaign. We'll also ignore how actually giving a hoot about something more than profit margin can help avoid little distractions like, say massive oil spills, financial malfeasance on an international level, or selling millions of diseased eggs. Instead, let's just focus on this simple declarative: I firmly believe that leaders must actually lead -- and that starts with an understanding that leadership means more than market share or sales volume.
Any successful company is, by default, a leader in its community, region, industry or ecosystem. There exists both the opportunity and obligation for these leaders to serve as a catalyst for the betterment of the communities that have helped them to success in the first place. That can take any number of forms, from mentoring and training future leaders and entrepreneurs to encouraging employees to devote work time to charitable efforts to using communications capabilities as a bully pulpit for selected causes or ideas. Less dramatically, execs and managers can stress to employees the importance of looking beyond their cubicles to see that what their company does has a direct impact on a community every day, and the impact should be as positive as possible.
Certainly, all companies have a fiduciary responsibility to a variety of stakeholders and no company will be able to conduct much of a CSR effort if it sacrifices its profit motive foolishly. But CSR also doesn't need to be the zero-sum mathematical exercise Dr. Karnani portrays it to be. And then there's that whole governmental regulation thing...nah, that's for another day.
I really do. There is something about their ecosystem that makes my skin crawl. All that tribal tramping around. All that hemp clothing. All that camping without adequate sanitation facilities. All that patchouli. And the swirly dance thing. Oy, the swirly dance thing. Really, the Dead's music is fine if you use the time allotted to the various spacejams to, say, rebuild a 1960 BSA Gold Star to concourse condition, or further your education by getting a PhD in, well, anything that takes a really long time. Actually, some of their music is legitimately great and a worthy extension of musical Americana, if the sounds are taken strictly as music and not a social movement. However, if you took the ecosystem away from the Grateful Dead, then they wouldn't be The Dead at all. They'd be a good and long-gone band. Which is what makes David Meerman Scott's and Brian Halligan's new analysis of the brilliance of the Dead's marketing "program" so insightful. DMS and BH show why The Dead -- by happy accident or direct guidance -- drew the blueprint for modern social marketing more than 30 years ago, and how this blueprint has help The Dead maintain as a thriving concern today, long after the band dissolved and the titular leader of the organization (Jerry Garcia, the Dead's Steve Jobs/Bill Gates/Zuck) left the building. I have to give it to them (the Dead, as well as David and Brian). But, at the same time, I'm working on my own messaging theory grounded in the musical universe. This will revolve around a band that, regardless of genre or musical mode, kept their message consistent, yet creative, through a variety of environmental changes and guises. More on this to come (as I make it up), but I'll just end with this question for now, "What Would Joe Strummer Do?"
President Obama offered some thoughtful, well-spoken, and Constitutionally correct remarks regarding freedom of religion in the US during the 8/13 iftar at The White House Friday night. Predictably, his bold, declarative dinner speech promptly blew up in his face and the White House is now forced into "clarification mode", which is akin to the old "I voted against it before I voted for it" dodge employed so very effectively during Sen. Kerry's self-immolating presidential campaign. In the spirit of the blog, though, let's try to pull some basic messaging lessons out of this mess (regardless where you sit on the issue itself). One: you can't add messaging "nuance" -- that fine shading and texture that can bring a pedestrian idea to life -- after the fact. It often looks highly disingenuous and rarely works in arrears, especially during a hot debate. While a message certainly can be changed over time, to do so credibly requires effort, planning and a full understanding of your audience. Two: The greater lesson here is that every leader should not only know how to lead, but also when and on what issues to deploy that leadership. Tromping a presidential brogan on the nest of fire ants that is the Lower Manhattan mosque controversy was just plain foolish -- ham-fisted and utterly tone-deaf to the tenor of public debate on the matter. There were any number of ways to effectively handle the iftar dinner speech while letting others carry Obama's point of view on the NYC mosque. While such a campaign may have taken a bit longer and required a more strategic approach to content and conduit, ultimately it would have let the President keep the Constitutional high ground while staying out of the mudslinging taking place on the hot-button topic. Cards on the table time: I voted for Obama and enthusiastically so. That said, for a man purportedly to be blessed with tremendous communications skills, I find that he tends to wade in over his head all to often and in readily avoidable ways. And that troubles me.
In the resonant words of Adm. James Stockdale, "Who am I ? Why am I here?" I'll skip the "who am I?" part for now, as I'm sure you'll come to know me and the other contributors and commentors to this blog all too well in the coming weeks and months. "Why?", however, is a relevant question. Surely, the world does not need another marketing blog. Maybe not, but I do think the fundamental notion of working out a compelling and credible message before blasting content through the innumerable communications conduits available today is radically overlooked -- and to the detriment of many a marketing effort. In the race to get social and live by the conventional wisdom that content is king, companies, organizations and individuals seem to have forgotten three necessary first steps: know what you want to say, know to whom you want to say it , and know why they should give a damn about anything you have to say anyway. With the array communications vehicles available to companies and consumers today, as well as the total lack of any "walls" between media, geographies or constituencies, clear and compelling messaging is more necessary than ever. "Message & Medium" will serve as a forum for discussion on this topic, preferably by using current or historical examples from any branch of business, culture or politics as jumping off points. Comments and discussion are highly encouraged, as are references or suggestions on related topics, blogs, sources and examples.
I hope to update the blog two or three times per week (and I guarantee that there will be more than a few entries that will have absolutely nothing to do with the main topic -- hint: football season is approaching, my iPod needs regular refreshment, Russian Imperial stout is the nectar of the gods, and I hate novelists who can't write...seriously). And I'll offer this disclosure: I am a 25-year veteran of the marketing and communications wars and, as such, I have my opinions about how to do this stuff properly. I run my own consultancy called, "Message & Medium," and I work with clients of all sizes to drink the same Kool Aid I'll be serving up here. But that doesn't mean I'm always right...even though I am...so bring it.
New blog coming and you're on pins and needles, I can just tell.