What the hell is "strategy"? Doesn't it mean "finding ways to achieve the results we want"?

At what point did so-called "communicators" decide to disregard decades of scientific research about CONCRETE ASPECTS of communication such as readability and memorability and attractiveness to readers (font style, font size, white space, design, compelling writing, etc.)?

Today, these aspects matter so little to "communicators" and their bosses that they are tacked on in the final half-hour of the process by people whose skills the "communicators" never bothered to learn. I call it, "Let Jane put the lipstick and high heels on the document/ad/article and then let's publish by noon."

Not that I'm bitter....

I agree. In over a decade in the profession, I've yet to meet anyone else who is a writer first and foremost. I've been lucky enough in both of my communications jobs to carry the title "writer" and nothing else. Sure, it's a part-time job, but spending 20 hours a week just writing for employee communications doesn't seem to be an option for most of the folks I meet. They're doing PR, employee awards banquets, and spending a scant few hours on writing. Sad but true.

Sad but true, indeed. This has definitely given me pause, particularly since I'm spending far too much time today managing my way through unproductive corporate crap. I became a communicator because I fell in love with writing, not because I thought I could "proactively drive engagement" or "help manage change." I've spent more years than I'd care to remember working for "communication managers" who earned their stripes in other areas of the company and apparently thought communications would be a neat change of pace, but yet couldn't string together two coherent sentences. I crave a good story, and realize again this morning that I long for more time to write them. Heavy sigh.

Jane, I don't know when it happened, but it happened gradually, amid chuckling jokes in the business that derided communicators' craft as trivia: "Hey, the CEO doesn't care about the effective use of white space."

And communicators wanted to get closer to the CEO so they wanted to care more about what the CEO cared about, and they found themselves unable to simultaneously think and talk about abstractions like "message drivers" and the stuff Don complains about here, and kerning and leading and picas and fonts.

So they left the design entirely to the designers (not a good idea), the photography to the photographers (which disconnected photography from the message and made it almost extinct) and the writing to ... well, to themselves. But since they don't have time and love to give to writing, their writing generally has all the character of the directions on a microwave dinner.

And now they're STILL complaining that management doesn't value what they do.

Only the question now is: WHAT DO THEY DO?

Just for starters:

We need to admit we were wrong to try to whore our way to a seat at the table.

Then we need to make sure that these things we mourn--excellent writing, design, and photography--actually DO communicate better and aren't just objects of nostalgia for us.

If we were right and our way *is* more effective, we need to prove it to the head shed. One way is to come up with numbers for them. Another would be to encourage writers, designers, and photographers at the top of their game--popular experts that people listen to--to be vocal about the disastrous effects of the dumbing-down and uglying-up of communication.

Those of us who have struck out on our own for whatever reason need to remember that we're in charge now. We need to do the kind of stellar work we never felt we were allowed to do when we worked for the Man.

And then we all need to get even better at what we do and have such fun with it that young communicators want to be just like us.

I must be a rebel (quel surprise!) because, like Eileen and Jane, I am first and foremost a writer, and damn proud to say so to anyone who asks (and even a few people who don't).

Here's the thing - everything else is a waste of time if the writing isn't there. People respond to simple, clear, well written (forgive me) messages. Do: "I have a dream" or "Ask not what your country can do for you" ring a bell? I'd imagine there was some (again forgive me) "strategizing" and "change-intent" behind both those speeches but we still remember them and for many people, they still touch or inspire us, not because some exec was pontificating about "the strategy" but because they connected with us as human beings, which is always the best (sometimes the only) way to REALLy convince people to do, or not do, something.

The writing is the foundation, like it or not, everything else is window-dressing, and I'm with everybody here - we gotta fight for the right to spend the time to get the writing right.

>>If we were right and our way *is* more effective, we need to prove it to the head shed. One way is to come up with numbers for them.<<

Careful Jane, you are advocating that people become accountable for the results of their work. I've harbored a suspicion for years that the reasons many communicators, writers, designers, photographers, .et .al, perpetuate
the "black art" aspect of their craft is to avoid just such accountability.

It's easier on the ego to claim that the "suits" just don't get it, don't understand the creative process and it's inherent value (because they don't have a creative bone/thought in their body) and that it can't be measured on a balance sheet like pieces of equipment.

It's also useful to foster a superiority self image and dismiss/balance the fact that they make more money and have a better parking spot.

Everybody just take a breath.

I think we're getting ourselves all worked up over nothing.

No, I don't mean writing is not important. Far from it (as I'll explain in a moment). Neither am I suggesting that we should ignore design principles. Each of these is an important tool of our trade.

BUT....

CEOs really DON'T care about the tasteful use of whitespace. And yes, I'm one of those consultants and conference presenters who has said that out loud and will continue to say it because it's true. No matter how much we want business leaders to love and appreciate us for our art, they rarely do. And, in fact, when they think of us simply as artists, our life expectancy in their organizations takes a deep plunge.

And that's the reason for the rise in popularity of conference sessions and workshops about "how to be a strategist." We had to learn to speak the language of business so that our craft skills would be taken seriously. The problem is, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction and many of the young 'uns in our profession got the idea that strategic thinking was all that mattered. So they stopped paying attention to their writing and design skills. That was a mistake.

The truth is, we need it all. I've been saying it for many years -- there is a golden middle ground in which we must operate. David thinks I'm an anti-tactic/pro-strategy guy, but I'm really not. And here's proof: in my own "Intro to PR" classes that I teach, and in a guest-speaking gig at Towson University this week (at Les Potter's invitation), I've told students that the #1 skill they need to succeed as a communicator is the ability to write. And I believe #2 is the ability to think (and act) strategically.

Also on my list, by the way, was to master whatever tactical skills their jobs require.

The reason we don't see many conference sessions on writing and design is because the market has not demanded it for the last 5-10 years or so. But I would be first in line to do a session on how to make your writing shine. That's where it all starts. The rest is context.

Robert

I recently (not recently enough for my taste!) did a short-lived stint editing an online magazine. One of the regular contributors was a self-styled "artiste." When I edited her work, she pitched a fit. When I tried to talk to her about such Comp 101 concepts as run-on sentences, paragraph length, logical flow of ideas, and keeping the audience in mind, I got what amounted to, "I am an artist. Back off."

To which I responded: "When you're doing your art, do it your way, but when you're working for someone else, that enterprise is in charge. If you can't write like a professional and aren't willing to be edited, you have no business writing for publication." I don't think she ever got it.

Obviously, no communicator should position himself or herself as an "artist." If what communicators do doesn't help the bottom line directly or indirectly, the head shed has a duty to fire our sorry asses. I think we went wrong when we bought into the bean-counters' definition of "affecting the bottom line" instead of finding other logical ways to show management that we're helping the company meet its goals.

And that begs the question: ARE we helping the company meet its goals? DO we know what we're doing? If the boss called us in and asked for three good reason why we shouldn't be pink-slipped, would we know those reasons?

>>And that begs the question: ARE we helping the company meet its goals? DO we know what we're doing? If the boss called us in and asked for three good reason why we shouldn't be pink-slipped, would we know those reasons?<<

Excellent questions! I smell a day-long workshop idea in the making that starts with these questions as the intro and then helps participants develop the justifications and measurement programs necessary to answer these questions and demonstrate impact to the company.

Craig: sign me up--to teach it or take it!

Jane

Sign me up, too (to teach or to take or both)!

Showing our impact on the bottom line is not wrong in and of itself. It's important, however, to know which stuff to point to.

Jane, I have been amazed at how many of my students have gotten bent out of shape over my editing/critiquing of their writing. Amazing.

If you can't stand being edited, you shouldn't be in the writing business to begin with.

Robert

Jane and Robert -

The $64,000 question, of course, then becomes, "Would anyone (besides the 3 of us) actually want to attend? While communicators like to whine about not getting taken seriously, or [gag] getting a seat at the table, etc., etc., how many actually do anything about it? How many want to? Or is whiney bitching more fun as a spectator sport?

Nearly a decade ago Bill Sweetland was jazzed up to have me deliver a presentation at a Ragan conference on tying communications programs to the bottom-line. I started off by level setting the audience with key terms & definitions about how companies look at ROI and received a great deal of push back from the audience. One quote I will always remember,..."We all know it's important, but I'm not an accountant....never intended to be...stop wasting our time with jargon and get to things we can do with communications!"

Needless to say this Einstein and everyone else in the audience because quickly lost without the context and I got slammed in the reviews. And since speaker reviews determined if you got asked to speak at future events, that was my last Ragan appearance (despite the fact that just 2 months earlier I was ranked the #1 speaker at the IABC Canada conference).

So, someone would have to make a VERY strong argument - or pay very well - to convince me to waste any time developing/participating in a session such as this. I'm not convinced communicators as a whole have the smarts or interest for the subject matter.

All--

I think the reason communicators are not interested in this subject is their perspective is:

• The company hired me to do a communication job (I did not create it).

• The company is not letting me do that job the best way I or my colleagues know how.

• So what you recommend is me spending lots of time don't have and energy that's been drained out of me justifying my existence to the company that hired me and is underutilizing me?

Right or wrong, that is where most communicators come from, I think. It might have been why you got a rude reception, Craig. As a communicator, you know as well as anyone you've got to meet an audience where it lives.

Well, this is where communicators live. If we all agree that communication needs a more explicit connection to the corporate strategy, how might we sell this seminar to communicators?

David

David,

Granted and I tried talking Bill out of the session but he was adament. Then, when it filled up it made me pause to reconsider; perhaps I was mistaken. But no, communicators reverted to type.

Look, I don't advocate trying to turn communicators into something they aren't. It just makes my bbood boil when they hold a pitty party and complain that the world isn't fair and they are soooo misunderstood yet aren't prepared to put in the time and/or change their skillsets to change their positions.

I mean I will probably never earn as much, or have as much influence as a Fortune 500 CEO but I'm not crying in my beer over it since I'm not willing to make the sacrifices and spend the time it takes to make it to that position.

Um, sorry, forgot to answer your question:

>>If we all agree that communication needs a more explicit connection to the corporate strategy, how might we sell this seminar to communicators?<<

Rhetorical question: do most communicators really believe that they should have an explicit connection to the corporate strategy? How many understand corporate strategy and/or have experience developing it and/or (and this is big) enjoy corporate strategy development?

I contend that only a few really understand it, get jazzed up by it, and are willing to undertake what's necessary to contribute value to the cause and would be willing to attend a seminar of this type. But they'll all bitch about not having a seat at the table.

My prediction: one in 10 or less is the market for this type of session.

Yes, Craig, you've got a point, though I think your Communication Sadsack Person, while based on a real woman or man, is also partially stuffed with straw.

I'm with Craig in that I believe communicators demean themselves when they whine. I also know a lot of them who aren't willing to learn some basic business concepts or learn to DO a little math in order to measure their contributions--these folks have absolutely NO right to whine.

HOWEVER (do you hear my big "but monkey" approaching?):
Measurement, even if you know how to do it, takes staff time and costs money. How many CEOs are willing to pay for the collection of the figures they'd like to receive from communicators?

And how many CEOs disrespect or fire hard-working employees because they aren't "profit centers"--but hire their own worthless nephews and give them corner offices, or allow sycophantic dead wood to hang around for years, or play very fast and very loose with their own expense accounts?

It probably seems like I'm getting off-subject here, but my point is this: CEOs, if you're going to be bottom-line-focused, BE bottom-line-focused, dammit. Tell us the rules; then it's our job to play by them. It will be good for you and good for us. But don't play bullshit games with us.

Jane, in that last post you've addressed the biggest canard in our business: That CEOs make all their decisions by the numbers.

IT'S NONSENSE.

If communicators want to spend 35 percent of their time measuring 65 percent of the work, so be it. Maybe that works for them, and in their organization.

But I just got back from Southwest Airlines, and those communicators don't spend nearly that kind of time justifying their results. They have the guts to go by their guts. They KNOW what they're doing. And top management knows too.

A communicator geek asked the head of operations for a big Motorola division what percentage of his business success was created by communication.

His answer: "I don't know and I don't care."

A lot of execs are like that. His communicators would be wasting their time doing any measurement that wasn't absolutely necessary to their own ability to communicate. Measurement for any other reason is often absolutely useless.

>>His answer: "I don't know and I don't care."<<

Until the market turns south...or customers turn away...or competitors start eating his/her company's market share and the board starts asking for reduction in spending, i.e., minimizing FTE's. S/he better have some plausible answer as to what the communications function delivers to the company and why it is being spared headcount reduction vs. other functions.

"Don't know, don't care" isn't an approach that would go over very well with any corporate BOD members or outside investors that I've met over the years.

What's more the 35/65 percent argument is a red herring used all to often to justify not doing anything. "It would take so much time to measure, cost so much and produce no definitive answers that it would take away from what we were hired to do."

You know what? I think most intelligent senior managers recognizes the complexity of measuring communications to determine a definitive cause and effect. But I have also found that they respect and admire a well thought out measurement plan that proves you've thought about a) what needs to be measured, b) determined how to collect the data and c) you provide some valuable analysis of what the data is telling you and what should be done as result.

And given the tools available today, this type of research can be done fairly easily and inexpensively.

I think it was very interesting a few years back that Thomas Stewart, senior editor for Fortune, in one of his management books in which we spoke to corporate CEOs described corporate communicators as a group "...have learned a complicated set of ropes but don't pull the strings, such as skilled factory workers, experienced secretaries, or people who hold staff jobs such as quality assurance, auditing or corporate communications. They may be hard to replace and doing important work, but it's not work customers care about."

It might not be right, and I think everyone would agree that all companies should be as enlightened as Southwest Airlines. But the reality is that they are the exception. Most in corporate management I'm afraid, adhere to the philosphy closer to what Stewart outlined in his book, which is not surprising since he interviewed corporate execs as to what they valued in their organzizations.

Communicator's conferences love to trout out these exceptions which help perpetuate the dream, "If they can do it, why can't we?" Unfortunately in many cases people come back from these conferences and run into the cold, hard wall of reality.

It's the "In Search for Excellence" paradox. Many companies that paid mega bucks for Tom Peters to address their employees back in his heyday had morale tank in the aftermath when nothing fundamentally changed that would enable them to achieve what he preached.

"I think most intelligent senior managers recognizes the complexity of measuring communications to determine a definitive cause and effect. But I have also found that they respect and admire a well thought out measurement plan that proves you've thought about a) what needs to be measured, b) determined how to collect the data and c) you provide some valuable analysis of what the data is telling you and what should be done as result."

Well said, Craig. We're definitely coming together here.

I agree, Craig. Well said.

Those are exactly the things to which I steer clients who come to me and my business partner for communication measurement.

Measurement programs, by the way, are just like any other kind of communication activity. There are people who will waste your time and money and deliver something that's worthless, and there are people who have made it their business to understand it inside and out and will deliver great value for the investment.