RSS
STORE
Step right up and place your bets. I'm taking wagers on a consulting gig I have this week. Here's the background:
On Tuesday night, I'm flying south to do a day of consulting for a large transportation company.
The day is going to be split into thirds. The first third, I'll be meeting with a bunch of people who are in charge of contributing content from their departments to the communications team. We're going to talk about how important their role is, how to find good stories, how to interview sources, and how to present the information in a way that will be most helpful to the communicators.
The second part of the day will be spent with the senior leaders of the company—about 12 people, including the CEO. Maybe. Usually, in this situations, CEOs say they will come, and then they either not show up at all, or they just sticks their heads in the room to say how important communication is before leaving to do something more important.
Finally, the last segment of the day will be spent with the VP of Communications, talking about where resources should be allocated, which vehicles need to be improved and how, and other high-level stuff.
Here's the bet: Which of these three groups do you think will be most responsible for communication breaking down at the organization? They may all be responsible in their own way . . . but which one will be the most responsible? That's the bet.
Will it be the content providers, who certainly have more important things to worry about than providing the communications team with stories?
Will it be the executives, who when it comes to communication give it a lot of lip service and nothing else?
Or will it be the communications vice president—who may be one of those executives who is a lot more interested in rubbing shoulders and kissing ass with the big dogs than actually pushing those dogs to communicate effectively with employees.
Of course, there's a fourth group: The communicators themselves. But I know they're not to blame, because they have been to my seminars, and they know how rabid I am on this subject, and they wouldn't be bringing me in if they didn't believe in my message.
So you pick. I'm even laying some odds. Here's the betting program:
Content Providers: 3:1
Executives: 2:1
Vice President of Communications: 5:1
Place your bets! I'll report the winning results Thursday morning.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Feels like Total Recall. Er, Philip K Dick?
Actually, with Steve's example it's a bit scary --- standing at the urinal...
Comments (7)
I place my bet on the Content Providers causing the breakdown for a few reasons:
1. There are too many to whip into shape.
2. They have the most narrow scope of the entire company and how its elements work together to achieve the total mission and goals. (So they're the least motivated.)
3. Most of the actual work of delivering valuable content (NOT just minimal face-value kinds of stuff) lands on these guys, who are too stretched to give it the attention it needs to be really helpful.
Posted by Carmen Ramson-Herzing | December 13, 2004 12:18 PM
Posted on December 13, 2004 12:18
I’d walk right up to the $10 window and put it all on the nose of the content providers.
Sure, there are some conscientious content providers, but by and large they have less of a stake in the communication process than the other groups.
I’m sure there have been times when you’ve stood in front of a writing class and asked the students why they chose to attend—hoping to learn their motivation so you could better address their needs during the seminar. And a least one attendee sheepishly admits that the only reason he/she is there is that their boss told them they had to attend. These folks do not make the most motivated students.
I suspect many content providers became content providers for the same reason—their boss told them to.
And with all the work everyone has on their plates, it’s unlikely that providing information to the communication group is high on their priority list—it’s just one more job they’ve gotten stuck with that they’re not getting paid for.
Even the most gung-ho content provider is often more interested in publicizing their division/department/group and getting his/her name in the publication then they are in providing information for the readers. After they’ve bragged about their department and gotten their name in the newsletter, their interest begins to wane.
So my bet goes on the content providers, although the others may give them a good run for their money.
Chuck Uckert
Posted by Chuck Uckert | December 16, 2004 11:17 AM
Posted on December 16, 2004 11:17
DATE: 12/13/2004 09:22:4P PM
I also place my bet on the content providers, for the reasons that Carmen mmentioned. However, I'll also add that, in my experience, most content providers really don't care much about actually providing content. And even those who do care don't always have much time for communications - it seems that it is often an "extra" that's been tacked on in addition to their usual duties.
Posted by Andrea Smith-Ruff | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 12/14/2004 20:25:6P PM
I vote for the VP. It's ultimately his/her responsibility. If it doesn't work, the buck stops there.
Posted by Shari Spiewak | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 12/15/2004 03:95:5P PM
My experience follows with what Carmon and Andrea said. I vote for the content providers. They are in the trenches closest to what's happening and can offer real insight, however they usually are too busy to deal with the responsibilty, which is not part of their "normal" job descriptions. Then I would vote for the VPs who don't typically promote communication down through the ranks.
Posted by Mark DiJulio | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 12/15/2004 28:35:5P PM
It's got to be the content providers for all the reasons listed above. They're up to their kiesters just getting their own stuff done and aren't likely to see communications as part of their job. If they do provide content, the quality is usually poor -- either too technical for the average employee to understand or skewed in ways that don't enlighten readers on what's really going on
Posted by John Strickler | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 12/16/2004 40:14:1P PM
I would have been with you guys, too. I would have bet on the content providers. But they aren't doing a half-bad job. And they really appreciated the training we did with them, and I think they're going to get even better. They're never going to be ace reporters/writers . . . but when something is going down in their department, the communicators will hear about it, I think. And if everyone in their department has the same questions about something, those questions will make their way to communications, too.
The smart money was on the content providers . . .but a longshot came out of nowhere to take the prize. The COO . . . who would have thought? It's amazing to me how one highly placed individual can so influence an entire culture . . .even if he's not the top dog.
Steve
Posted by steve | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30