Don't let the inmates run the asylum!
I have a new column in IABC's member publication, Communication World. It's going to be devoted to employee publications, which is my absolute, number-one favorite topic in the world . . . other than my son, food, wine, live music, martinis, travel, the Cubs, boating, and some stuff I can't talk about on a family blog.
The first column, which just hit the stands (figuratively speaking, I mean; last I checked Communication World hasn't carved out any real estate at my local newsstand) is about readership surveys.
I'm not a big fan of them . . . at least the way most people carry them out. I see too many surveys each year that ask readers to weigh in on things like format, frequency, length of stories, design, etc.
I just don't believe that editors should be asking their audience for advice on those matters? Why not? For the same reason the IT folks don't come to us for advice on how to increase the bandwidth on their Local Area Network . . . or whatever it is that IT people do when they're not playing computer games on company time.
In fact, no other profession in the entire organization asks employees to tell them how to do their job. Except for us. The communicators. And we wonder why we don't get any respect.
Think about it. When you ask engineers, accountants, shop stewards, bank tellers, IT people, and other employees questions about format and frequency and design, you are taking them out of their area of expertise . . . and sending the subtle message that you really don't know what the hell you're doing.
Do you really want an accountant telling you how to design your print publication? Have you ever met an accountant who knew a lick about design? (Have you ever met an accountant who knew anything about anything other than how to pick apart your expense report while drooling on his shirt?)
Do you really want a union shop steward telling you how often your e-mail newsletter should come out? Or how often you should update the intranet news page?
Do you want someone in HR (which in many organizations stands for 'Horrible Riting') rating the quality of the writing in your publications?
Bottom line: Those folks don't ask us for advice on how to do their jobs. We shouldn't ask them for help doing ours.
Comments (6)
Sing it, brotha.
The survey we did asked those exact questions. I remember telling my boss "I want to see the English degrees on each and every one of these people who gets to rate the quality of my writing." It was excruciating.
I will definitely save this post to show the Powers That Be before we send out another survey.
Posted by Meredith | January 19, 2005 11:58 AM
Posted on January 19, 2005 11:58
I think the best measurement is done BEFORE anything is written. By polling employees proactively, you're asking then questions about which they are experts -- themselves. Meaning, ask them what questions they have about a strategy, or why they think, for example, accident claims have increased. Their answers help you tap into the grapevine and make your material more relevant.
Posted by Carmen Ramson-Herzing | January 20, 2005 10:22 AM
Posted on January 20, 2005 10:22
Shel has a good point, but there are three questions you can ask that DO matter:
(a) this piece is supposed to (insert purpose); does it?
(b) was it worth the time you spent reading it?
(c) what changes would make it more worthwhile?
Posted by Tim Hicks | March 25, 2005 10:52 AM
Posted on March 25, 2005 10:52
DATE: 01/19/2005 10:32:7P PM
Hi, Sonya!! Do you get Communication World? Are you in IABC? If so, I have seven or eight outcome questions in the column. If you don't, e-mail me directly to my address above and I'll attach the column so you can check it out.
Way to go with the photos!!!! And Meredith . . . I love your idea about checking credentials on people who are going to critique your writing. What a disaster those types of surveys usually are.
Steve
Posted by steve crescenzo | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/19/2005 61:54:8P PM
Dave Orman always told me there's another problem with readership surveys: The only people who ever respond to them are you readers. All those people who shitcan the publication without cracking the cover? You'll never hear from them, so you'll never find out why.
Posted by Shel Holtz | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/25/2005 10:14:5P PM
I'm late in responding to this one because the ragan servers have been so s-l-o-w. It's killing me.
Steve, the reason IT people don't ask for your input is because we're smarter than you! And we're not playing computer games on company time, we're surfing the net looking for interesting blogs, writing our own interesting blogs, or participating in other people's interesting blogs (i.e. what I'm doing right now)...sometimes we're even, dare I say it, making the systems better for our users, though they wouldn't notice because they're too busy playing solitaire or using the company email to confirm that purchase they just made on ebay.
:)
Be nice, or I'll have them weaken your martinis.
Posted by rebecca | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30