Here's one from an industry group I belong to. I might not have spent a minute on it had I not lately be harboring the impression that the vast majority of PR noise out there may be computer-generated with little human intervention whatsoever. Or maybe it's just little humans intervening. Whatever. So here are the questions --
"How important is it for a PR practitioner to be creative? And is it possible to learn creativity?"
So you see why I was stopped by this. It's so bloody simple. Who is asking this question? Is this a dissatisfied client of one of those "I'm bigger than you are" pan-galactic agencies? Is this a young aspirant terrified that he or she is too boring and might not be able to make it in the cut-throat world of PR without The P.T. Barnum Muse?[now, that is absolutely ridiculous and flies in the face of everything we know about the PR industry!]. Or is this just a totally innocent question? That's probably what it is.
Better not get into the PR business if you are not inventive, understand people, know your consumers and target audiences, know your competition, are great with language, and are a student of trends and the media that transmit them. Every day there is more chaotic "communication" and because our heads would explode if we paid attention to all of it (pure animal threat to survival), only certain "relevant" things are recalled. Do you have any idea how many press releases, pitches, pings, and cold phone calls most serious journalists have to deal with every day? Great creative people have always worked hard at their craft -- perspiration before inspiration. Kids don't want to hear this. They'll have a great "creative" idea with no point whatsoever. Hey, that's what they see every day!
Skills are absolutely necessary but that won't always make someone creative. Imitation is flattery but more often flat, dull, and annoying. I call them "low yield derivatives". And on the other hand, a lot of highly inventive PR and marketing/advertising people just start out in the wrong profession. One of the best PR people I ever worked with came from the Finance department of a huge corporation. His PR work was completely instinctive, sometimes counter-intuitive, inspiring and brilliant. Go figure.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
What We Need is No Communications!
“What we need is no communications!”
In my roles heading communications functions for various companies, I’ve actually run into this a few times. In countering this sort of thing from CEO’s or unit leaders, I haven’t felt compelled to justify my job as much as try and understand where this is coming from and apply some hard-won experience in the form of guidance and counsel.
Sometimes this is simply sticker shock from costs associated with the communications function. Of course, it all depends on what the communications strategy and goals are. It really helps if whoever is the purse-holder knows something about the role that communications can play in furthering the business objectives of the company, or as is often the case, defending them. At any rate communications doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg unless there is some big ticket goal, like creating awareness of a brand or a company in a short period of time. Or some monster situation that needs some triage.
In another case, the executive who expressed this to a disbelieving audience of communications staff at a large company later confessed that what he meant was that employees in marketing and sales should spend more face time with customers. This opened an interesting can of worms and I didn’t hesitate to help extract them all. This company had no codified brand values, no view on what the company and its products meant to the customer, no formal customer satisfaction feedback process, no customer involvement in product development, no employee satisfaction surveys, it had a largely invisible business strategy which about 3 employees knew anything about, a succession of CEOs two of whom didn’t really like to talk to people, no identity that no two employees or customers could describe in anything like the same words, suppliers that had little communication from the company other than complaints, a few sticky lawsuits and threatening legislation in the wings, and not a few confused investors. Other than that, everything was great. So of course what we need is no communications. And what is the point of having more face time with customers if things are that wormy.
The company was actually quite decent, albeit complacent in the extreme. And since it was in the healthcare industry, it could claim to be helping people get on with their lives.
Some would say that most of this is none of the business of the communications function. Surely it would be OK to say “it’s not my job”. Or “my life is miserable enough”. Or “who cares, as long as I have a job”.
I’m curious -- as a professional communicator what‘s your view? And what might you have done or recommended in a situation like this?
[Next installment: I’ll tell you what I did . . . and decant another True Adventure from the "What We Need is No Communications!" file]
In my roles heading communications functions for various companies, I’ve actually run into this a few times. In countering this sort of thing from CEO’s or unit leaders, I haven’t felt compelled to justify my job as much as try and understand where this is coming from and apply some hard-won experience in the form of guidance and counsel.
Sometimes this is simply sticker shock from costs associated with the communications function. Of course, it all depends on what the communications strategy and goals are. It really helps if whoever is the purse-holder knows something about the role that communications can play in furthering the business objectives of the company, or as is often the case, defending them. At any rate communications doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg unless there is some big ticket goal, like creating awareness of a brand or a company in a short period of time. Or some monster situation that needs some triage.
In another case, the executive who expressed this to a disbelieving audience of communications staff at a large company later confessed that what he meant was that employees in marketing and sales should spend more face time with customers. This opened an interesting can of worms and I didn’t hesitate to help extract them all. This company had no codified brand values, no view on what the company and its products meant to the customer, no formal customer satisfaction feedback process, no customer involvement in product development, no employee satisfaction surveys, it had a largely invisible business strategy which about 3 employees knew anything about, a succession of CEOs two of whom didn’t really like to talk to people, no identity that no two employees or customers could describe in anything like the same words, suppliers that had little communication from the company other than complaints, a few sticky lawsuits and threatening legislation in the wings, and not a few confused investors. Other than that, everything was great. So of course what we need is no communications. And what is the point of having more face time with customers if things are that wormy.
The company was actually quite decent, albeit complacent in the extreme. And since it was in the healthcare industry, it could claim to be helping people get on with their lives.
Some would say that most of this is none of the business of the communications function. Surely it would be OK to say “it’s not my job”. Or “my life is miserable enough”. Or “who cares, as long as I have a job”.
I’m curious -- as a professional communicator what‘s your view? And what might you have done or recommended in a situation like this?
[Next installment: I’ll tell you what I did . . . and decant another True Adventure from the "What We Need is No Communications!" file]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)