MINDING OUR STORIES

With stories now becoming the center of what we do, everyone has an opinion about best ways, best techniques, best values.

Visual storytellers insist on incorporating principles like authenticity, relevancy, sensory and archetype.

Community organizers, long-time astute power users of tales, propose three interlocking circles:  the story of self, the story of now, and the story of us.

And (not to be forgotten) corporate types espouse messaging and expression as part of a strategy that considers goal and audience front and center.

To be honest, everyone’s right.  And wrong.

A brain researcher (Princeton neuroscientist Uri Hasson, to be precise) is showing us new ways to think about creating compelling narratives. 

Which is:  It’s all about how our brains react and respond to stories. 

In a series of incredibly complicated analyses and tests, he and his team reveal that different people respond in remarkably similar ways to great stories, no matter what the media.  Using MRIs and other medical technologies, the scientists prove that the best of storytellers have gotten into our minds and altered them in some predictable ways.  Even better:  That the storyteller somehow makes the listener’s/viewer’s brain match his/her own.

You heard it here first:  We predict soon we’ll be taking our ads, messaging, and digital promos to the docs for brain imagery … not just copy-testing.

MEET-OCRACY

Wherever you sit in your career, pros and cons of that position abound.

As consultants and entrepreneurs, we talk about such intangibles as flexibility and availability, in general, and relish our freedom from corporate doings like meetings and mandated forms et al.  [Though, trust us, meetings are de rigueur for many of our long-time clients, especially on short-term initiatives.]

So we were intrigued by a to-be-published book that, in part, took a new bead on meetings and corporate governance, in general.  Based on the notion that organizations are best governed by a constitution and roles (not titles), Holacracy is, for sure, an idea that some will find eminently practical.  And some, not.

Ahem:  About the meeting section, to ‘triage’ issues (author Brian Robertson calls them ‘tensions’).  There are three practices we particularly admire:

• The check-in and closing rounds.  One person at a time shares her/his present mindset, distractions included.  Upfront.  With no interruptions.  Similarly, the meeting’s end allows each individual to reflect on the time just spent.
• Agenda building – together.  Why not ask participants to tee up one issue apiece – during the meeting?  It forces everyone to mull over those problems that are most immediate, most important.
• The ask – what do you need?  Haven’t we all been taught about the WIIFMs … in terms of communicating, promoting, advertising, and so on?  This gets right to the heart of the issue, and helps all feel accomplished and motivated by the meeting’s outcomes. 

There’s more, obviously.  After all, re-arranging your meeting might be easier to implement than asking leaders to be guided by a new organizational constitution. 

AN E-SALUTE ... AND WE MEAN IT!

In our never-ending search to make things simple, we forgot to tap one important audience:  The military.

What jogged our memory was American Sniper, quickly followed by the “Joining Forces” program FLOTUS and Dr. Jill Biden rolled out a few years back, asking employers not to diminish the skills of returning veterans.  To celebrate their accomplishments and recognize talents by providing job opportunities.  And to understand that, believe it or not, entrepreneurialism is baked into officer training.

Then one acronym caught our attention as civilians (and, yes, as communicators and marketers and the like):  SMESC, or situation-mission-execution-support-command. 

These five words serve as the foundation for a five-paragraph (no more!) plan that aids decision making.  It begins with the problem described and the ultimate strategy, articulated.  The next three paragraphs, in order, talk to tactics, the kinds of logistics and e-stuff needed, and the involvement of other audiences and organizations.

Done correctly, it’s a one-pager that dramatically states “we’re taking care of this.”  It could morph into a five-part infographic that visualizes the action intended, with just a few words.  And it’s a great sales piece for leaders and managers to use in socializing tangible plans for a sometimes intangible function in the corporation, helping everyone understand exactly how results will be realized.

Now all we have to do is think of a slightly different way to remember the veterans’ mnemonic  - Sargeant Major Eats Sugar Cookies. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL THINGS OF LIFE

Of late, we’ve been pondering intangible stuff.

Like authenticity, truthfulness, honesty, and so on.

And figuring out how, exactly, it relates to what we do.

This millennium’s writers are similarly obsessed, whether it has to do with temptation or excess or authenticity.  Our wonderment, though, concerns less of the weighty observations (i.e., ‘what’s the world coming to?’ ‘where did we stray?’) in favor of the how to identify and embed sincerity:  techniques for spotting; methods for infusing speeches, videos, even annual reports with the straight stuff; and ways to differentiate between the different kinds of truths.  [And yes, Virginia, there are many; it just depends on the side you’re representing.]

After all, we specialize in framing and creating those conversations.  It’s important to us that our readers, our audiences, our viewers understand that we’re being as sincere as we can be.  It’s somewhat easy to see if a speaker is disingenuous; body language, tone, and style are usually the give-aways.  It’s not that easy to see through emails and emojis and Internet copy to determine the truth-telling factor.  Sincerity is more than the facts; it’s a cinch to validate those.  Rather, it’s the communication’s intent and its desire to not deceive, to not boast, to be clear and honest in its content that has us thinking. 

Many writers in past centuries would have pooh-poohed our quest; it was Oscar Wilde who said, “a little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.”  Truth – or dare?

WHAT WE LEARNED FROM UNCLE SAM ... (AND THE QUEEN)

A slightly improved  ‘please pay your taxes’ letter netted the U.K. 15 percent in unexpected revenues.

A ten percent cut in military energy expenditures was predicted when processes were changed in mid-air refueling, in vehicle usage, and in equipment handling.

And for many years, experts have stated that highway speeds of 60 mph, reduced from 70 mph, would save 2 percent of all U.S. household energy.

Common sense?  Well, sorta.  Within the relatively new discipline of behavioral science, changes in human actions and reactions can account for some amazing results.  And though in many cases academics rule  this philosophy and these procedures, it’s we as communicators and marketers and designers who make transitions happen.

Think with us here as we expostulate on three of ‘their’ principles:

• Frame the change in language that appeals to the audience.  Hmmm:  Ever send the same message to front-line customer service reps as you would to an R&D organization?
• There’s a bias towards the status quo.  Benefits folks will swear on a stack of comp statements that the choice to opt out of a new program yields a higher number of recruits than making an active choice … or opting in.
• Make it easy.  We favor checklists, fill in the blanks, almost anything that’s a snap to finish and send.

A few years ago, the U.K.’s Behavioral Insights Team, with a budget of a mill or so (in US $$), performed so well that the government now mandates behavioral science as a civil servant course.  Business, take notes!