FACE TIME

Warning:  Our hackles have been raised.

Those hairs on our neck shifted upwards when we read of not-so-secret one-on-one meetings between money managers, hedge funds, and the like and public company CEOs.

Not that there’s anything wrong or illegal with the practice.  [After all, the SEC calls it “corporate access” and, though there’s some monitoring, it doesn’t breach the Regulation Fair Disclosure rule of 2000.]

Yet survey after survey of these fairly regular occasions – about 99 on average each year for public businesses, says Ipreo – demonstrates that this kind of face time allows analysts and investors to make better trading decisions and more accurate earnings forecasts.

So be it.  It’s obvious these kinds of conversations help persuade the monied occupations that a company’s stock is a worthwhile investment. 

At the same time, it allows other, external observers to gauge the tone and confidence level and body language of the CEO (or CFO).

So what we object to is not the need to present to the investment community, face to face.  No, what causes our discomfort is the not-so-equal access of the C-suite to his/her employees, the rank and file who need to understand the strategies, the changes, and, yes, the financials. 

Okay, we get it:  Executive time is precious.  But don’t employees relish and deserve regular face-to-face communications in small groups with key senior leaders?

PITCHING (and we ain't talking baseball)

What does it take to win new business these days?

As outsiders (sorta) to the process now – though we participated in the thick of agency and consulting presentations for years – we wonder:  Has it gotten any better?  Any smarter?  Any more rewarding?

Talk to a new biz person about what it takes today and they’ll say:  Relationships.  Knowing the industry – and the client.  Smart differentiation.

Hmmm:  That’s the same old, same old.  With social media and big data and ROI top of mind, are the pitches any different?

We asked a few clients, since we’re impartial observers.  It’s “no difference” in no uncertain terms. 

“It’s all about them, not us.”

“The descriptions are interminable.”

“It’s words, words, words and no dreams.”

There’s more, but we’ll stop.  What’s missing, IOHO, is an emphasis on talent – and fit.  How will the agency or consultancy pick the right talent to fuel the business?  [Note we didn’t say ‘staff’ or make any promises.  We’ve all been in the room when profiles are submitted – and those individuals have one foot outta the agency.]  What’s the management philosophy for working together:  building teams, ensuring straight talk and appropriate accountabilities, driving results as a concerted whole?  Is there a process for ironing out issues and conflicts and challenges?

One rather savvy pro suggested, a few weeks ago, that HR could add a lot to the chase.  We’d second that and say:  So can communications and design.

THE CAIN'T BRIGADE

There’s something about bad grammar that, for many of us, is way too memorable.

University professors and columnists, especially, all cry “foul” when the basic rules and regs of English writing are violated. 

Even dating site Match, after asking 5,000 users if language mattered, discovered it did.  Big time.  Eighty-eight percent of women, 75 percent of men agreed that the proper syntax was far more important in a prospective date than confidence or good teeth.  [Gnaw on that one for a while.]

Depending on who responds, the blame goes to social media, where gaffes are as common as abbreviations like ‘soups awk’ [you guess].  On the educational system … but never aimed at a particular teacher.  On contemporary “it’s gotta be Millennial” qualities like laziness, carelessness, inaccuracy, even inconsiderateness.

Let’s stop here.  And agree:  It’s our responsibility as language gurus – communicators, brand experts, marketers – to frame the dispute.  After all, there is an informal English, one that we speak and message and tweet.  Punctuation might be absent, at times.  Abbreviations, dominant.  And dialects become noticeable. 

The other practice?  Emails, memos, presentations, and all the other accoutrements of corporate and marketing and brand communications, from annual reports to Web sites.  There, though informal lingo might be present, the rest of the grammatical snafus need to be gone.

Then there’s Oklahoma’s Ado Annie …

CONVERSATIONS, UNLIMITED

Much of today’s pop non-fiction is obsessed with conversations.  That is, the lack of them.   The face-to-face type.

Blame quickly shifts to the Millennials who grew up with technology in hand.  And then extends to everyone and anyone who works for a living, over-relying on social media and smartphones, on apps and e-widgets.

Yet it ain’t all the fault of IT.  Nor can we point fingers to specific cohorts, because, truth! everyone indulges.  It’s just easier to communicate with things other than our mouths, our voices, our hearts.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, a Yale professor of computer science, half tongue in cheek and half not, proposes a Talknet for seniors.  That is, a 365/24/7 system that allows elderfolks the ability to tune into any dialogue going on around the world.  His plan is simple:  Five choices on screen, each with no more than ten participants.  Start your own conversation.  Or wait for others to leave.  Or, quite simply, listen in with computer speakers.

It’s an imaginary concept that could work, quite well, in corporate settings.  And not just for seniors.  It would train employees in the art and craft of talking.  It might be a good substitute for some learning and development courses (with apologies to those professionals).  And it could replace the communities of practice, the Yammers of the world, and corporate jam sessions (among others), helping workers realize that there’s much to be gained in connecting and relating live.

The fault, dear Brutus …

OLDIES, GOODIES ... AND TODAY

Critics love to bash the now.

Trashing the au courant simply means that, whatever the medium, whatever the solution, it can’t stand up to the tried and the true.  Like “melts in your mouth, not in your hands.”  J&J’s response to the Tylenol tamperings.  The magic of Apple fans.

We don’t buy it. 

Sure, Mad Men and the ever-increasing wave of nostalgia for past songs, themes, and content is one trend.  Yet the richnesses of our collective experiences and our tech obsessions are way diverse, and way too numerous to say “yesterday was better.”

Today is a time that calls for innovation in the face of eight-second attention spans.  It cries for strategic thinking when confronted with employees who are overloaded with messaging and conflicting priorities.  And it clamors for changes in behaviors when, on the surface, all seem calm and unperturbed.

And that’s why the now is so exhausting to those of us who try to drive actions inside and outside.  Figuring out cohorts and developing and measuring campaigns that will make that needle move are the 21^st century’s challenge.  We’ve got to juggle roles as psychologists, market researchers, brand protectors, and premier communicators to succeed.  We need to study up on learning methodologies, software programs, and visual motivation (among many other topics) to ensure that our clients and our companies work well in this confusing and complex world.

Would you have it any other way?