STRAIGHT TALK, SORTA

In this year of unspeakable campaigning-for-POTUS tumult, there’s been lots of conversation around spin.  Who has it.  Who uses it well (and who doesn’t).  Why they say what they say – and the gurus behind it.  And, yes, if the public knows it’s being manipulated.

Get real.

First, know that spin – the deliberate crafting of words and images for political effect – has been around since the early Greek orators honed their rhetoric to arouse and persuade.  Since Kings and Queens took forever to decide on a particular portrait or silhouette.  And since Teddy Roosevelt’s primitive press conferences or séances, when he’d ask six or 12 reporters to join him over a shave and food.

Second, John and Jane Q. Public have a good sense of the inauthentic and the dishonest, the promotions and the scripted laugh lines.  Behind unreadable exteriors (despite what pollsters say), Americans have a terrific capacity to resist spin, seeking and trusting the agreeable in very logical reasoning.  

And sad but true:  We’ve become immune to spin, since it surrounds us daily.  Via advertising in all media.  Through content marketing that pretends to be impartial and not devoted to specific brands and companies.   Even inside companies, when executives run town halls and informal chats, the words don’t always resonate.

Do we need a 21^st century Diogenes?

MINE EYES HAVE SEEN ...

Six billion every day.

No, not McDonald’s burgers, but emojis sent and received via the world’s two-plus billion smartphones.

Advocates (and there are many, with tops being ad agencies) claim these little pictures emulate our feelings and the expressions and gestures we use talking with others in face-to-face conversations.

Still others who have plumbed the psychology of these stimulations du jour insist they’re changing our speech patterns and expressing our authentic selves – our interests, our reactions, even innuendoes. 

We don’t buy it.

Though this trend started in the ‘90s and gained steam of late, thanks to marketers like Coke and Dove, Bud Light and Starbucks (among others), it’s simply another way for us not to talk – and, by extension, not to understand each other. 

Sure, it promotes our brain’s desire for visual communications.  And it’s definitely a convenient shorthand to capture one, maybe two emotions.  But even those frequent users insist that there are clear rules for campaigning with these Japanese little pictures:

1. Know your audience’s emoji usage habits, like age, location, and gender
2. Identify the most common emojis and
3. Know how the audience speaks.

Hmm.  So if we truly studied our target audience’s speaking patterns, as number three recommends, wouldn’t it be easier to just, er, talk with them?

DIAMOND RINGS NOT NEEDED

The gurus have spoken.

These days, employee engagement is down.  Way down.  Gallup says only 30 percent of workersare motivated; Bain, that engagement is lowest in the customer-contact tiers of the company.

Of course, blame is everywhere.  At leaders, for wearing rose-tinted glasses (McKinsey’s organizational health index).  At the lack of emotional bonding between employees and work.  And at the lack of “walking the talk” among senior executives.

No one agrees on the solution.  “Engagement cascades from the top,” trumpets one org health scientist.  Middle managers should have the tools and wherewithal to shape engagement, insists another.  Teams are the answer, claims yet another expert.

Why not do two simple things:  Ask – and listen well?  We’ve found employees are more than willing to share opinions and ideas … 

If. They. Know. They’ll. Be. Listened. To. 

Believe it or not, many care … and actively want to improve wherever they “live” for 40+ hours a week.  One of our recent information sessions, for example, gathered 75+ percent response, great insights, and lots of volunteers for a discretionary, extra-hours-after-work program.

But a caveat:  When you ask, then it’s incumbent to tell.  Share the findings, whether at a high or expansive level.  Have groups of workers examine the data and draw some conclusions … and remedies.  Or assign the task to frontline supervisors and teams.  You’ll find that kind of participation reaps not only engagement but also is much less expensive than the traditional diamond solutions.

WE'RE SO SORRY: WHY ROBOTS WON'T WIN

The notion that an apology has two parts is rooted in its art and science.

In its art, it’s all about delivery, the way someone says the two words … sincerely and with empathy.  [Psychologists often recommend offering a hug, a donation to a favorite charity, even the top ten reasons … to make the delivery more human, more real.] 

Its science has more to do with content than its flair, from ensuring that “I’m sorry” refers to the same situation to a promise not to do it again.

Those on the receiving side, believe it or not, treasure the response.  A 2009 study from the University of Nottingham School of Economics, offering complainers words or cash, found that almost 50 percent preferred the apology.  Over pure hard cash.

Yet, despite our knowledge that the more humane we get, the better, many businesses, groaning under the onslaught of customer complaints, turn to software as an answer.   In the past, companies did resort to an automatic responder who garbled the language in making amends for some mishap.  Airlines have been a prime culprit, er, user.  Fliers were often taken aback, insulted, and even felt minimized when the computer spit out a rote or form letter.  And they often voted with their credit cards.

Today, hundreds of customer care agents work for U.S. airlines and other merchants and service purveyors, trained well in how to say “I’m sorry” in real life. 

Proof that human “mea culpas” are best.

EVERYONE'S A CRITIC ... OR WRITER ... OR DESIGNER ...

Thank you, film critic A.O. Scott of The New York Times, for your elegant introduction to the art of criticism.

So, as is our habit, we’ll riff on your title, and apply it to our everyday business activities.

Straight out:  Regardless of our position as communicators, brand gurus, designers, marketers, and the like, and regardless of our industry tenure, criticism does rankle when coming from clients (who are not necessarily writers or …).  Scott does point out that judging work is an indispensable activity, and often a democratic and conversational one.  Yet sometimes the criticism is delivered a bit too sharply and gets under our creative skins.

On the other hand, our clients pay for our best work – and criticism, pundits say, must be calculated into the compensation.  Much like the system of performance management in companies, we’re suggesting that when drafts and storyboards are reviewed, the reviewers remember that criticism is based on a social relationship.  Herewith our ‘asks’ for our critics.  Ideally, your rendered judgments need to be:

• Timely
• Brief and succinct
• Relevant and to the point
• Clear, specific, and precise
• Well researched
• Sincere and positively intended and
• Articulate, persuasive, and actionable.

Which means, from our point of view, that you assess work fairly and accurately, with no blame.  For sure, we can fix anything – and will.  It makes it a lot easier when the judge is constructive:  no finger pointing, no negativism, and no personal attacks.  Tell us exactly what your vision is.  We’re happy to march to that aspiration.