partum intelligendo

The juggernaut starts to turn?

Last year's scenes in Trafalgar Square, London after the Ashes were the latest sign of an important change. We're learning to celebrate success.

When Simon Anholt and I spoke prior to the Rugby World Cup a few years ago, we talked about the national characteristics of the English. (I self-identify as being British and would love this to apply across the UK, but it doesn't.) I pointed out that the English story is one of noble failure or, if we eventually triumph, edge-of-the-seat almost-disasters along the way. That story, like any organisational story, is like a magnet - it draws events to it. When events seem to differ from the story, human beings have an immense power to sabotage things - the story wins every time, unless consciously confronted.

One thing, however, is changing - something that could do with changing in most organisations as well. We are learning to celebrate our successes.

Why is this important? Because we put time and effort and so much more into achieving goals at work. Whether it's preparation for a meeting, a major change programme or putting out the monthly newsletter, we work hard. And if we are to continue to work, we need to value our efforts for ourselves. Ideally our colleagues and bosses should value the efforts too, but let's start where it's most mportant.

Celebrate our successes. What have you done today that's worth noting and celebrating?

I've updated this blog. I've dealt with the bank. Both things that I'd been putting off. But I'm going to note these successes. How about you?

Blogs as conversations, not ego-boosting

Most communicators in organisations are missing out in blogs. And that's because the main story about blogs is missing the relevant point.

I've been talking with various people recently in the communications world about blogs. Their current preception about blogs is based on the evidence - lots of individuals (mostly small companies or freelancers) pushing themselves and their opinions. [And, yes, this one would come into that.]

And what relevance does that have to the communications team of a large organisation?

I think that story about blogs is wrong. Blogs are about creating informal, online conversations (assuming you have the sense to leave the "Comments" field open) with people that you will rarely if ever have the chance to have a face-to-face conversation.

So how could blogs be effective for an organisation?

Internally, try a CEO-blog to start with - but break out of formal communications. It's informal, it's anecdotal and it's aimed at talking about observations and what they prompt. Then open up the comments field for anyone to post their thoughts. And respond to them.

If you're feeling more brave, make blogs available to anyone who wants one. Yes, you'll get some people posting all sorts of things that you may not want to see. You'll get all sorts of styles and all sorts of content - some appropriate, some not. But you'll also see conversations cropping up between blogs - discussions about all sorts of things in the organisation. And you'll quickly see which subjects and which individuals are important and which are the most contentious. Fabulous information to act on!

And externally, as Microsoft to their credit have realised, multiple blogs from an organisation humanise it. It's no longer one monolithic brand and a single voice, but a more realistic picture of individuals with differing points of view, but similar goals.

But the advantage of a non-monolithic brand is a whole can of worms to be opened another day.

If you're looking at blogs and not sure what the real benefit is, there are workshops cropping up all over the place. Go to one. Not one that does the technical, but one that does the implications and the uses.

Changing Conversations in Organizations

I'm currently reading Patricia Shaw's "Changing Conversations in Organizations" after John Moore recommended it to me. I'm finding it challenging and great - in particular for the emphasis it puts on the non-formal networks in organisations. It ties in with a conversation I had last week with Flemming Madsen of Onalytica.

He quoted a figure I regard with due scepticism - that 80 per cent of the work done in an organisation is done via informal networks, not the formal hierarchy and structure of the company. Whether the figure is correct or not, it does generate some important thoughts.

I believe that the real work of change is certainly done via informal networks - making it very helpful to see those networks using tools like Flemming's. At the same time, participating in those networks in an informal and improvised way, as suggested by Patricia, seems both scary and hugely effective. In too many current change projects that I see, the change is advocated from the top and a formal process put in place, with appropriate job titles and resources (or not, ofttimes). And yet nothing happens. The formal organisation is immune to its own attempts to change itself.

The other thought comes down to another possible difference between leaders and managers. Managers tend to try and bend the practice of the organisation to the theoretical model set out in an orgchart. Leaders are more likely to focus on the practice and results - and then create a theory afterwards. It means that managers are forever wedded to the organisational structure and hence become part of the formal system - the antibodies against real change.

Media's chosen master narratives determine electoral success

I've long believed that the media and their chosen frameworks for "news" are hugely responsible for shaping mindsets far beyond the power of their headlines. Without wishing to inflate already-over-large heads, the style, language and "master narrative" with which a particular story or series of stories is reported is hugely influential. Reviewing the current campaign for the Democratic 2004 nomination, Andrew R. Cline wrote in Rhetorica here about the bias that gets introduced when journalists choose a narrative. The whole article is excellent, focusing on the use of narratives created around candidates that need drama to make them interesting - hence the need to introduce the appearance of instability and conflict based on personality. And policy gets lost in the argument.

"[His] conclusion (theory): The nominees for President of the United States are chosen largely by the press through the construction of master narratives and voters' reactions to these narratives."

An example he sets out:

"A master narrative, in this context, is a set characterization of a candidate that leads to a set plot line in the "story" of that candidate's campaign.

Master narratives have many sources. Most of these set characterizations spring from the candidates themselves as normal image control. Sometimes, circumstances of a campaign create such narratives. And the press has been known to create them, too.

No matter the source, a master narrative is generally constructed this way:
1- A pattern of behavior is noticed.
2- The behavior is characterized, i.e. given a name.
3- The character is portrayed as part of a plot, i.e. a set course of actions, consistent with the character, beginning with a central tension and leading to a climax and denouement.
4- The candidates words and actions are analyzed by comparing them to the character and the plot.

Thus the narrative defines the candidate.

Let's consider the narrative created by candidate Howard Dean. The character he's created for himself I'll call the "electable liberal."

Over the last few months, Dean has openly countered the war, chided his opponents for moderate and conservative views, pushed an extensive healthcare package (and compared it favorably to such systems in Canada, England, and France), and claimed he represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." And he backs it all up with a generally successful record as governor of a notably liberal state.

This character may take full advantage of the conventional-wisdom plot of presidential campaign politics: run on the wings for the nomination and then switch to run in the middle (central tension of the plot) to win the national campaign (climax).

Dean created the narrative by acting consistently based on the electable liberal character. And the press accepts and transmits this character and the conventional-wisdom plot to news consumers.

Okay, but isn't this just standard image building in campaign politics? Yes, it is. The problem is that the press solidifies master narratives so that reporters have trouble writing stories with any characterization or plot other than the one allowed by the master narrative. And this structural bias of journalism can have detrimental effects for both citizens and candidates. "

Is this new in the age of tabloid reporting - or merely enhanced? Or is it rather that, as we become more media/message/culture aware, we see these things more vividly? Whatever, it seems clear to me that the increasingly inflammatory and emotional language and narratives being used by many media outlets in order to drive up readership and revenue are more and more irresponsible.

Brand loyalty

Or creating stories that people care about

I was arguing recently that branding is a much misused and misunderstood term. And I'd be the first to admit that the misunderstanding may well start in my own mind, let alone anyone else's. But my point to my colleagues was that people - in whatever walk of life - only ever recommend a product, service (or, by extension, a brand) if they have a compelling personal story to tell. It's the only way that emotional links are built - and the only way that any kind of loyalty is created.

Whether it's the story of how a trendsetter discovered an obscure band/restaurant/designer/artist or whether it's a story of exceptional customer service as this story about car insurance from The Motley Fool shows. And it starts with a problem or crisis - that's where all stories have to start, if they're to come out with a memorable and positive result. (When was the last time you heard a story that started "Everything went really smoothly and nothing out of the ordinary happened" that was even interesting, let alone memorable?)

Similarly, John Moore, who writes the excellent The Ourhouse Weblog, was travelling with Tim Kitchin to Sweden on BA, when as Tim recounts here:

And then... something truly magical happens. The stewardess Claire (Wilkinson?) comes up to me and my MutualMarketing companion John Moore and fellow traveller Luke Nicholson of Ethical Media fame, and says (drum roll here):

"We've read your questionnaire.
Thankyou. Great feedback. Very interesting.
I wanted to talk to you about what we do in CSR.
BA has an active programme enabling staff to participate in ethical initiatives on an unpaid basis.
Here's what we've done in Africa...
I think I've heard of your web-site (NB. This is of course unlikely to be true! #;?} )
I will go to your web-site. This has been a helpful discussion."

So Claire, if you're visiting and reading this, tell somebody who thinks they matter in BA that you just humanised the BA brand for me overnight.

This really matters. Their future rests upon it. So please make this happen again and again. You went beyond service, and showed me a glimpse of your personal brand intent. BA the monolith just peeked beyond branding. Beautiful.

So thankyou Claire and thankyou, BA.

Again, it's merely a personal story - but one that spreads. It's how word of mouth starts. But it has to start first with the individual on the receiving formulating the activity into a personal narrative - and one that stands out from the crowd, either because it defies expectations or (too often with negative stories) because it reinforces them.

As organisations, individuals and societies if we want to create word of mouth, build brands and create customer loyalty, we must focus not on communicating some subset of abstract values, but in creating opportunities for personal stories to be formed. And they are formed only in the exceptions. That's what we must create. Over and over again.

I never said it was going to be easy...

Tim Kitchin's blog, Steal This Brand, talks about the erosion of trust.

Trust is ultimately built on experience - ours and those close to us - and that experience is most often shared through the stories that we tell. It's far easier to tell stories that reflect badly on individuals and institutions in the current social climate than it is to tell positive stories. And with the expansion of new communications media, the stories themselves are transmitted faster, more accurately (by which I mean true to the original telling) and to more people than ever before. No wonder there's a deterioration in trust.

And by trying to compensate by setting out new principles does nothing to alter the experience - or the perception of the experience - that is shared elsewhere. If we really want to change that we need to change the stories - the content, the context and the underlying messages. And that's far more difficult.

Financial Times Editorial: Major rifts in the Corus boardroom

Financial Times Editorial: Major rifts in the Corus boardroom between factions from the two companies that merged

The rifts within the Corus boardroom are unusual only because they're so highly visible. They're certainly not unexpected - when two groups of people come together to form a single, unified community, their different worldviews of past, present and future are highly divergent. Getting them into a common framework is absolutely essential.

Mergers and acquisitions rarely create the single, focused company that was intended in the original strategy. Lots of attention goes into merging the IT systems, the corporate hierarchy, into creating common terms and conditions, yet little goes into looking at how people view the organisation - or into effectively creating a common vision of the future.

My experience is that we all have different mental stories about the group or organisation to which we belong. And by making those stories explicit and looking at the differences between them, we're able to create a deeper understanding of each other - and where the potential rifts may be. Not just the rational - and easily voiced - differences in opinion, but the deeper, heartfelt differences in what the organisation stands for.

Projecting these stories into metaphors and fables - out of everyday language and into what we intuitive understand from our childhoods - realises much more information and understanding. And the earlier we see and understand these rifts, then the quicker we can take steps to bridge those differences.

But that's another story for another day.

first direct - Stories as Customer Experience

The new UK ads for online bank firstdirect are great. Short TV pieces that feature a "real" voiceover, complete with umms, ahs and stumbles - all customers comparing the story of a friend dealing with their bank with their own story of dealing with the bank. And it works. Well.

The story structure is a great way of creating the emotional hook for viewers and prospects - as well as reminding firstdirect customers why they're there in the first place. And including the umms, ahs and stumbles makes it a more real human communication, despite the fact that it's over a potentially distancing medium.

Like a handful of other marketers, firstdirect has realised that what marketing is about is the transfer of knowledge - why someone might want their service. And the best way of transferring knowledge, as IBM's Dave Snowden frequently points out, is to tell human stories.