Be Provocative -- But Don't Mistake it with Bad Behavior

We are big advocates of being provocative as part of a well-conceived communications strategy. Sometimes, the best way to get people to wake up to a need for change is to challenge conventional wisdom. Ask questions, throw down the gauntlet to established forces, change things up.

That said, in the past few days, we have all been exposed to bad behavior that has gotten a lot of attention: A member of Congress calling the President a liar in the middle of an important speech to the joint members of both Houses; and (admittedly, at a much more mundane level) a singer rudely interrupting an acceptance speech at an award show to advocate for one of the other contestants.

Don't get me wrong. In both cases, the parties in question completely have the right to comment loudly to express their beliefs; That's what makes this a great country. What bothers me about these two episodes is that both of them resulted in front page news. And, in turn, that could encourage acts of rudeness and bad behavior rather than constructive discussion. I am not sure of a solution, but feel compelled to raise the question.

So, what are some ways to provoke debate as part of a communications strategy?

-Present your products in a way that clearly explains the shortcomings of current approaches and asks the market to question the status quo;
-Make speeches that ask the right questions about conventional wisdom;
-Do point-of-view editorials and press releases raising these interesting questions;
-Embark on educational programs that cause people to wonder if current approaches are the right ones;
-Use social media to lead the market to ask the questions; and
-Lots of other ideas.

Please, just don't count on bad behavior to accomplish your goals.

Leadership and the Importance of Press Releases

Who knew? The last post on "What about Leadership (Redux)" led to a fair amount of dialog. It also led me to believe that I should probably advocate an unpopular subject: the importance press releases.

In short, we believe that a well-crafted press release is a big opportunity to clearly and effectively tell a company's story. And that's true whether the news hook is mundane or earth-shattering. Along with the many other means of communications available today, press releases are part of the entire communications architecture.

This is, to some, a fairly radical view. Many "modern" communicators think that whispers, blogs, and tweets are the right way to get a story told. We believe all of these are a valuable part of the mix. But we also believe that it's critical to lay out the story clearly and simply in a few places that are broadly available. Therefore, more than ever, we think press releases are a tremendously important communications tool.

In thinking about this position, you may be interested to know that, in years past, I have been very conservative about press releases: when they were just a tool for communicating to a very limited audience, it was key to make sure you didn't flood people with paper. But today, the press release plays a different and more important role:

1. It is a tool, at the appropriate time, to tell a company's story to the appropriate audiences. It should be written clearly and without hyperbole.
2. It can have a viral benefit.
3. In this environment, many constituencies look for and read press releases (not just press and analysts) and this can be helpful to companies on many levels.
4. It can be very helpful in reinforcing leadership messaging and communications architecture.
5. There are lots of other comments -- let me know if you want to discuss them.

This odd topic arose because I have recently seen a few companies that may be squandering their opportunities to help the market understand who they are and how they fit into the world. Hence, these companies may be leaving their market leadership position unsupported and unexplained -- leaving it to chance that the market will figure it out. And, on the flip side, we have seen when we are working with companies who are leaders, the ongoing explanation about important news and nuances of their stories helps the leadership positioning emerge over time.

A few thoughts/caveats about this viewpoint.

1. A press release should always have added value. That is, it should be interesting and provocative.
2. We are not talking here about press release that have two paragraphs (one with the lead and the second with some innocuous quote.) If you are going to bother, explain enough to be meaningful.
3. The purpose of a press release today is not always just to get "ink". It should be viewed as an important part of the toolset to create leadership in the long term.
4. Of course, press releases alone are not the whole communications mix. They should be built into the plan along with thoughts about the Web site, blogs, tweets, conferences, one on one communications, etc.
5. Some press releases are tactical in their nature. That's fine. But never squander an opportunity to tell the story well.
6. Keep the bar high. Don't tell people "what the CEO had for lunch."
7. A press release should be objective and educational; the more boastful, the less believable.
8. Yes. Some recipients might be skeptical of a press release. Sometimes that means you shouldn't do it. And sometimes if means you just have to move ahead and keep the long term in mind.
9. A well-conceived press release takes a lot of work -- to understand what the news is, why it is important, and how to explain this clearly.

Remember, the goal is leadership. (Oh yeah. I already said that.)

No Hype

This morning, I was reading an interesting analysis of Katie Couric and Meredith Viera with their respective 1-year anniversaries upcoming. It was yet another reminder of why hype usually hurts those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries. In essence, the point was that Meredith Viera has had the chance to grow into her role on the Today Show (as has Charles Gibson on ABC) while Katie Couric was under such a microscope on her and faced huge expectations, it would be nearly impossible for her to succeed.

You will notice, if you have read this blog before, that our view of the world is that hype is a bad thing in communications -- particularly in the world of young, start-up companies. This is an important reminder today when young entrepreneurs see Google and Facebook and believe they, too, can benefit from lots of attention. Some do; most don't. Here are some of the reasons why:

1. With lots of hype, comes lots of expectations. Even the most established companies are challenged by meeting expectations that have been magnified by a unidimensional view of a company's strategy and plans;
2. With hype comes lots of scrutiny. Have you heard the expression "you can only know the dynamics of a relationship if you are in it"? The same goes for start-up companies. It's easy to second-guess a company unless you really understand what's going on inside and all of the pressures the company and executives face on a daily basis.
3. In a fast-changing world (and even sometimes when things are not moving so fast), it's good to be in a position to learn and refine your strategy and execution as you move along.
4. Every company needs to learn about their product. Particularly when you are first coming to market, it's important to learn from what the market is saying to improve the product. It's hard to do that when everyone is watching and the slightest change leads to big questions.
   
5. The simplifications that result from (and sometimes contribute to) hype lead to long-term misunderstanding.
6. There are more.

To be fair, I really should enumerate the benefits:

• A lot of attention can lead to quick visibility which can lead to quick consumer product adoption, if the product is really good. (See 4, above. Also, as a note, I have often thought that one of the great sources of Starbucks' success is that they combine great marketing with great products.)
• If you are interested in doing a quick-flip financial transaction, hype can certainly create an opportunity to achieve a higher valuation in the near term (but there are other ways to do that, as well).
• Anyone want to suggest some more benefits?

So, what should a young company do, if they aren't supposed to hype themselves?

1. Create a strong perceptual goal and a plan to help the market understand it.
   
2. Create a good, substantial, and easy to understand story that can form the foundation of long term communications.
   
3. Build strong relationships and understanding among influencers in the market.
4. Develop an ongoing flow of news that helps people understand who you are, where you are going, and why you are important.
5. Be prepared to learn from what you are hearing from the market and refine as you move forward.
6. Be patient and plan to work hard. Very few people get something for nothing.

But, don't get me wrong. Attention for a company is not a bad thing --when handled in the right ways. It just leads to an important reminder: Most of all, build a great company!

Starting with a Blank Sheet of Paper

There has been quite a bit of dialog about the most recent post on this blog called "Did Microsoft Use A 20th Century Launch Strategy to Launch their 21st Century (We Hope) Vista ???"Much of the discussion was to agree with the point that Microsoft seemed to hype Vista, rather than letting the market create a foundation for it and then talking about it. That was *part* of the point of that last post.

But, there was another point that was more subtle and that I want to emphasize: what really was distressing about the launch was that in promoting a product that *should* completely change the playing field and not just be trapped by legacy, Microsoft ended up using a legacy approach for the launch, rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper and saying "What's the right way, in the 21st Century, to launch this critically important product?"

Those of us who work with start ups and other young companies are faced daily with the need to "start with a blank sheet of paper." The combination of limited resources, ground breaking products and/or ideas, and a new era of communications demand it.

What does "starting with a blank sheet of paper" mean? In short: don't start with preconceived notions of the right way to launch/announce/talk about something. But rather, truly step back and think about the full context of the announcement/company/idea. The result of such thinking should be some combination of brand new (and hopefully clever) ideas and activities that result from past experience, but applied to today's context.

I want to be clear about something. I am not saying "Throw out everything you have done before in communications." As a matter of fact, I think that some communicators don't step back and think about some basics of communications before they develop a plan in today's environment. We have talked about this before in this blog, but will reiterate: your objectives are important; your message is important; your communications architecture is important; your goals are important; etc.

We are convinced that the best communications programs are those that are a "hybrid" approach: that is, they use the benefit of experience, but throw away inflexible assumptions about communicating. This is a very interesting era in which to communicate: a lot of the rules have changed, which allows programs to be developed that are interesting and creative but still meet key goals.

Did Microsoft Use a 20th Century Launch Strategy to Launch their 21st Century (We Hope) Vista????

I prefer not to pick on big companies -- they know something about making money and running big and complex businesses which is often easier said than done. And you can certainly say that about Microsoft. However, in recent months, I have truly wondered if they are just missing the ability to refocus their prism to enter the new age. After all, they have a cash cow legacy business and will need to take some serious risks to move into this new world. ButI think I will leave those lofty business strategy questions to people more equipped than I to address them.

But the launch of Vista has caused me the question fundamentally Microsoft's communications strategy, as well. Clearly it was very well executed, with all of the pieces and parts running smoothly to ensure the launch and hype all coincided. But, did they use a 20th century methodology for the launch of a product that should be the essence of the 21st Century? Should Microsoft have delivered first and hyped later? Was it necessary -- or even wise -- for Bill Gates to be on every newscast in the world AND The Daily Show? What was the point? They got a lot of attention, but at the end of the day, to what end?

Believe me, I understand that Microsoft could certainly not launch their most important product without some amount of positioning and messaging. Would it have made more sense for them to do this launch a bit more quietly and let the market absorb the product. Then, in 6 or 8 months, when they start to have proof that what they thought would happen is in fact happening, talk about it loudly. They could have pulled it off. Everyone wants to talk to Bill Gates.

Certainly there were hundreds of strategy meetings over an extended time period about this launch, but I just wonder if anyone attending the meetings was a part of the "modern world" or just a part of Microsoft's world?