PRESIDENTIAL PARALLELS, THREE (AND FINAL)

“It’s too much hype and hyperbole.”

“Employees don’t want to be marketed to.”

“We get a lot of pushback if we don’t stick to the facts and make our media as objective as possible.”

Those are the responses we hear when broaching the idea of an internal campaign – to drive behaviors, get buy-in, encourage adoption of new technology, and, in general, asking employees to know and feel and act differently.

Serious objections, we admit.  On our side, these rejoinders arise:

  • How to gain attention and capture hearts and minds when today’s society is afflicted with ADHD?
  • What are results to date using straightforward no-nonsense media?
  • How many employees respond to emotional stories versus statistics and studies?

The issue, we believe, isn’t so much with the idea of campaigns as it is with the recent quality of American political crusades.  Mud-slinging.  Slight un-truths or un-remembering.  Slogans with little reality and less soul.  In short, glitz without substance.

There’s a place and time for campaigns inside.  There’s also care to be taken in creating and delivering the exact right messaging, based on the appropriate business case with the perfect (okay, almost perfect) blend of tools.  Scientists respond to stories just as much as facts.  And vice versa for marketeers and HR pros.  Bottom line, it’s all about actions. 

Our thanks to Ross Perot, former Presidential candidate:  “The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty.  The activist is the man who cleans up the river.”

PRESIDENTIAL PARALLELS, TWO

It’s inevitable.  In fact, it’s already started:  Comparisons between the 2008 (forget 2012) and this/next year’s Presidential campaigns.

Most probably, there won’t be as many drastic thens/nows as there will be evolutions in tactics.  For sure, we’ll see:

  • Extraordinary use of social media and analytics
  • Foot soldiers, a/k/a message carriers and
  • Chum (read:  branded merchandise for sale), among other activities

Last time around, politicians did well in driving funds and votes through Facebook, podcasts, Web sites, and YouTube.  Volunteer armies continued to transmit the message, whether asking for dollars or votes.  And the spoils of war, er, tchtchokes, helped get the candidate in front of audiences hitherto unreached (remember the famous “Hope” poster from Shepard Fairey).

What’s to keep us in corporate America from using similar approaches?  [Though we just might not want to charge for swag emblazoned with the corporate name and logo.]   Given a robust business case and an unrelenting focus on one simple and compelling message, it’s entirely possible that:

  • Jams, other internal community gatherings, and Yammer-type sharing are embedded with data-pulling (and pushing) capabilities
  • Our Ambassadors are supported by professional-level L&D training, house party-like events, and continuous organizing tips and
  • Visual reminders are reinforced by 3D branded tools, ranging from holograms to the latest version of Viewmasters.

We’ve seen this kind of political movement succeed inside and out of companies.  There’s always a ‘but.’  Find out why in  our next (and yes, final) Presidential Parallel.

PRESIDENTIAL PARALLELS, ONE

We were seriously entranced with Bloomberg Businessweek’s op-ed on why Hillary Clinton lost her first POTUS campaign.

So much so that we read it twice, and mused about parallels to our business.

The reasons for her demise, asserts writer-pundit Joshua Green, were multiple, specifically:

  • No clear overarching justification for candidacy
  • Not focusing squarely on the issues
  • Trying to be all things to all people
  • Delaying a response to uproars and turmoils and
  • Not recognizing her own shortcomings.

First things first:  The business case.  Right now, it’s clear that Hillary is concentrating on middle-class economic advancement and, as a sub-theme, making Washington work better.  That’s a singular target – and though overall motifs might vary (depending on the audience), messaging potentially will carry the same narrative.  It’s simple, impactful, and just might be as powerful as Obama’s ‘change.’ 

On the other hand, it could be subjected to the candidate’s (and her/his strategists’) boredom and continual polling.  Hear it now:  “The economy has changed; the middle class isn’t as worried as before.”  Or:  “Xyz is much more critical these days; let’s zero in on that issue.”   And:  “The opposition is attacking us on abc now; we need to answer.”

Squirming yet?  Check how you’d respond to these questions:

  • How often do we abandon our messaging at the drop of a survey – and latch onto another hot topic? 
  • Are we easily dissuaded from pursuing original goals? 
  • Can we withstand corporate requests and continue our mission?

Next up:   The stuff that campaigns are made of …