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.”

THE FUNDAMENTAL THINGS OF LIFE

Of late, we’ve been pondering intangible stuff.

Like authenticity, truthfulness, honesty, and so on.

And figuring out how, exactly, it relates to what we do.

This millennium’s writers are similarly obsessed, whether it has to do with temptation or excess or authenticity.  Our wonderment, though, concerns less of the weighty observations (i.e., ‘what’s the world coming to?’ ‘where did we stray?’) in favor of the how to identify and embed sincerity:  techniques for spotting; methods for infusing speeches, videos, even annual reports with the straight stuff; and ways to differentiate between the different kinds of truths.  [And yes, Virginia, there are many; it just depends on the side you’re representing.]

After all, we specialize in framing and creating those conversations.  It’s important to us that our readers, our audiences, our viewers understand that we’re being as sincere as we can be.  It’s somewhat easy to see if a speaker is disingenuous; body language, tone, and style are usually the give-aways.  It’s not that easy to see through emails and emojis and Internet copy to determine the truth-telling factor.  Sincerity is more than the facts; it’s a cinch to validate those.  Rather, it’s the communication’s intent and its desire to not deceive, to not boast, to be clear and honest in its content that has us thinking. 

Many writers in past centuries would have pooh-poohed our quest; it was Oscar Wilde who said, “a little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.”  Truth – or dare?

TRUTH OR ... CONSEQUENCES

In past lives, many of my former colleagues and I* would have leaped at the chance when asked to validate a series of statements, chapters, or books.

Not any more, especially after Election 2012.  Bloggers and punsters, editors and opiners alike rushed to quick judgment about which party/candidate told the truth and which, fabricated.  “Right or not” became a cause célèbre as factcheck.orgs of all shapes and sizes weighed in.  Blue or red truth? trumpeted the headlines.  Both political parties blared Fiction! … and pointed fingers.  Posturing?  Yes, for many.  Yet many voters, in the millions, were simply seeking credulity and authenticity.

Regardless of the outcome, the facts didn’t matter.  Because facts, in and by themselves, were ­ not the prime determinant of the election.  A further surprise:  What did make a difference, psychological researchers insist, is the very complicated science of behaviors.  One study reveals that the more knowledgeable voters, those armed with the most facts, show more bias than those who knew less.  Another shows that people assume news is true (or not) simply based on which TV or radio station, newspaper or magazine, Web site or blogger reported it.

Why?  It has everything to do with emotions, the reasons we search for verification.  If I’m afraid or concerned or insecure, it’s doubly hard for me to wrap my mind around the facts. The truth matters less if I’m simply not prepared to accept it.  Cognitive dissonance, in part:  We ignore facts and science when they conflict with our practices (smoking, for instance).

At this point, the consequences from non-truths might not matter, depending on the specific cause and effect.  What this signals, initially, is that, as communicators and marketers, as designers and brand strategists, we all need to become a bit less fact-obsessed and a lot more emotion-driven as we set about to change minds and behaviors.

*Say it’s so:  My career began as an MSLS-wielding librarian.