FACE TIME, REDUX

The CIA and FBI do it.

Charles Darwin started it.

“It” being the art of facial coding, the insights and reads taken from an individual’s expressions and body language.  Of the two modes of translation, our super spies admit to preferring the face, above all.  It’s here where our emotions truly show what we’re thinking – and feeling.

Do we as communicators and other like professionals use it?  Except for executive coaches, not so much.  We’re often so busy with words and meetings and presentations and pitches that we forget to counsel leaders on how they say what they say.  Sure, a good speechwriter does act as an adviser, helping his or her client maximize the speech/presentation’s impact.

On the other hand …

Because human beings boast more facial muscles than other species; because there are universal expressions, whether blind or sighted; and because a true smile is easy to recognize, we need to pay attention to the ways our senior-most executives communicate facially.  Besides, people are willing to pay three times as much for products and services sold by a smiling versus an angry spokesperson.

Numbers and stats aside, it’ll all about authenticity, in language and tone and style and expressions.

Anyone for lessons from a Deep Throat?

FACE TIME

Warning:  Our hackles have been raised.

Those hairs on our neck shifted upwards when we read of not-so-secret one-on-one meetings between money managers, hedge funds, and the like and public company CEOs.

Not that there’s anything wrong or illegal with the practice.  [After all, the SEC calls it “corporate access” and, though there’s some monitoring, it doesn’t breach the Regulation Fair Disclosure rule of 2000.]

Yet survey after survey of these fairly regular occasions – about 99 on average each year for public businesses, says Ipreo – demonstrates that this kind of face time allows analysts and investors to make better trading decisions and more accurate earnings forecasts.

So be it.  It’s obvious these kinds of conversations help persuade the monied occupations that a company’s stock is a worthwhile investment. 

At the same time, it allows other, external observers to gauge the tone and confidence level and body language of the CEO (or CFO).

So what we object to is not the need to present to the investment community, face to face.  No, what causes our discomfort is the not-so-equal access of the C-suite to his/her employees, the rank and file who need to understand the strategies, the changes, and, yes, the financials. 

Okay, we get it:  Executive time is precious.  But don’t employees relish and deserve regular face-to-face communications in small groups with key senior leaders?

PITCHING (and we ain't talking baseball)

What does it take to win new business these days?

As outsiders (sorta) to the process now – though we participated in the thick of agency and consulting presentations for years – we wonder:  Has it gotten any better?  Any smarter?  Any more rewarding?

Talk to a new biz person about what it takes today and they’ll say:  Relationships.  Knowing the industry – and the client.  Smart differentiation.

Hmmm:  That’s the same old, same old.  With social media and big data and ROI top of mind, are the pitches any different?

We asked a few clients, since we’re impartial observers.  It’s “no difference” in no uncertain terms. 

“It’s all about them, not us.”

“The descriptions are interminable.”

“It’s words, words, words and no dreams.”

There’s more, but we’ll stop.  What’s missing, IOHO, is an emphasis on talent – and fit.  How will the agency or consultancy pick the right talent to fuel the business?  [Note we didn’t say ‘staff’ or make any promises.  We’ve all been in the room when profiles are submitted – and those individuals have one foot outta the agency.]  What’s the management philosophy for working together:  building teams, ensuring straight talk and appropriate accountabilities, driving results as a concerted whole?  Is there a process for ironing out issues and conflicts and challenges?

One rather savvy pro suggested, a few weeks ago, that HR could add a lot to the chase.  We’d second that and say:  So can communications and design.

THE CAIN'T BRIGADE

There’s something about bad grammar that, for many of us, is way too memorable.

University professors and columnists, especially, all cry “foul” when the basic rules and regs of English writing are violated. 

Even dating site Match, after asking 5,000 users if language mattered, discovered it did.  Big time.  Eighty-eight percent of women, 75 percent of men agreed that the proper syntax was far more important in a prospective date than confidence or good teeth.  [Gnaw on that one for a while.]

Depending on who responds, the blame goes to social media, where gaffes are as common as abbreviations like ‘soups awk’ [you guess].  On the educational system … but never aimed at a particular teacher.  On contemporary “it’s gotta be Millennial” qualities like laziness, carelessness, inaccuracy, even inconsiderateness.

Let’s stop here.  And agree:  It’s our responsibility as language gurus – communicators, brand experts, marketers – to frame the dispute.  After all, there is an informal English, one that we speak and message and tweet.  Punctuation might be absent, at times.  Abbreviations, dominant.  And dialects become noticeable. 

The other practice?  Emails, memos, presentations, and all the other accoutrements of corporate and marketing and brand communications, from annual reports to Web sites.  There, though informal lingo might be present, the rest of the grammatical snafus need to be gone.

Then there’s Oklahoma’s Ado Annie …