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, 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 …