Mythical perception of communication

September 15, 2010 

Communication strategy can be a funny business and the mythical perception about what constitutes an effective communication makes the job even more ridiculous for the serious practitioners of the business. More often than not the conventional wisdom that communication must aim at creating mutually beneficial relation between the organization and its stake holders goes for a toss, when the client reminds you that there are other agencies waiting to grab the account on the clients’ dotted terms. It may not shock me anymore, but definitely disappoints bitterly with the dogmatic ideas that collective consciousness of the business community carries as far as communication is concerned.
There seems to be a definite lack of understanding of how business relevant and business beneficial communication strategy can be. My failed brain storming with the management of a soon-to-be-launched consumer product reminds me yet again that India Inc communicates more to impress than to express. This lack of foresight results into a complete emotional disconnect with the audience for whom the product has been conceptualized. I fail to understand the point why a metro kid with all the polished Ps and Qs should be the face of a brand which has the least possibility to be consumed by that given segment.
I can understand a “method” into it if the product is aspirational in nature. But with a consumer product that would be mostly consumed by the tier II and tier III kids in their given comfortable budget, such an endorsement hardly reflects any serious thought process or strategy. As Ad man Suhel Seth recently said during FICCI’s “Brand Talk” that marketers who resort to Celebrity Endorsement of their products are the laziest people in the business.
With my academic perspective and market exposure of over a decade now, I often end up arguing, even at the cost of losing business, as to why all the communication (Advertising & PR) should be in the national English dailies. To an extent this is necessary from branding perspective, but the question is how much market share can be earned by shouting in a market where decibel levels are already too high. Based on my experience with TRACK2MEDIA Consulting where we always suggest for a market survey/research before any new communication campaign, I personally feel the Indian businesses still have to go a long way before they bank on expertise at every level.
In the absence of a scientifically evolved methodology, most of the board room decisions are based on perception than ground reality. A friend heading the corporate communication of a pharma major recently shared how they exhaust 80 per cent of the budget in the mainstream media and only 10-15 per cent in the vernacular media. Keeping in mind the fact that major product of the company is prescriptive medicine; this clearly defies any logic in a country where 50 per cent of the doctors are from Bihar.
But the think tank of the said pharma company is not the only one that seats in the ivory towers from where Ground Zero is more often than not invisible. No wonder, many of such management are pretty happy with their advertising in page 1 of national dailies, often with a jacket cover; while the PR campaign fails to take off. I would blame equally to the PR agencies for cutting a sorry figure before the clients. The day they stop overpromising on coverage in the national dailies, they would earn some respect for themselves and the profession as well, even if it means loss of business at times.
There seems to be an obsession of the clients to get published in the national English dailies, even if they don’t have a news value and their product does not address the readers at all. Many of them are not even open to the idea of any out-of-the-box strategy, which can earn them more reputation in terms of brand building, connect directly to the target audience and ensures more market share. But the medium is ever evolving, and it is the job of a brand strategist to make them understand that old school of communication is changing the world over.
If advertising used to be the king of communication till around a decade back, with a lion’s share of 80 per cent of the marketing budget, the rise of the branding tools and methodologies suggest it should not be more than 40-45 per cent now. Public Relations, Corporate Sponsorships, Corporate Social Responsibility, Online Reputation Management, two-way seamless communication to connect with stake holders……the medium is ever evolving. But the moot point is--before we put our foot down and say NO to the clients who believe in self medication, are we as communication consultants convinced that we are strategists and not vendors to the clients? Well, my guess is as good as many others who are in the business of communication consultancy.    

Media and Twitter

16th May, 2010

Ever since my last post about Twitter and its overuse/misuse as a defacto public address system http://track2media.blogspot.com/2010/04/we-twitter.html, dated 22nd April, I have been flooded with extreme reactions. While some of the followers and friends from the online community agree that its use as a public address system by people in public life, like Lalit Modi and Shashi Tharoor will undermine the sanctity of democratic institutions, there is another set of people who have vehemently condemned the view point. “Don’t blame the medium for human follies,” is the argument in general. Actually one of the friends from the online community wrote a blog post on the issue with the same title and started a discussion thread on the Linkedin.
The series of arguments and counter-arguments had gone unnoticed had I not sensed a profile fixation in the thought process on the subject. While those who supported the theory of twitter role being confined to sharing and expressing professional info belonged to various professions, most of the die-hard tweet community was from media and communications. It seems to be a revolution of sorts in a country where the advent of computers in the mid ‘90s led to a number of journalists getting axed out of the system since they could not adapt to the new technology.
Coming back to the core issue of Twitter being overused/misused, do media and communication professionals give the devil more than its due? I have already analysed on this blog last year, July 17, as to how over reliance on social media only reflects strategic communication dilemma http://track2media.blogspot.com/2009/07/over-reliance-on-social-media-reflects.html. It seems the uncensored nature of the medium is something that is driving the new breed of media and communication professionals crazy for the medium.
The industry facts and ground realities are actually hilarious, to say the least. Last year the PR head of an Agency was replaced by a less experienced, and arguably less competent, person on the merit of his tweet knowledge. The management may have been awed by his tall claims of changing the way they used to function through the use of new age technologies, like Twitter. The tech savvy professional who tweets more often than even some of the celebrities promised to work on the expectation management of the clients as well and shift focus from the traditional media coverage. That appeared too fancy and tempting to an Agency that had been at the receiving end of clients for poor media coverage and lack of quality exposure. However, the clients were not amused by the tweet head of the Agency and his shelf life could not be more than a year.
Another practitioner of Brand Strategy and Management was recently caught off guard in a presentation where he emphasised the need for the use of new age communicational tools like the Twitter. What this smart operator had failed to realise was that the corporate house had their own internal team for the purpose of online reputation management. When they did a google check on his credentials, before inviting him for the formal presentation, they found out that he had a healthy follower list of five.
Some of the PR professionals are regularly into the habit of tweeting before every press conference. However, I have often noticed that none of their followers are actually the beat reporters for whom it has been tweeted. That points to the core issue as to whether Twitter is to express or to impress. For the new breed of media and communication professionals it seems to be a tool to impress. They are probably compensating for the failure of their previous generation to adapt to the new age technology with computer. And that is something I find quite funny. Isn’t?

Out-of-Box Strategy or Case Study

12th April, 2010

Recently a prospective client asked me to present a case study of my agency credentials on the given industry. The client was surprised that how come an agency made a pitch without presenting a case study of the work done. I suppose mine was probably the only presentation in a multi-agency pitch that did not expect to get the communication mandate on the strength of the work done thus far. However, the idea to not to present the case study was a deliberate one. I had given it a serious thought and taken a conscious decision to not boast of the track record and instead focus on the SWOT analysis of the project and work out deliverables with tangible metrics.

The experience left me wondering as to whether it is the Case Study that is the differentiator between the agencies or it is your understanding about the needs of the clients and the given project. In my opinion it is the understanding of the clients’ brief and your suggested communication solution that gives the agency a cutting edge. However, what I find as a practice in the industry is to over emphasise the past track record called Case Study.

If an agency has handled two real estate companies, they are supposed to be an expert on the sector. The same goes true with other sectors, like health or education. I often fail to understand as to whether such agencies are really experts in terms of knowledge about the industry, or it is by default that they are in the right place at the right time. If they are really experts on the given industry, then how come their presentations and suggested communication solutions fail to reflect that?

Conceptually I am not against the idea of presenting the case studies, which does reflect your credentials in the given industry. However, my understanding of the industry is that such case studies are more often over rated and over projected. Say for instance, if an agency is pitching for communication mandate of a company going public with an IPO, a past track record of successful IPOs in the same industry is seen as an asset. However, what makes an IPO successful is a combination of various teams including the PR, Merchant Bankers, Finance Officers, Legal and Marketing team. Within the PR too, it is the agency and the in-house corporate communication team that works in tandem.

Ideally a successful case study like the above mentioned has very many claimants who have their share to make the campaign a success. If a product launch is successful, it is not just the PR that can make a bad product good or can substitute the marketing initiatives and dealership network. Just because an agency has been there at the right time in the right place (performance could have been good, bad or indifferent), is it logical to assume that they are an expert in the given domain?

I feel the Case Study and the so-called expertise in the media space is an over rated commodity in the communication business. It is the out-of-the-box strategy that should be the criterion of evaluation, and not the past track record which may look impressive by default.

Should communicators communicate self?

As a communication professional our job is to communicate the message of the clients to the right media vehicle. Right? Well, not always. Communicators are paid to communicate the message of others and the conventional wisdom suggests against becoming the subject themselves. However, there is no code of ethics that refrains a communicator to communicate his own message. Is there any? I have my serious doubts, and unlike traditional journalism where objectivity and detached view point are the overtly pronounced parameters for obvious reasons, the nature of other forms of communication, Advertising & PR does not come in the way of a free flowing symmetrical communication.

The question as to whether a communicator should communicate self or not was posed by a journalist friend to whom I had sent the press release of the global tie-up of TRACK2MEDIA with Heusler PR, Australia. I have no doubts that the journo friend got confused with our going-global press release, since he was into the habit of receiving the releases of the clients from our end. The result was a prompt phone call to ask whether I was serious with it to be treated as the press release or it was meant for mere information.

What seemed to be an innocuous question actually made me introspect as to whether I crossed the ethical lines of the communication business. I also started questioning myself as to whether I had a need to communicate to the world in general and media in particular about self. However, on second thoughts I decided to stick to my inner urge to communicate, even if it is about self. I understand a number of journo and even some PR pros will contest the claim, but the fact of the matter is that a larger understanding of media business and ethics is needed in the given context.

What used to be unethical in old school of communication is no longer valid in today’s competitive media world. Cross channel promotion of media houses, self glorified version of impact of the news stories, and in some cases individual journalists being promoted as brands is an accepted reality today. And hence I firmly believe that the question of ethics and integrity crossing the line comes into debate only when one starts taking the advantage of being into the business. But so long one has a valid argument and newsworthy information; there is no reason why a communicator should not communicate about self.

After all, we communication professionals don’t function in a vacuum and unless we have something relevant to share, the traditional media will not entertain us, even if there is an element of personal friendship involved. It is not self glorification that can translate into media coverage, only by virtue of being in the same trade. Now if I probe the issue a bit deeper, I have the feeling that more than living under an enforced code of ethics on us, we have subconsciously relegated ourselves as mere messengers.

Of course, since we feel shy of becoming the news ourselves, there is a genre of media platforms that have emerged to keep the industry well reported. There are portals like exchange4media and afaqs, catering to the industry with a genuine B2B focus. In the mainstream media, even though the television channels have broke the clutter with their financial clout, PR professionals are still treated like vendors. The moot point is whether we take an offence to it, or subconsciously we accept it as an industry reality.

It is anybody’s guess as to what is the ground reality. Some of the best known communications consulting agencies, even the ones that specialise in helping the corporate world go to public, are privately held companies. It seems the dilemma of communicating self makes them feel shy of coming out with their own public issues. Intent seems to be very much there; otherwise some of them would not have been deemed public limited companies. But it is the conventional school of communication that acts as a deterrent and communicators fail to get a face lift by communicating self.

Thankfully, I belong to the new school of communication, feel proud of my job and the industry and will never feel shy of communicating self. Right time, right message, right media…..that is the professional philosophy of TRACK2MEDIA Consulting.

Why Prabhash Joshi could not be my ideal

On the sad demise of veteran journalist Prabhash Joshi, I find it quite strange, ironic and unfortunate that a whole new breed of journalists have declared him as an ideal and inspirational figure. It seems the new bunch of journalists have all jumped into the profession in the name of following the ideals of Mr Joshi. Had that been the reality, I wonder how come the new face of Indian journalism is so different from what he preached and practiced throughout his life.
When a journalist friend approached me to write an article for an obituary souvenir on Prabhash Joshi, it was much easier for me to take a moral high ground and declare him “My Ideal” too and follow the trend. However, being two generation post Mr Joshi in the business of communication, my conscience does not allow me to drag the name of one of the father figures of the profession as my ideal and continue practicing otherwise, if not altogether the contrary. To me Prabhash Joshi and his brand of journalism have been and will always continue to be an inspiration, yet he could not be my ideal.
Prabhash Joshi belongs to the old school of journalism where respect to the hierarchy and seniority was looked up to. It is not that the lobby and coterie kind of world did not exist in the media during those days. But the stature of Prabhash Joshi was much above that and in him there was always an inspirational figure whom everybody loved. He shaped the careers of many of the journalists but none of them ever became, or were allowed to become, sycophants.
It was always respect for the father figure of the industry who was there to guide the young lot. Such was the leadership qualities of this man that the young lot loved to be scolded, if found with lack of news sense or writing a poor copy. But along with this occasional pulling up to the reporters was an idealist editor who stood firm with his staff even when the Prime Minister himself wanted the journalist to be sacked.
By the time the next generation evolved in the media, the whole world had changed and liberalization had started spreading its wings in the media market as well. No wonder, many of the journalists who at one point of time sweared by the ideals of Mr Joshi started operating in a different manner. Respect for the hierarchy gradually turned into a flow of “yes boss’ from top to bottom. More money into the profession changed the face of journalism for all the wrong reasons and corruption in the industry became an accepted norm.
I remember my first chance encounter with Prabhash Joshi during a seminar at India Habitat Centre. Those were my initial days in journalism and I had heard a lot about him. This was added to the fact that by that time I had also came across very many intimidating editors for whom arrogance was the only yardstick of being a true leader. It was here that the mere body language of Mr Joshi was different; suggesting as to how true leadership is about earning the respect of your peer group and the juniors at the same time.
A soft spoken but full of satirical verses, this doyen of Indian journalism had a friendly chat with me. No intimidating body language and no editors’ attitude; yet there was an aura around that commanded respect which most of the editors under whom I have worked could not have managed to evoke. During the course of seminar on Media Ethics and Practices while his one-liner verses was all satirical, I felt that deep beneath a critical journalist’s tongue lies a dejected man who was not comfortable with the emerging realities of the profession. And he never minced words too as far as his detaste for the new brand of journalism is concerned.
At a time when the media world was looking for greener pastures and newspapers were “Made in Delhi and not Published”, Private Treaty was signed with the corporate sector and news space was being sold openly, Prabhash Joshi was among the first to openly condemn this overt commercialization. Sadly many of the Managing Editors who otherwise swear by his ideals and brand of journalism were too busy with their respective management in suggesting as to how more revenue could be generated.
That is the reason I have no remorse in accepting the fact that Prabhash Joshi could not be my ideal. Two generations post his era, the profession and its practitioners had changed. Neither could I get the professional upbringing that had been the forte of Prabhash Joshi and his ilk, nor did I fit into this next generation of journalism where the system demanded that being “yes man” was the first step to stardom. With a background of student politics, trade unionism in blood and a radical approach in politics, all I knew was to be a rebel for a cause. I have doubts whether I could ever have been an asset to a disciplinarian editor in Prabhash Joshi.
Yes, Prabhash Joshi has not been my ideal, nor do I pretend that to be. I just wish that the journalistic world would have followed his ideals, my professional upbringing would have been under this legend, he would not have been that involved in cricket that caused his heart attack or India would have played better on that day…….My wish list is a bit too long. But then had wishes been horses.