Skip to main content

Why the best communicators are not esoteric subject matter experts

I hear things like this all the time.

So often that I don't want to repeat the words lest someone recognize themselves in the quote.

But in general, the conversation goes as follows:

"I know my subject matter and you are not going to tell me how to communicate about it."

Or:

"You're the communication expert, and I need your help - but I know my field so don't tell me what to do."

Or:

"Seeking a great communicator. Must be a subject matter expert in (esoteric to most people)."

Last but not least:

"Seeking communication expert. Must be a whiz at (SEO) (graphic design) (Flash and Dreamweaver) (Drupal)." Etc.

The root of the problem here is a serious misconception that communication is not an expertise in and of itself.

This is so wrong!!!!

Communication is an entire, huge field of thinking that is incredibly complex and incredibly hard to master.

People learn communication in school, on the job, at home, and in life. And they never stop learning.

A person who has mastered communication principles is a subject matter expert in their own right.

Any other skills they have are supplemental. Any other skills they have are subordinate.

In fact, if you try to get a communication expert who has a dominant mastery in any other field, you will probably end up with a master of the other field who doesn't really understand communication.

There are enough experts in technical subject matter. And they don't know beans about communicating.

There are enough whizzes. And you can't get them off their devices long enough for a handshake.

Get a communication expert. Team them up with the other experts in your office.

Respect the communication expert.

This person will ultimately save you time, money, and wasted effort.

Great communicators who are part of a collaborative team can generate nearly endless positive results for your organization.

Don't fight their expertise - welcome it.

Good luck!

_______

Dannielle Blumenthal, Ph.D.
@thinkbrandfirst

Report Human Trafficking: 866-347-2423

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

________________
All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …