Skip to main content

Social Media Is Often Beside The Point

Personally I don't think people have trouble speaking clearly or writing plainly when they are free to express themselves. So the problem is not a lack of technical writing skill.
I do think the problem, in government and elsewhere, is the number and kind of formal and informal restrictions on communication. By the time you put normal English through the mill it often sounds like an odd, tortured form of the language we speak.
Formal restrictions concern written laws, rules, regulations and policy regarding what may be expressed and how. 
Informal restrictions include unwritten but generally known preferred phrasings or jargon, or cultural sensitivities.
There is also the matter of coordinated communication - because of course the more people involved in the message the less "human" it sounds and the more strained and calculated.
Whatever the kind of organization one is talking about, whether you're selling Domino's Pizza or preparing the public for inclement weather, communication is decided by people with different orientations. All of those people have some say. The conversational types think in terms of how the public thinks - they just want to give a simple straight answer. The subject matter experts think in terms of the complexity of the answer - usually things are difficult to spell out in a single sentence or two. The lawyer thinks in terms of the legal implications of the response. So on and so on. 
That is why the whole issue of social media in government is really beside the point no matter how much or how well an agency does it. The crux of the matter is whether the primary communication to the public is clear, comprehensive and credible; whether the issues people want to hear about are being addressed; and whether all communication from the agency is aligned and consistent both internally and where necessary with the rest of the government. 

All opinions are always my own.

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 …