Skip to main content

Why I Decided Not To Talk To A Reporter

So I wrote a blog called "On The Use Of Memes In Government Communication" and the Wall Street Journal wanted to talk to me. 

Obviously that was a very tempting opportunity, right? I mean, I've been writing about controversial topics for a pretty long time, and it's not like I shy away from the spotlight. But in the end I said "no."

I'll admit I am still ambivalent about that.

The genesis of this issue was a meme.  I asked a colleague to come up with engaging visuals to portray the mission of my office, which is pretty complex for the average person. 

In response she generated all these great ideas, and I was awestruck. In a single brushstroke (or so it seemed to me, because they took her quite a long time to craft) she captured the essence of what we were trying to say.

But then one of the memes went a bit too far. It showed the head of a popular male meme character from the show "Game of Thrones," combined with an attractive woman's body wearing a somewhat revealing bathing suit manufactured with advanced materials - the kind of advanced materials our program seeks to promote the development of. 

Both revolting and compelling, and just on the line between genius and exploitation.

I wasn't sure if this was OK. So we asked for approval, and got it, although unbeknownst to us the approver had the same reservations. And surely enough, within about 5 minutes of posting to Twitter, it was vetoed and taken down for its potentially offensive nature.

And no, I'm not showing it to you, although I think I could. Because to do so would be to undermine the veto. 

The discussion and feedback around the meme was sufficiently rich and varied that the topic seemed worthy of exploration. I wrote a detailed post about the use of memes in government communication. 

It considered both the copyright issues that memes appear to generate as well as those surrounding the murky question of taste.

Other government communicators are regularly interviewed and quoted by the media. 

Yet I chose not to be interviewed regarding my thoughts on a subject I had written about. For the following reasons:

1) My post really did cover all the things I had to say on the matter. I didn't want to speculate.

2) I couldn't say with 100% confidence that my interview would be clearly portrayed as an individual opinion.

3) I did not want to speak in an off-the-record capacity because this creates the impression that there is something I am afraid of saying with my name on it. 

In the end, public service is a public trust -- so is communication.

It is not always easy to figure out what to do.

But in the end, taking the time to talk it over is usually worthwhile.

__

All opinions are my own and do not represent those of my agency or the federal government as a whole.

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

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.