Many moons ago, a friend of mine sent me a book entitled, Disciplined Minds, the subtitle of which reads, "A critical look at salaried professionals and the soul-battering system that shapes their lives." I actually read the book straightaway, but my feelings about it were so conflicted that I kept them to myself until now.
The book is really two books in one. Part of it, the best part, is a detailed critique of the process of achieving a doctorate in physics and what happens to doctoral candidates along the way. The other, less convincing, part is a broad critique of the division of labor, capitalist society, and the role that salaried professionals play in maintaining and perpetuating the status quo.
Schmidt views the working world in classically Marxist terms in which there is an inherent, exploitative conflict between employees and managers. The problem for the managers lies in the fact that they cannot tell everyone exactly what to do all the time. Some jobs require independent thinking and creativity. "Beyond a certain point on such a job," Schmidt writes, "the worker faces a blank sheet of paper and th boss can't tell her exactly what to do. Here employers simply expect their creative workers to act in the corporate interest..."
The thesis of Disciplined Minds is that the primary role of post-graduate education is to crank out professionals, be they MBAs or PhDs, who know how to "act in the corporate interest" without being explicitly told how to do so. In the end, although I do not share Schmidt's skepticism vis-a-vis the division of labor, it makes sense to me in many circumstances, or his belief that hierarchical relations are inherently evil, particularly when they are based on demonstrable differences in skills and experience, it is undeniable to me that certain people, especially in the marketing and creative realms, know how to act "in the corporate interest" without being told to do so.
I say it is "undeniable" because I am myself living proof of this.
I've written and/or influenced a great deal of Aquent's internal communications over the last ten years and over this past year written or edited a great deal of the content we have sent to our talent and clients. During that time, I've never been told precisely what to say and, when I've handed around copy for review by senior management, the feedback has tended to be stylistic rather than "ideological," in the sense that Schmidt uses the term. In fact, I've been writing this blog, Aquent's official corporate blog, for over a year with virtually no feedback on the content whatsoever.
That last statement is not entirely true. In fact, I did receive some feedback several weeks ago from our creative director. He told me that he didn't like my blog because it seemed too much like a corporate blog. I couldn't disagree with him. I believe that I have more or less automatically written this blog in a "corporate voice," even though no one told me to do so and my beloved creative director was effectively telling me not to.
What are the characteristics of the "corporate voice"? It is essentially educated, relatively formal (no cursing/minimal slang), and thoughtfully diplomatic. More significantly, the topics it discusses are "safe." Aside from being relevant to the business of the corporation itself, in my case, "marketing staffing," it shies away from topics that could potentially offend any of my more or less anonymous, more or less accidental readers. That means: no direct discussion of political or religious issues (to the extent that the two can be separated in the United States), no commentary on the actions of our current or potential clients, and, naturally, no criticism of the staffing industry or particular staffing firms.
It is not irrational to use the corporate voice when speaking on behalf of the corporation. It would not be in the corporation's interest for me to alienate or insult its present or future customers by using "foul" language, advocating on behalf of this or that political viewpoint, or disparaging or promoting this or that religious perspective, etc. Moreover, to the extent that I cherish the security offered by health benefits and a regular paycheck, it would not be in my interest to do anything patently counter to the corporate interest.
But what if using the "corporate voice" was not in the best interest of this blog? What if the blog would be more popular if I spoke in a voice closer, if not equivalent, to my own? What if I extolled the virtues of atheism like Christopher Hitchens, talked about thongs, sluts, and glittering excrement like Steve Hall over at Adrants, or discussed everything from Serbian Neo-Nazis to "politico baby-pants" like the mad-geniuses at boingboing?
Perhaps then this blog would be popular, or at least "less boring," as the folks at Diogenes Books used to say. Besides, wouldn't the popularity of this blog be in the corporate interest?
Image courtesy of danielle blue.
Matt,
I can only share what I would do were I again in a similar situation. As a former Manager Internal Communications at two corporations, I have more than a little experience with your position.
First, you should not be worried about popularity. Your primary concern is for your readers. You didn't share with us who they are or what they look like. I assume they are employees and customers.
Assuming I correctly identified your ideal reader, what are they interested in? Why do they visit this blog? I doubt very much that it is to read your position on any issue. They want to know what Aquent is doing, why they are doing it, and how they are getting where they want to be.
They also want to be asked their opinions, so that they have a voice in Aquent's decisions.
Finally, it is in Aquent's best interests to know what their employees and customers think. Why are they happy or unhappy with their Aquent experiences? What could Aquent do better? What should they keep doing because it meets or exceeds people's expecations? What should they stop doing?
Corporate communications should not be boring but it should be engaging and interactive. Have you asked the Executives what they would like to share on the blog? Have you asked the readers what they want to read?
Only a few rules:
1) Be 100 percent honest, 100 percent of the time.
2) Do not use the blog to market or sell anything.
3) Never try to control the message.
4) Use the blog to share and to listen.
5) Tell stories.
I also suggest you invite employees and customers to be guest bloggers.
Hope this helps,
Lewis
Matt,
I enjoyed this post very much and commented on it here:
http://www.krisrzepkowski.com/blog/work/what-is-the-voice-of-your-staffing-firm-blog.html
Your struggle with your blog's voice and purpose I'm sure are shared by many who do corporate blogging. I'll keep reading to see how it develops.
Lewis, Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful comments.
Starting at the end, I agree with your rules, for the most part, though I would modify the second rule so that the emphasis fell on the "not selling" part. I do not use individual posts to talk about how great I think Aquent is or why people should use Aquent's services, which is probably what you meant, but this blog is undeniably part of our marketing efforts. Which brings me to the "ideal reader" and what I imagine he or she would be interested in reading here.
My first assumption has been that our "customers," meaning both the clients who engage us to find marketing and creative professionals as well as the professionals we recruit and represent, don't necessarily care about Aquent as a company. In general, I assume they are interested first and foremost in their professional responsibilities ("I need to produce this direct mail piece," "I need to know how our website is performing," etc.). More broadly, I assume they are interested in trends and best practices in their particular discipline.
When it comes to Aquent itself, they are interested in one of two things: 1) Can Aquent find me the right person to accomplish my particular marketing/creative goals?; and 2) Can Aquent find me a gig using my skills and experience on interesting projects?
Based on this understanding of my audience, and given that I view this blog in terms of marketing, I've chosen to use it to illustrate that (a) Aquent works with accomplished professionals who are experts in their fields, and (b) Aquent works with clients that you have heard of and might want to work for yourself. I have tried to do that that both by writing profiles of the folks who we represent, and by asking these folks and our clients to weigh in on a particular subject: brand globalization, customer segmentation, marketing management, etc.. More recently, I've added podcast interviews to this mix.
Getting back to my "ideal reader," while the above may pertain to current or potential clients/candidates, from an SEO/SEM perspective, I've also tried to use this blog as a way of introducing Aquent to people we don't know yet by writing about things I think they might be interested in. Here's where "expressing my opinion" comes in and where it intersects with the marketing purpose of promoting brand awareness. I figure by discussing things I've come across in the realms of marketing and design, I will produce posts that people who may never have heard of Aquent, but who should know about us, will stumble upon and, ideally, be impressed by. If I'm concerned about popularity, and, frankly, I am, it is because I am trying to make this blog fulfill the latter function as well as the others I mentioned above.
Based on what I've just written, and I don't think I've ever stated things quite this explicitly ( thank you for inspiring me to do so!), I'm wondering if I'm trying to make this blog do too many things and, in the process, making it neither fish nor fowl. I think it is also why I don't know where to draw the line between stuff that is about Aquent (the profiles and interviews, etc.), and the stuff that's about "me."
In any event, I feel like I've got some more work to do...