Building A Case for "Messaging"

The common argument against those who advise CEOs and corporations about what they say and how they say it is that their counsel is usually midwife to misrepresentation or deception . . ."spin". (For a short, but perspicacious, comment on the straw man argument of managing messages take a look here.) 

This is largely nonsense and I have written about it elsewhere. Forgive me if I quote myself from that post: 'Messaging to my way of thinking is making a point of view apparent . . .  with simplicity, clarity and force. It is an element of Aristotelan rhetoric and is the foundation of ordinary discourse. Using it on behalf of a client to explain -- truthfully and openly -- a point of view is much less manipulative than juxtaposing a terrifying image with an alarmist headline. Of course, when messages are treated as dogma they can't help but sound like spin'.

The fact that a company or organization wants to manage the way in which it says something, expresses a point of view, identifies its preoccupations and concerns, or reveals its ideas is really not much different from what we do as individuals when we assemble our thoughts or say something about ourselves. We are cautious about how our words will reflect on our character, whether they are hiding or revealing too much. We are apprehensive that the words may appear less than felicitous, intelligent, thoughtful (or cool, tough, sharp . . . depending on the circumstances).

Individuals 'message' themselves every day so why should we expect companies and organizations to be different. Messaging is a way of expressing a point of view while avoiding thoughtless, damaging comment.

Shakespeare and Reputation

H & K Canada's Podcast