Intermedia

Creativity: Working with a beach vs. a sandbox

Creativity is one of the most interesting and important things that we can bring to a project or workplace - but also one of the hardest to put into context. Why? Too often, we take a "rules and structure kills creativity" stance when I would argue that rules and structure actually stimulate creativity.

Think of the difference between a beach and a sandbox. You have the same basic materials with each, but the options on the beach are limitless - scale, placement, and possibility are difficult to pin down. As we know, having too many choices is often paralyzing, leading many to default to creating something too small and too safe.

With a sandbox, the borders are clearly defined, and the available resource (sand) is a known quantity. You'll probably build the coolest possible sand castle using as much space and sand possible.

Give it a try next time you bite off a big project. Take the time to define the purpose, goal and borders with the folks involved. Then break out the bucket and shovels and see how far your creativity can take you.

Image: Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Measurement: Think like an eye doctor

 It's not always easy to measure your impact on an institution or an effort, either individually or as a team. Often, we get so caught up in planning, research, big ideas, and the drama that comes with any job that we lose track of the very simple question - are we making things better?  

So much time and money gets spent trying to track individual efforts to individual outcomes when maybe it would be easier to take a page from your eye doctor's book when he or she puts that 1920's era machine in front of your face, testing different lenses. What question do you hear over and over again? "Is that better, worse, or the same?" With one simple question, your doctor is able to precisely select the lenses that will work for you. Brilliant!

This isn't to say that detailed measurement efforts aren't necessary, but rather that starting with the basic question, "Did I help?" might help provide some good direction and enable you to either change course or press forward before getting bogged down in the detail of precise metrics.

Image: vegadsl / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Listening, leading and the bully pulpit

I have often written about the importance of listening as a part of effective communication. I stand by this, as I think we are often are too quick to talk when we can learn an awful lot - and have better conversations - by taking the time to listen. Like everything in life, though, there has to be a balance between listening and talking, shaping comments based on what you hear and leading a conversation.

I say all of this because I wonder if the drive for informed listening (ROI on content, measurement and metrics) is tipping the balance toward reactive "me too" content generation and away from creating and leading conversations based on mission and purpose - said differently, are you talking about what you (whether you're an institution or an individual) stand for in the world?

I've always been drawn to the idea of the bully pulpit and how, traditionally, that platform was based on position. Elected officials, college presidents (even moreso in the past) and others had a bully pulpit by virtue of their position. Now, as trust has evolved (see the 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer) and information flows far more freely, one could argue that the bully pulpit is held by those who have established the strongest networks. It's more of a grassroots platform, built based on the depth and relevance of the content rather than hierarchy and position.

All of this goes to my original point that individuals and institutions have an even greater opportunity today to take hold of an issue, establish a position and advocate for it. At the same time, because the playing field is far more flat, credibility needs to be established and maintained because that platform can be taken away just as quickly as it was built. Exciting times, indeed.

 Image: Master isolated images / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Focused engagement

Engagement is the cool new word for communicators and why not? It sounds great and really gets to the core of what we're trying to do. I do think we could use a bit more focus, though, in terms of how we think about who we are trying to engage and what that means.

As I've said in the past, I don't think there is any such thing as THE public, but rather there are a range of publics (plural), that have different interests, needs, and levels of awareness. When you don't segment or differentiate them though, they look to be one big mass ("the public"). A strategic public relations program is focused on getting groups of people to do certain things (awareness is good, action is better) so, similarly, our engagement efforts need to be targeted.

Talking about engagement without segmenting those we want to engage and defining what that deeper engagement looks like is a recipe for frustration and false indicators of engagement (likes, fans, etc.). These things are important, but do they really indicate a desire to do those things that help move the needle (apply, enroll, volunteer, give, purchase... whatever your business model may be)?

Perhaps there is a more focused and transparent way to go about enhancing engagement. If we start by identifying those things we want to accomplish as an institution, then look at the ways our constituents can positively impact those things through deeper involvement/giving/activity, we can identify what the current level of awareness and engagement is and then plan for increasing both - and do so by clearly telling folks what we're trying to accomplish and how they can help us get there.

Easy to say and not so simple to do, but what is?

News or noise?

There's an awful lot of news out there today. Look at your news feed, phone, TV... Everywhere you look, there is more information than any reasonable person can possibly consume. Which makes me think we all need to ask ourselves if we're producing news or just adding to the noise. I think we can answer that question by looking into two topics - are we listening (a favorite old stump of mine) and do we have the proper delivery systems in place.

Listening
Too often, information sharing initiatives are driven by institutional needs and interests and not those of the individuals we are trying to connect with. In other words, it's all about us. Do the peope we're trying to reach really care? Does this new information make their lives any better? What comes next? How does this new information support the institutional narrative?

To get to this place, we need to get out and talk with people and understand how our institutional priorities align with their interests and needs. It's not as hard ad it may seem, once you understand who your publics are, how each one is different from another and how your institution is and can be relevant to them.

Systems
This is an area in which I think social media has confused things a bit. While there had been a relatively few number of "pipes" to get information to people (traditional media being the biggest), we now have a complext and highly customizable content sprinkler system at our finger tips. Problem is we often forget to hook it up to the spigot and opt for a hose instead.

We now have the ability to create a wide range of content and deliver it based on the interest/topic. Additionally, thanks to our good friend RSS, we can deliver it in a variety of formats. But are we? How many places are taking the time to build these systems rather than just plugging another hose into the wall and spraying the content out there? Too often, social media is treated as another outlet for our big content stream rather than a way to focus on pockets of people.