Using conflict constructively to generate content

Conflict is a basic part of human nature which generates interest. Think back to your primary school and seeing two little boys fighting in the school playground – a crowd forms very quickly before the teachers arrive to separate them –  and this shows our basic human interest in conflict.

Think of war or action movies or sports like boxing. One of the key ingredients of drama is conflict.

People are absolutely fascinated by conflict so here are some ideas about how an organisation or brand can constructively use conflict to generate interesting content for their audience. Watch this 2:30 min video.

  • Create content that shows in what way you are fighting the good fight
  • Present the problem you are faced with
  • Demonstrate how you save the day  – as the knight in shining armour!

And this is how you can use conflict constructively, you painted a picture of evil, of potential destruction and mayhem and shown how you saved the day.

 

Tony Coll is a highly regarded public speaker on Reputation Management, Crisis Communication and the Media.

His company, Tony Coll Media Training works with individuals and groups, from C-suite executives on defining messages, making speeches and videos, practising crisis communication plans and being interviewed in the media, to stakeholders learning about responsible social media.

Follow Tony on Twitter: @tonycollmedia

Impactful corporate storytelling demands singular stories, not schizophrenia

768x350_voice

Remember when you were a kid? Something had gone wrong. You were involved, and someone was going to be angry. A teacher, a parent or a sibling. But you weren’t seen, and to minimise repercussions you crafted a version of the truth that had an air of plausibility to it that would also get you off the hook. Perhaps a boisterous but mute pet could take the rap. The problem was – particularly for the still-developing teenage prefrontal cortex – remembering the elements you’d embroidered. Let alone to whom you’d told what.

Growing up and learning to interact with different groups – friends, family, authority figures – is a positive learning experience if you’re going to be able to swap between modes and registers in later life. Those tweens and teens who learn to apply context in different environments go on to thrive. Knowing not to swear in class or to the police, becoming a bit more estuary in the playground or on the terraces, and upping the deference before grandparents are important skills for the trainee social chameleon. But it’s ever so funny when these emerging skills lapse in the heat of the moment.

I’ve no idea what it’s like to have an affair. Coming from a serial broken home, I’ve always prized fidelity and stability highly. I also happen to have found The One at just 20 – lucky old me – and have combined being not-the-straying-kind with a strong and happy partnership. But I’m not immune to popular culture, and I’ve seen my fair share of characters in film, TV series and books come a cropper by failing to control singular sexual narratives.

Holding multiple versions of the same story in your consciousness and constantly having to switch between them can be exhausting; stressful to the storyteller and confusing to the audience. As for individuals, so for corporations and brands. And all the more so because the folk memory and representation of an abstract entity like a brand is held in the collective minds and mouths of dozens to thousands of individuals.

In a pre-social media world, companies could and often did tell different stories to different audiences with impunity.

  • One story for their supply chain, whom they wanted to see them as partners: “Through our long-term commitment to you, we can help your company grow with ours.” (Or maybe: “We’ll parasite on your innovation until it becomes synonymous with us not you. And then we’ll cut your margin until it’s no longer viable for you to supply us.”)
  • One story for their shareholders and investors, whom they wanted to reassure they were running the business keenly: “We’ve removed all unnecessary costs from the supply chain and now produce our products more cheaply than the competition.” (Or possibly: “We screw our suppliers to the floor to maximise margin.”)
  • One story for their customers, whom they wanted to woo and bewitch: “We make the best products – bar none.” (Or perhaps “We’re brilliant at accentuating the positive.”)
  • One story for regulators and legislators: “We’re the greenest business in this sector.” (Or read: “We stick to the letter but not the spirit of the law and pollute as little as possible.”)
  •  And one story for employees: “With our company on your CV, you’ll have the pick of the market for your next role.” (Code for: “You should be grateful to work here, and accept the fact that we’re not going to give you a raise, even in line with inflation.”)

I’ll admit that the alternative readings (in brackets) are cynical, and historically the different narrative strands may all have been well-meaning from each of the different parts of a business. But very often the CSR story was 180 degrees from the key messages for city analysts. And a tale told to assuage environmentalists and local government would lead shareholders seriously to consider shuffling their investment portfolios.

The problem was – and amazingly still is in a surprisingly large number of organisations – that communication wasn’t joined up. The era of brand monologue was linear, siloed and separate. When it wasn’t easy to collect and collate different strands of brand communication through platforms and search engines, different strokes for different folks didn’t matter. No-one could discover the contradictions inherent in such a system.

Read more

How emotive communications drives brand affinity

As marketers we thrive on models and frameworks to explain what we do and what happens in the world around us to our clients and colleagues. We use them to explain complex processes, visualize tried and tested modes of operations or to hedge and focus our thinking and grasp of a situation or business problem.

One of these tried and tested models is the distinction we draw between B2B & B2C, bread and butter for many marketers in terms of understanding how to communicate with allegedly completely different sets of audiences.

768x350b2b

Beyond the B2B vs B2C divide

But are they actually that different? Some argue that B2B and B2C distinctions do not exist and offer alternative models that try to encompass both routes to market with terms like Business-to-Person (B2P) or even simply Human-to-Human (H2H?) communication.

Whatever the terms that we might agree on in the future, what these challenger models attempt to do is uncover the commonalities between the traditional B2B & B2C frameworks: the emotive layers of human communication. Read more