« September 2004 | Main | November 2004 »
October 27, 2004
“Trick or Treat!” say 70% of your young employees
My communication philosophy is simple: The better you understand your organization’s employees, the more effectively you can communicate with them. The good news is that insights about employees’ interests, needs and preferences can be found nearly everywhere.
Even in a pumpkin patch.
Just by driving down your street and looking at all the ghosts hanging in the trees and pumpkins sitting on stoops, I’m sure you’ve noticed how Halloween has become a phenomenon in the United States. Retail spending for the holiday is expected to reach $3.1 billion this year (up from less than $3 billion in 2003), according to the National Retail Federation (NRF).
But what you may not realize is how much this phenomenon is fueled not by children, but by young adults. The NRF reports that nearly 70% of adults ages 18 to 34 expect to celebrate Halloween in costume or at a party. “We’re seeing more adults drive it,” NRF spokeswoman Ellen Tolley said in an October 24 article in USA Today. “Young adults grew up with Halloween and they don’t want to let go of it. They want to make it their own and take it to a new level. They view it as an annual opportunity to act like a kid.”
What does this mean? Young working people are much more in touch with their own need for fun than those stodgy, earnest Baby Boomers who now dominate senior leader and manager levels. Generations X and Y are very aware of the need to actually achieve a balance between their personal and professional sides, and they are willing to work to play—including dressing up in costume, going to a party, and making their front yard look like a graveyard.
Here’s the question: In your efforts to communicate seriously, have you abandoned the fun stuff—the content that your younger workers would especially find appealing? You don’t have to sprinkle your communication with images of witches and werewolves, but where is the whimsy in what you’re communicating?
As always, your comments are appreciated. Happy Halloween!
Posted by Alison Davis at 08:10 AM | Comments (1)
October 22, 2004
My (barely) passing grade on the 7th grade reading level test
I’ve been wondering lately whether communicators are writing for the appropriate level of our employee readers. My initial conclusion is that most internal communication is written at too high a level. It’s not that our employees are illiterate (although illiteracy can be a real problem); they’re busy, distracted, and reluctant to read complicated prose.
To explore the issue further, I decided to do some research and began to wander around the Internet, seeing what educators and others had to say about reading levels. In the course of my travels, I came across a website (www.brainchild.com) that allows visitors to take free online tests based on state standards for competency in reading and math.
A few clicks of the mouse and I was taking the New Jersey seventh grade reading test. The test consisted of two passages—one about a place in North Carolina called Blowing Rock and the other about the blizzard of 1888—each followed by six multiple choice questions. Piece of cake, right? I skimmed through the passages, clicked on my answers, and waited for my score.
See a related article on writing for employees' reading levels in the current issue of Smart Tips, our electronic newsletter.
Which was (drum roll, please): 67%. That’s right, boys and girls, yours truly—Ms. English major, avid reader, terrific speller—barely passed the test.
Of course, my first reaction was, “There must be some mistake.” Nope. I checked: I got three questions wrong, and forgot to answer another one. Because the way the test was weighted, 67% was indeed my embarrassing grade.
Then I began making excuses. “Well, I did the whole thing in under five minutes,” I said to myself. And: “I got interrupted in the middle.” And: “I don’t care about these topics, anyway, so it’s no wonder I didn’t really pay attention.”
And then the light dawned. The way I read those boring passages was the way most employees read the stuff we send them. Sometimes they’re a little interested in the topic; other times, they’re merely indifferent. But they’re always rushing, thinking about other things, skimming to find the most relevant parts, skipping other sections and getting interrupted in the middle.
When it comes to how we read, we’ve become a society of people with attention-deficit disorder. Anyway, that’s my excuse.
I welcome your viewpoints (on my literacy challenges or on the overall issue). Thanks!
Posted by Alison Davis at 12:57 PM | Comments (1)
October 15, 2004
Do employees understand your communication “store”?
There’s a fascinating book called Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping by Paco Underhill (Simon & Schuster, 1999) which explains how retailers and others use a variety of tested techniques to get you to 1) put that item in your cart, and 2) buy it.
These techniques include everything from lighting and signage to physical layout to whether or not they even have shopping carts (Target does; Macy’s doesn’t), and why.
Yes, this does relate to employee communication, and to a comment posted on this weblog a couple of weeks ago by Liz Urquhart (more on Liz’s remark in a few minutes). Here’s how: Companies that want you to buy their stuff understand that they not only have to attract your interest and make you feel you need/want that item—they also have to create an environment (physical or virtual) where you can easily find the item, enjoy doing so, touch it/smell it/taste it/visualize it, try it on, and take it with you when it’s time to go.
But when it comes to an organization’s communication offerings, employees often feel dazed and confused. They don’t see the value of each vehicle, don’t know how things are organized or how they fit together, and can’t easily find the information they’re looking for. For employees, it’s like being stuck at an endless checkout line in some now-defunct retailer that deserved to die: Bradlees. Caldor. The Wiz. Ames Department Stores.
What’s the problem? Communication is confusing and complex, and employees need to be reminded how the system works—how to get around the store. Think mall map: “You are here. This is where you find the food court.”
Which leads me to Liz’s insight. She writes that, in her organization, a mixture of print and electronic works best, and advocates combining the mix with a "communications commitment—telling employees up front what we're going to send and when we're going to send it—and sticking to the schedule we say we're going to use, they're less likely to overlook our message than they would an unexpected or surprise transmission, especially when the communication isn't directly related to their daily assignments.”
What a great approach to “store” management! It’s clear, it manages employee expectations, and provides great context for communication
How well are you minding your store? Please share your comments, questions and suggestions.
Posted by Alison Davis at 07:00 AM
October 10, 2004
Is your editorial style up to date?
It’s been a busy week here at Employee Communication Central. We’ve held three workshops and facilitated an equal number of client planning/strategy sessions, so I’ve been wearing my go-to-meeting clothes (sorry—can’t seem to get away from talking about fashion).
And in my spare time I’ve been reading comments many of you posted on this web log—such interesting observations, ideas and challenges!
I’ll respond to some of your questions and thoughts in future blog entries, but for now I’d like to talk a little side trip—to an issue raised this week by several workshop participants. The issue is this: These forward-thinking communicators are pushing to make their vehicles more dynamic, vibrant and compelling. But they get stopped by their senior directors or communication VPs who are stuck in the past, insisting upon a “journalistic” approach to editorial: objective, comprehensive, linear . . . a standard practiced by The New York Times or The Washington Post in, say, 1977.
Many of these senior folks majored in journalism, started as newspaper reporters, or had influential early bosses who adhered to strict journalistic guidelines for internal communication. While these ideals are laudable, they’re sadly out of date. Ponchos may be back in style, but the 1500-word narrative piece will never return. The media is not doing things the way they used to, and neither should we.
I spend an entire hour in my workshop on the reasons things have changed, but here’s the 30-second summary:
If you have a boss who’s stuck in the past, how do you help him or her see the light? Here are three ways to create enlightenment:
I’m sure you have thoughts on this issue. Please post them so we can continue the dialogue. Thanks.
Posted by Alison Davis at 12:00 PM