« The need for speed | Main | The case for simplicity »
November 29, 2005
Tough love about your publication
Dear Employee Publication Editor:
I just received the latest issue of your publication, and I’m sorry to say that I’m a little disappointed.
I know how hard you work—and how challenging it is to get an issue written, edited, designed, approved, printed and distributed. So I don’t want to be critical. But you’re making some mistakes that are seriously undermining your ability to get employees’ attention. And I feel like it’s my obligation to tell you, the way a friend would tell you if you had a piece of spinach stuck in your teeth or your hem was coming undone.
The fact is, your publication’s slip is showing. Here are a few examples of what I mean:
- There are too many photographs of middle-aged white guys in suits. These guys are completely representative of senior management, but they’re not a reflection of the broader employee population. Why don’t you show some real employees?
- Nobody talks like this: “Thanks to the outstanding vision of John Smith, the company remains well-positioned in the industry with a balanced portfolio of advanced products and services for a wide range of applications,” the lead story quotes the CEO as saying. It’s not even good writing, much less a credible and compelling quote.
- Who would read a 1500-word executive Q&A? Come to think of it, when’s the last time most people have read 1500 words on any subject? Remember that the average USA Today article is 350 words. Unless the (middle-aged white guy) VP of Blah-Blah-Blah is sharing secrets on how to beat cancer, there is no way he deserves that much ink.
- There’s no such thing as “news” in a monthly newsletter. By the time the publication gets in people’s hands, either they’ve heard the news already—or it’s just not important. Unless you’re publishing a daily, your publication should be providing perspective, context and meaning—not trying to “report” on “news.”
- I’ll bet every person quoted or pictured in your 12-page issue is doing something fascinating, or has a completely unique perspective on some issue. But you’ve sanitized them—made them bland, safe, corporate, boring. They’re interchangeable—nothing quirky or special about them. For example, the VP of Blah-Blah-Blah (see note on Q&A above) is a guy who’s accomplished a lot. Instead of asking him, “What fields are today’s cutting-edge technologies originating from?”, why don’t you try a question like: “What’s the most difficult challenge this group faces? Who’s our toughest competitor and why? What keeps you up at night?” And then print the candid answer.
Speaking of candid, I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but I just had to tell you the truth. For all your hard work, your publication deserves to be more effective. Hope this tough love helps.
Posted by Alison Davis at November 29, 2005 01:34 PM
Comments
Great article. It was awesome.
Posted by: Kim Possible at November 29, 2005 02:38 PM
Well said.
Most companies claim that RISK is one of their key values. Yet, few actually GET OUT THERE ON THE EDGE and do something radical to grab employees' attention and get them jazzed up -- even if it's something as simple as replacing the middle-aged-white-men-in-suits photos!
By the way, which companies have great publications?
Posted by: Donna Canavan at December 5, 2005 11:02 AM
