I’m returning from the CASE District V conference. I spent a lot of time attending the web track – as opposed to the communications track, which was separate. I know it’s not a good idea to over think this bifurcation. I’m sure the organizers reason that there is so much interest in the web that it deserves its own track alongside the older communications track. But the bifurcation doesn’t send a very good signal for those thinking about the integration of web and non-web communications. During one session, an attendee asked a question about coordinating print and web communications and the presenter, after strongly agreeing that such coordination was important, shrugged his shoulders on how to achieve it.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and make this integration happen for folks but I can’t. Many of the impediments are structural, involving professional skill-sets and administrative turf. Since there are so many different kinds of institutions with different administrative structures, personalities and history, there is not a single solution. But here is a place to start:
If you are responsible for big-picture messaging at an institution, you need to understand that neither your print folks nor your web folks should be developing your core strategic idea. Rather, it should be developed independently and prior to implementation of major print or web projects.
I sat through several presentations where either a web team or a print team described their process for developing core messaging for an institution as part of their work. Regardless of the quality of their thinking, all suffered from prioritizing the specific medium in which they worked.
For example, a team from mStoner described coming up with a set of institutional differentiators that they would use to develop a web site. Because web sites are non-linear and can easily handle multiple features, they were comfortable boiling their list down to five or six differentiators. And it was o.k. if a few of the differentiators were generic. There was no discussion of any kind of hierarchy. That’s because the non-linear nature of the web doesn’t require, or even well support, hierarchical messaging. Their work required lists that that they could sort and rearrange as they built the site so that’s what they developed.
A team from the print firm Philographica talked about how their process resulted in a story that they used to drive development of a viewbook. Their solutions were premised on the linear nature of the reading experience. They wanted to tell a story that a prospect or donor would follow.
I mention these firms because I think they represent the best of our industry. Both do really superb work. But regardless of the quality of their work they are not in a position to drive major messaging for an institution because the media in which they execute the message tings their processes. And the same holds true for in-house teams. You can never assume that a print team or a web team can develop core strategic messaging with the idea that the other branch will simply adopt it. And it’s even worse to have one team produce the messaging with the assumption that it’s o.k. if the other team simply ignores it.
I suspect a lot of creative folks who work in these areas will say that I’m clipping their wings. But the opposite is the case – I’m freeing them up to do what they do well. It is better to tap creative talent by giving them the strategy and challenging them to find a way to implement it in their particular medium. But better or worse it is essential. Maybe in the future CASE District V can add a track on strategy that goes cross-platform.
Mark,
You raise some interesting points in this post.
First, thank you for your kind words about mStoner: I especially appreciate these accolades since they come from you and I’ve long respected your work.
Second, you’re absolutely right about the need to establish strategic, coordinated messaging at the institutional level first, and then to refine that messaging by audience and medium as the institution reaches out to prospective students, alumni and the public via print, web and other channels.
mStoner has always entered this process at a variety of levels, as it makes sense for the client and the project. We’ve done big-picture positioning/integrated marketing/branding work. We’ve translated an existing messaging strategy into web and print communications. In those instances where our client hasn’t had the resources to do the research-driven, institution-wide integrated marketing work up front, we’ve incorporated ad hoc versions of that kind of research and thinking into our intake process so that the messaging we use to inform our web projects are as strategic and well-informed as the situation allows.
Finally, I’ll simply point out that the CASE V organizers asked my colleagues to talk about a web redesign and the Philographica team to talk about a viewbook. There’s plenty of value in hearing about how these kinds of projects can succeed in and of themselves.
Michael
Michael – Thanks for taking the time for such a thoughtful response. I think it helps everyone reading this blog. I would point in particular on your admission that in the absence of a solid strategy, you incorporate “ad-hoc versions of that kind of research . . . into your process.” Precisely so.
I wrote this post as an alert to communications directors at institutions responsible for strategy – if you want to integrate all your communications, you need to start with a discrete research process resulting in a cross platform prior to embarking on implementation of a major web or print project. Of course experienced consultants like yourself understand this. And also of course if you’re hired for a project where that kind of process has not occurred, you do your best to work with what you’ve been given. That’s what a consultant will do.
How often does this sort of on-the-fly process substitute for what should actually occur? I’m afraid more often than not. And how many communications professionals and consultants claim greater reach for these on-the-fly processes than they deserve? All too many.
Thanks for advancing the dialogue.
In order for institutions to really strategize thoroughly they need to integrate their teams first. In many institutions the tail is wagging the dog. Money is being poured into technology (and sometimes strategies are altered by technology teams instead of communication teams) and money is drying up in the print areas. I think you are totally correct to say the strategy should come first will all communications venues taken into place before either team generates materials. All too often each team is blind to what the other group is doing and how it affects the public perception of the place. Integration anyone?