HG Communications

Howard Gross

Why Content Marketers Must Re-Think 3 Critical Skills

by

“The advertising and marketing world scrambles for new ways to reach consumers”, writes journalist and media critic Ken Auletta in his latest book Frenemies: The Epic Disruption of the Ad Business (and Everything Else). Struggling to keep pace in an ever more capricious environment, mad men and women have embraced a medley of oversold techniques – programmatic advertising, influencer marketing and “pivot to video,” among others –  only to discover their performance have failed to match their hype. Content marketers, so far, have fared relatively better, though not without problems of their own.

After studying a sample of 100 million posts published between 2015 and 2017, internet research and monitoring company BuzzSumo determined that social sharing of content had decreased by half during that period. Moreover, there had been a sharp decline in viral posts, with 90 percent of content garnering fewer than 62 shares. Adding insult to injury, an analysis of 1500 brands and 300,000 consumers across 33 countries, by advertising firm Havas Group, concluded that “60 percent of all content created by brands is poor, irrelevant or fails to deliver”.

Said troubles notwithstanding, most practitioners remain upbeat; albeit overcoming these and similar challenges requires stepping back and re-thinking current approaches to content marketing. A sensible place to start is with these three skills:

Subject Matter Expertise

Among the most effective content marketers are subject matter experts (SMEs): those individuals capable of thoroughly understanding and sufficiently explaining an organization’s products or services. For many, however, it is getting harder to discern exactly what businesses their enterprises conduct.

Take the Ford Motor Company. There was a time it was clear who were its competitors and customers. Back then rivals were peers such as General Motors and Toyota. Now they include the likes of Google and Apple. And where once earnings largely came from the sale of vehicles to consumers, bundling and selling consumer data from connected cars may soon provide a massive new revenue stream.

The automotive industry is hardly unique. As advances in technology bulldoze traditional barriers to entry, content creators of all stripes will surely have to expand their expertise, not merely to other markets but to the broader society, as companies’ words and deeds are judged in the context of social, political and environmental concerns. According to Edelman’s Earned Brand Survey, the latest in a spate of research gauging consumer sentiment, more than half (53%) of 8,000 people queried worldwide think brands can do more to solve social ills than can government. Fifty-four percent also believe it is easier to get brands to address such problems.

Apparently, corporate bosses are feeling the heat. Recent decisions by Nike and Levi Strauss to tackle controversial matters reflect the findings of an Economist Group report that 60 percent of executives believe consumer activism is forcing their companies to “authentically showcase their character” by how they engage with the public.

Accordingly, content marketers will have to understand and explain an increasing array of complex issues, and make sense of them for diverse audiences. This will require being able to cogently interpret the intricate interplay between enterprises and their stakeholders. One way to achieve this, notes the Economist, is through “thoughtful storytelling.”

Storytelling

Storytelling is at the core of content marketing. As Joe Lazauskas, Editor in Chief at Contently, tells it: “Content marketing works because our brains are programmed for stories”. True, though our brains are programmed to do a great deal more, including discounting stories.

Human behavior is highly susceptible to circumstance, and the brain constantly reorganizes itself to respond to continually changing events. So at any given moment it may be exposed to overwhelming amounts of information; more than it can possibly process. So the mind relies on short-cuts to maintain consistency and congruity, one of which is to accept, reject or manipulate information based on whether it conforms to or contradicts existing beliefs.

To that end, Spark Neuro, a firm that uses neuroscience to measure audience engagement, recently studied how Democrats, Republicans and Independents perceived Nike’s Colin Kaepernick ad while watching it alongside television commentary and user-generated videos. By monitoring participants’ brain waves, heart rates and sweat glands, it confirmed that “Democrats and Republicans are putting the content right through their filter, and that changes the perspective of the ad”.

Context, too, is critical, which can be problematic for content marketers who are highly reliant on social media. Their narratives increasingly reside amid fake news and hate speech, two factors, Edelman asserts, that have damaged the public’s trust in social networks. This also accounts, in part, for why attitudes toward social advertising have stagnated or declined during the past year, according to software firm Sprout Social. It found that a majority of consumers are scrolling past ads on platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Stories are, and will remain, an essential device in every content marketer’s tool kit. But their value is substantially diminished if they can’t penetrate the mental barricades people construct, often unconsciously. Before telling their tale then, content creators must, at the very least, fully comprehend what audiences already believe, know and understand about a subject; what they believe, know and understand about the source of the content; plus who or what else may coerce their communication.

Collaboration

That said, most content marketers can’t do it on their own. “Content marketing is not a solo pursuit”, writes Shafqat Islam, CEO of NewsCred, who advocates establishing collaborative, cross-functional marketing teams to “deliver great content experiences”

Granted, teamwork is an intelligent and time-honored approach, more often than not, organizers readily gravitate toward partners who share, if not the same ideas, then similar perspectives. The term for this is homophily – which literally means “love of the same” – a tendency for people to associate with others with comparable beliefs, biases and opinions. And while that may facilitate conventional means of problem-solving, it can also inhibit creativity and innovation.

On the other hand, there is ample research to demonstrate that some of the most successful strategies can be achieved when teams connect with cohorts on the fringes of their profession, and beyond. That is crucial if content marketers hope to gain new knowledge and skills necessary to cope with seemingly endless change. Thus, instead of limiting their collaboration to experts in design, writing and social media et al., they ought engage with a more diverse set of disciplines.

To better understand the interconnected systems in which they do business, for example, content marketers need to adapt complexity science to effectually position themselves within the context of consumers, competitors, policymakers and the media; as well as employ network theory to pull back to see how each of these influences and impacts the other. For their part, smart marketers have already begun to embed behavioral economics and neuroscience into their practices to appreciate how disparate audiences access, perceive, process and use information.

What is more, expanding penetration by artificial intelligence (AI) tools is driving organizations to become more team-oriented. Here, the challenge is to rationally distinguish between what people and machines can do. The knee-jerk reaction is to imagine technology marginalizing or even eliminating the need for human creativity.  What is most compelling about AI, however, is not its ability to impersonate humans, but its capacity to view the world in different terms, enabling it to “think” in ways humans cannot. Individuals and organizations who can exploit the distinctions will come out ahead.

In an age of impermanence and uncertainty, content marketers, like the rest of their ilk, have essentially three choices going forward. One is to continue to do business as usual as much as possible. Two, is to jump onto every new trend, whether or not its long-term success has been validated. Or three, take the middle ground by sticking with what works but continuously exploring ways to make it work better.

The New CEO: Chief Explanatory Officer

by

This piece was written in collaboration with Walter Montgomery and first appeared in the Science of Communication publication on Medium

A CEO’s to-do list is exhaustive, what with overseeing the operation of an organization, setting its strategy and direction, allocating capitol to fund its priorities and modeling its culture and values. Now add one more item to the agenda: helping stakeholders make sense of an ever more complex world.

For enterprises of all kinds it is, literally, no longer business as usual. In an age of digitization many of the perennial principles governing corporate behavior, such as GDP, productivity and economies of scale are coming undone. At the same time, rapid advances in technology are bulldozing conventional barriers to entry, forcing companies to take on rivals that were never previously competitors. Industries under siege include automobiles, advertising, television and finance.

Were these the only issues up for interpretation, that would be daunting enough. But management’s words and deeds are also being judged in the context of political, social and even environmental concerns. With their elected officials either unable or unwilling to tackle an expanding array of troublesome problems, citizens are looking to business to pick up the slack. According to the latest Edelman Trust Barometer (an annual gauge of institutional credibility), nearly two-thirds of global respondents say CEOs should “take the lead on policy change instead of waiting for government.” Some higher-ups are already feeling the heat. In reply to a PwC survey earlier this year, 38 percent of CEOs reported catching more pressure from employees and customers to take political and social stances

As difficult as it may be for top brass to wrap their minds around contentious matters, such controversies can be seemingly incomprehensible to diverse stakeholders. In a climate of uncertainty, anxiety, and sometimes fear, people are bombarded with far more information than they can process; much of it highly subjective or downright false. A 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey found that a majority of Americans queried believe it is harder to be well-informed despite access to more news sources than ever before. One reason, argues neuroscientist Daniel J. Levitin, is that the torrent of news, notifications and social posts undermines peoples’ aptitude for critical thinking.

These then are complex circumstances CEOs must thoroughly understand and cogently explain to both internal and external audiences. Albeit some bosses are willing to directly address such situations, most are still not inclined to do so.

Complexity, after all, does not conform to executives’ need for control; nor to their preference for predictable outcomes. Those who earned their stripes in relatively stable environments are skilled at managing discrete problems that can be easily isolated and clearly defined. Thus, they have tendency to treat challenges as if they emerged from a single factor in a rather straightforward way. Yet they are not necessarily as adept handling the ambiguities of a hyper-connected and nonlinear world where colliding events can lead to intractable and unforeseeable consequences.

For others, it is a matter of perspective. Every CEO’s time and attention are finite, obliging them to laser focus on the most pertinent and positive input. Consequently, they may appear out of touch with much of society. In its latest annual survey of chief executives, PwC found that, based on their own companies’ improving prospects, a majority of business leaders are “enthusiastically bullish” on the state of the economy. This at a time when wage growth in the United States is anemic (paychecks grew 0.1 percent in April while inflation rose 0.2 percent) and an increasing number of men in their prime earning years are dropping out of the workforce. Moreover, fewer than one-in-five respondents believe their firms have lost the public’s confidence, in contrast to Edelman’s research, which calculated a 37 percent decline in trust across all institutions.

Given the apparent disconnect between what CEOs perceive and the context in which they do so, it is essential they get out of their comfort zones; if not physically, then at least psychologically. Aside from day-to-day operations that consume much of their thinking, leaders must consider what goes on outside the corner office to identify social, political and technological opportunities and threats. As economist Friedrich Hayek noted nearly 75 years ago: knowledge at the center of an organization is better coordinated and more efficient; though knowledge from the edges is more accurate and up-to-date.

But whom information and ideas come from is as important as where. With stakeholders increasingly defining themselves in terms of race, gender, age, education, income and ideology, executives ought expose themselves to the broadest possible array of outlooks. Nonetheless, it is not necessary to venture too far, as much can be learned from those on the payroll. Today, nearly a third of American employees work remotely more than 80 percent of the time, subject to values distinct from corporate culture. Even more detached are the millions of contingent workers, whose numbers have risen as full-time employment has fallen.

Most importantly, however, CEOs have to appreciate that current circumstances compel a more comprehensive way of understanding and explaining a perplexing world. To that end they need to adapt a sense of, what has been labeled, integrative complexity. That is the capacity to embrace multiple disciplines and mindsets, and incorporate them within a flexible framework for doing business.

The good news is that is process is already underway. Some companies, for example, have begun experimenting with bringing together experts in behavioral science to effectively share knowledge across the enterprise and translate that into effective action. Concurrently, breakthroughs in neuroscience are making it possible to discreetly explore the human mind to recognize how and why people react to disparate forms of information.

Of course, it is incumbent on senior executives to not simply entertain these and other approaches but, when appropriate, also embrace them, even when they challenge beliefs, biases and conventional wisdom. Going forward they may have little or no choice. The world will certainly become more complex, and with it, so will business. And enabling stakeholders to make sense of it all should be near the top of every CEO’s to-do list.

Why Science is Key to Successful Communication

by

This piece was written in collaboration with Walter Montgomery and first appeared in the Science of Communication publication on Medium

It is fashionable these days to think of communication as both art and science, albeit with the scales progressively tipping toward the latter. For many communication professionals the term “science” conjures up notions of data analytics, artificial intelligence and the like. Yet the current passion for all things digital notwithstanding, it will be years – if not decades – before these and similar applications embody characteristics like perception, intention, integrity and empathy; all of which are vital to successfully connecting with a public increasingly skeptical of experts, often indifferent to facts and deeply divided by entrenched emotions.

Overcoming these challenges requires a diversity of human-centric knowledge and skills in disciplines such as cognitive psychology, behavioral science, neuroscience, complexity theory and social network analytics. In combination with digital technologies they comprise what can be thought of as a “science of communication,” and practitioners need to master its multiple components just as finance, legal, IT and human resource specialists have full command of their domains.

Most corporate communicators, however, have honed their know-how during times of relative stability, when sound judgment, based mainly on personal experience, was deemed sufficient. As serviceable as these attributes may be, they are no longer enough to get by in ever more complex ecosystems. Rather than rely primarily on their empirical talents, communicators must go well beyond traditional assumptions of what constitutes expertise, and cultivate a more scientific approach to their profession.

Thinking Across Disciplines

Sadly though, many communication pros look at scientific findings and glibly conclude they “already know that.” Granted some research outcomes may, at first, seem apparent; even so, there is intrinsic value in accurately confirming what might already be known. Moreover, when people closely examine what is supposedly obvious, they are likely to uncover new possibilities.

Original ideas also surface where distinct disciplines merge. Complex systems theory, for example, is rooted in the study of natural sciences, mathematics and computing. For their part, cognitive and behavioral sciences encompass fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology and philosophy, among others. And all are enhanced by being able to gather and interpret vast amounts of data. Yet it is in the exploration of networks where some of the most compelling discoveries emerge.

The focus of neuroscience is the brain, an infinitely complex network that not only manages billions of electrical connections that maintain life, but also directs myriad facts, experiences, impressions and memories that invariably combine to form ideas. Such ideas converge with others to create equally sophisticated social systems.

Recently, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Communication Neuroscience Lab applied social network analysis to examine how brain networks and social networks inform each other. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure activity in separate regions of the brain, they matched dynamic networks of the mind with those of the social world to illuminate how, in their words, “psychological processes may shape and be shaped by social environments.”

Integrative processes like this are essential at a time of increased complexity. But communication science itself becomes more intricate as issues intersect, audiences fragment and the means to reach them expand. Which is why communicators of all stripes must broaden their expertise. College communication majors can upgrade their education by judiciously incorporating natural, social and computer sciences into their studies. Current practitioners can do likewise, either in the classroom or on their own. At the very least they should all keep up-to-date on the latest developments.

Cognitive Diversity

Although an extended familiarity with various subjects makes it possible to more readily adapt to changing circumstances, the spate of global challenges exceeds the cognitive capacity of any one person. Thus, collaboration is equally imperative, as it elicits fresh facts, ideas and perceptions from distinct spheres. Indeed, in a series of experiments reported in the Harvard Business Review, researchers found that cognitive diversity can advance learning and performance in the face of uncertain situations.

Some organizations already recognize the need for interdisciplinary approaches. Earlier this year the Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched its MIT Intelligence Quest, bringing together social scientists, neuroscientists, computer scientists and engineers to reverse-engineer human intelligence in a drive to develop new technology tools. Elsewhere, the University of Florida is building a curriculum in public interest communication – a merger of public relations, marketing and journalism education, informed by fundamentals of sociology, psychology, political science and neuroscience.

Other enterprises are sure to follow as they strive to understand and cogently explain complex issues and ideas to disparate stakeholders. But one absolute requisite for a scientific evolution in communication is that it be mandated from above. Clearly, it is impractical to expect corporate top brass have the time or attention to directly devote to these challenges. Nonetheless, they ought throw away the outdated presumption of communication as a support function, and instead welcome it into the leadership framework.

To that end, a comprehensive science of communication that fuses a broad range of knowledge, skills and perspectives will be critical to their success.

 

The Must-Have Skill for Communication Executives

by

Complexity is the single greatest challenge confronting communication professionals

In a survey of senior communication executives by the University of Southern California’s Center for Public Relations, 76 percent of respondents said their jobs will be considerably more complex in the coming years. Little wonder. Though it is not that unusual for separate parts of society to dramatically change at various points in time, these days it seems as if all major institutions – government, business, science, education, health care, law, and the media – coexist in a perpetual state of flux. Indeed, if civilization is in the throes of some “new normal,” it must surely be complex; and as Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum warns, “the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before.”

This presents several formidable challenges for enterprises of all kinds. For starters, they must manage an intricate array of problems that defy conventional solutions. At the same time, they have to explain such confounding matters to diverse stakeholders, many of whom are skeptical of experts and seemingly indifferent to facts. And they must do so using systems and technologies that are, themselves, becoming ever more complex.

But if businesses and organizations are to effectively deal with such daunting challenges, they ought first comprehend them, and help stakeholders do the same. Not surprisingly then, it will largely fall to communication executives and their teams to make sense of a chaotic world. Yet they won’t find answers to complex questions by zeroing in on a single message, medium, audience, or objective. Rather, they will have to turn in the opposite direction and explore ways these various elements come together under constantly shifting circumstances.

Complexity Communication

To that end, complexity communication is an open-ended, adaptive approach to complex problem solving meant to successfully operate in the 21st century. It views strategy not as a set of fixed procedures and anticipated outcomes, but as an evolving process that emerges from the ongoing give-and-take between enterprises and stakeholders. Neither a discipline such as public relations, nor a tool like social media, it is, instead, a different way of thinking about communication that enhances such practices and applications in a time of change and uncertainty. Accordingly, complexity communication is designed to be the following.

Comprehensive

An especially bewildering aspect of complexity is that many of the most pressing issues confronting enterprises are not only intricate in and of themselves, but are also deeply entangled with each other. One upshot is that when even the simplest entities converge, what ultimately emerges may be something altogether different than any of its original parts. In these instances, it is impractical to extrapolate the traits of a single element to define the characteristics of the whole. Minor and massive phenomena are also closely linked in complex systems. Like a Russian nesting doll, problems encompass smaller quandaries, while at the same time residing within much larger predicaments.

Only by observing problems in broad context, and detecting how different parts interact and influence each other, is it feasible to identify all possible causes and anticipate potential consequences. Communication professionals must not simply inspect the granularity of a situation, but also step back to envision what is liable to occur when the various fragments come together. By looking at an issue through a network lens – investigating information at multiple levels of depth and breadth – they can identify factors both directly related to the matter, as well as those peripherally joined.

Open-Minded

In most enterprises, communication generally exists along a spectrum between open and closed. To some degree, every business or organization is closed, in that much of its information is cloistered inside silos or behind walls. People too, are often sequestered. Homophily is a general tendency of humans to associate with others like themselves. Consider, for example, that three of the top U.S. locations employing public relations specialists are all within blocks of each other in the nation’s capitol. Other highly concentrated sites include New York (for finance), the San Francisco Bay area (for technology), and Los Angeles (for entertainment). Though helpful in efficiently navigating extensive networks of connections, homophily, like groupthink, can confine perspectives and inhibit new or contrary ideas.

It is critical then that communicators recognize their comfort zones and regularly venture beyond them, both physically and intellectually. Three decades ago, Arie de Geus, then Corporate Planning Director at Royal Dutch Shell, sought to answer the question: what distinguishes long-lived companies? Writing about his findings in his book The Living Company, he concluded that “they always seemed to excel at keeping their feelers out, tuned to whatever was going on around them.” In addition, they incorporated knowledge and resources from other disciplines to expand their own perceptions of the world. Such qualities are even more important now, and are integral to complexity communication

Empathic

Stakeholders are a diverse lot. As populations split into ever smaller segments, Americans, like their counterparts elsewhere, are simultaneously divided by age, gender, race and ethnicity, income, education, and geography. All of these segments intersect in myriad combinations and influence how and with whom people communicate. Engulfed in an ensuing deluge of information – much of it confusing, conflicting, or downright false – consumers seek to narrow their options, primarily to those world views that confirm their own. Such perspectives serve as lens through which to buttress their beliefs and biases. The more ideological and partisan their faith, the less likely opponents will be able to shake it. In fact, if directly challenged, they double down on their opinions, no matter how accurate or authoritative the other side may be.

Attending to peoples’ needs and concerns therefore requires appreciating the complexity behind them, and being able to articulate that to key decision-makers. It starts by junking outdated notions such as “representative agents” – factitious persons or groups who typify the behavior of broad swaths of society – and mitigating against binary classifications like red and blue states. Instead, it targets specific audiences and strives to see the world as they see it, by learning what they already believe, know, and understand about an issue or idea. Just as importantly, it recognizes how they perceive the enterprises reaching out to them.; and identifies who or what else are likely to sway their attitudes. Having these insights is a prerequisite for creating meaningful and practicable content.

Flexible

As soon as a strategy is put into the environment, it in some way alters that environment, and is affected in return through feedback loops. This is because every decision or action produces new data that may either substantiate or undermine an original premise. What is more, today’s robust digital networks make it easier than ever to share information and ideas with just about anyone, anywhere. But as their dimensions grow, so do their complications. While the nodes of a network increase in linear fashion, the number of resulting interactions expands exponentially. Consequently, input and output are not proportional to each other. What first appears as small and inconsequential can quickly become big and burdensome. The public relations firm Weber Shandwick describes the process as “a string of critical nano-moments [that] gain momentum and mass at inferno-speed.” Once trouble starts, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to stop.

In complex systems some things can be controlled while others cannot. Complexity communication acknowledges that fact and enables businesses and organizations to adjust their objectives, strategies, and decisions as necessary. It does so by establishing a responsive framework that supports and expands existing practices. Examining interactions among enterprises, stakeholders, and their collective environment, it then determines how these countless relationships give rise to new and unexpected behaviors. And by setting aside assumptions and allowing for detours, complexity communication ensures that every strategy can effectively adapt.

A Better Way

The training and practical experience of many communication executives are deeply rooted in simpler, more discernible policies and practices. These managers are most comfortable making decisions based on a few variables and a direct line between cause and effect. So they approach problems as if they arise from a single source and proceed straight ahead. They also prefer that once a strategy is in place, it can be used repeatedly. Complexity, however, is not so accommodating. It frequently challenges beliefs, biases, and conventional wisdom, and serves up events that are both unpredictable and uncontrollable.

Complexity communication provides an alternative approach. It doesn’t jettison current methods and practices, but it does raise questions about how best to use them in times of often rapid and radical change. Thus, it looks at every problem with a fresh set of eyes. Each will vary depending on the situation. Not everything will be apparent; certainly not immediately. And almost all are bound to change along the way. But, at the very least, it is a means of thinking differently. After all, as Albert Einstein once said: “you can’t solve a problem with the same mind that created it.”