How you say something is as important as what you say. Paralanguage is the non-verbal communications we send out as we use verbal communication. Is it affecting what you’re saying?
Paralanguage: The power of non-verbal communication from Claxon Marketing on Vimeo.
There’s a lot of buzz about personal brand(ing) these days. Rightfully so. The tools available make it possible for you to build your very own Personal Brand Empire. There are loads of articles on how to do this (like this one from SocialBrite).
There isn’t a lot on how the advent of personal branding impacts organizational messaging. Your message is only as effective as the people who use it. If the organizational message conflicts with enough people’s personal brands, you’ve got yourself a problem.
You have an HR problem that is rearing its head as a messaging problem.
Attract people who care passionately about your cause and your mission, and this problem will resolve itself to a large extent.
Once you have the right people on the bus, make sure they have the right words. Words that support your organization’s brand, words that are easy to infuse with one’s personal passion for the work. With this in place, personal branding can support organizational messaging. And that’s good for everyone.
The other day, someone asked me if I was worried I would become known as “That crazy lady who won’t stop talking about renaming the nonprofit sector“.
I told him no.
Here’s why: Because I am 100% comfortable being thought of as a little off my rocker if it means we find a way to talk about our work that gets away from a term that defines it by what it is not, instead of what it IS. Because it is awesome and important and ground-breaking and world-changing.
And it has nothing at all to do with sector. (Which, as Joanne Fritz pointed out in the comments on this post, sounds militaristic and silo’d.)
I dream of a day when the do-gooders of the world don’t feel obligated to have their sector define their impact. It doesn’t matter if you work for a 501c3, a venture fund, or a global software giant. The tax status of where you work is irrelevant. The impact of the work you do is absolutely relevant.
I dream of a day when we define ourselves not by sector, but by cause, purpose, vision, mission, and community.
Sectors are handy from a regulation perspective. But if we allow them to create artificial boundaries that define our work, we miss opportunities to create connections inspired by shared purpose vs shared tax status.
Will it be easy to change how we talk about our work? No. Change is hard. It takes time and tenacity. And some will say, “It ain’t really broken, so why fix it?”
My dream is not everyone’s dream. But that’s the nature of dreams–they are yours and you can choose to share them or not.
I am choosing to share this dream because I believe words matter. I believe they influence our impact. I believe words are one piece of the elusive puzzle that is a better world.
So I’m fine being the crazy lady who dreams about words, the demise of sector dominance, and the advent of a way to describe our work that speaks to what it is. I’m totally cool with that. Because our work is making the world a better place. And that matters.
Anny Fahey over at Sightline Institute is a communications ninja. Recently, she did a post on her messaging pet peeves for the Sightline Daily. It was so awesome, I asked her if she’d be willing to share it here. Cuz she’s so nice, she agreed. And as a bonus, she added one more. Enjoy!
I can tell you from personal experience that even seasoned communicators slip into a bad habit or two.
So, I’m setting out to tackle some of my top messaging pet peeves one by one, starting with four small-scale missteps that are easy to avoid. (I recently wrote about three of these for one of my messaging Flashcards at Sightline Institute). I call these little mistakes “pets” because they’re some of my own worst habits—and they’re easy to fix! (Apologies for a pretty terrible pun!)
The fact is that experts in all kind of fields (take my policy wonk colleagues, for example) tend to use far too many acronyms—it saves time and maybe we think it sounds cool too. Wrong! We also overuse the passive voice. And we often forget to swap lackluster articles for more powerful pronouns. Finally, if you’re like me, you cringe every time you read about “an activist” doing something in the news. It’s like activists are some kind of separate species. It’s easy to forget that they’re people! Better to call them concerned citizens, moms, dads, neighbors, community members, Washingtonians, Oregonians…anything but activists—even though they’re active.
I’m not claiming that words are magic. Even when we use all the right ones we can’t solve all the world’s problems—obviously. But words do matter; and even the littlest ones can help your message hit home.
Here’s my cheat sheet:
Acronyms. Stop using them. Even the most familiar ones—like the EPA—risk alienating. Polls show that the full name—Environmental Protection Agency—yields a bump in support.
Weed out the passive. You wield the power to name (and blame) bad guys or give heroes due credit—but only if you use active sentence construction. Think: Who did what to whom? (The climate is warming vs. We are warming our climate.)
Get possessive with pronouns. Instead of “the government” or “the climate,” try “our government” and “our climate.” Switch to pronouns like our, we, us, you, and your to make concepts less abstract and paint people into the picture.
Talk about people! Terms like activist, or even environmentalist, can alienate anybody who doesn’t self-identify as such. Activists aren’t from another planet—they’re parents, neighbors, citizens, Seattleites, etc. Local people! So, especially when you’re talking to (or writing for) the press, always refer to those familiar and broadly shared identities that make them human!
What are your messaging pet peeves?
Anna Fahey is senior communications strategist at Sightline Institute—a public policy think tank focused on policy solutions for a fair and thriving green economy. Anna oversees opinion research and distills best practices in messaging. You’ll find her writing on how to communicate about tricky issues like climate change, taxes, and government. Anna has an MA in political communication from the University of Washington. Email: anna (at) sightline.org
Sightline Flashcards are messaging memos designed as short, scannable tools for sharing effective communications strategies. Our strategic communications team digests piles of public opinion research, transcripts from speeches, expert advice, and academic studies—from cognitive linguistics and neuroscience to political science, sociology, and psychology—distilling best practices in messaging. Flashcards often focus on values-based communication: strategies for talking about important policies or issue solutions in terms of our shared values. Want to receive Flashcards by email? Sign up.
Earlier this week, I was invited to give a workshop for 501 Commons volunteers. My advice to get off message raised a few eyebrows. Don’t we want everyone ‘on message’?! Nope, you want them ‘on belief’. Here’s what I mean.
You aren’t successful if every single person in your organization answers the question: “What does your organization do?” in the exact same way.
You’re successful if everyone answers that question using your 3 key words in a way that reinforces what you want to be known for with passion, energy and conviction.
Supporters want to engage with an organization that has a compelling way of addressing a cause they care about.
Word-for-word ends up being robotic. Robotic isn’t compelling.
Worry less about being “on message” and more about attracting staff and board who are “on belief”–you’ll go further, faster and with less effort.
(Here’s guidance on how to help your organization find its 3 key words.)
“What’s the difference between a tagline and a slogan?” This comes up at every workshop, talk or presentation I give.
Periodically, I do research on the topic to see if anything new has been written or revealed. It is at these times when I am reminded that pretty much everyone is confused by these terms.
Let’s take a quick, yet big, step back: why do we care so much about defining these terms anyway?
Because there’s a sense that if you know what they are, and you have one of each, donors will flock to you. Your Facebook page will be like-erific; you will be swatting volunteers away like mosquitos on a hot night on the Bayou; etc, etc, etc.
Sorry, folks. None are a silver bullet. Most organizations benefit from having a tagline and sometimes a slogan can be useful. Another short, pithy, useful phrase is a mantra (which, as you’ll see below, is for internal use) and can be uber-helpful in avoiding mission drift.
All of these are windows into your organization’s story. Think of them like itsy bitsy parts of your story. They work with other parts–like your name, logo, website, etc–to tell a larger story–the story of why you’re doing the work you do in the way that you’re doing it.
This table explains what each is so you can decide which ones will be useful to you. It also gives examples so you can, hopefully, see the difference as the waters can get pretty muddy.
|
What it is |
Example |
|
| Tagline | A short written statement that speaks to what you do and, ideally, why you do it. It should last a long time and works in conjunction with your name. It is read, not said. | A mind is a terrible thing to waste. (United Negro College Fund)What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. (City of Las Vegas)Got milk? (Originally a slogan for an ad campaign created by the California Milk Processor Board that got ‘promoted’ to tagline status based on its success) |
| Slogan | A short statement—sometimes said, but mostly read—that describes what is awesome about a product, service, campaign or event. | Keep calm and carry on.(Ad campaign in U.K. at beginning of WWII.)A little dab’ll do ya.(Ad campaign for Brylcreem.)Where’s the beef? (Ad campaign for Wendy’s.) |
| Mantra | 2-3 words that are used internally to guide decision-making. | Do no harm.Think different.Be brave and generous. |
In all instances, these short ditties should support a broader story–the story of why your organization is compelling enough to learn more about, donate to, volunteer with, tell someone else about…you get the point.
Room to Read believes world change starts with educated children. Their focus? Literacy and gender equality in education.
In a stellar example of show don’t tell, they posted this tweet:
Hwat wdulo hte lrodw kolo lkei fi ouy ocldu otn erda? Noigmeths kile stih. #RTforLiteracy (Each RT=$1 to @RoomtoRead) bit.ly/ILD2011
Translation: “What would the world look like if you could not read? Something like this. (Each RT=$1 to @RoomtoRead) bit.ly/ILD2011”.
140 characters of awesome, that’s what that is. They showed you how confusing and disorienting it is when you can’t read something–a feeling you can’t easily describe.
Words are valuable. Using them to show rather than tell? Priceless.
I am often accused of being uptight when it comes to word choice. In France, the quest for “le bon mot“ is a national sport. But I realize I don’t live in France and should lighten up a bit.
The thing is human beings make most decisions in 7 seconds or less. What you do in those 7 seconds, including the words you use, matters.
In 2009, there were 1,928,158 non profits in the United States alone. You have one shot to make a great first impression and to stand out from the sea of organizations, and chatter, and craziness of life.
Could I loosen up a bit about word choice? Well, yeah, personally I could probably stand to do that. But this isn’t about moi and it wouldn’t change the fact that time spent finding words that resonate with the people who matter most to your organization is imperative to your success. That’s not going to change.
Be uptight about–or at least mindful of–your words. Find the right ones. It’s important.
Last week, Kyle Wiens wrote a post for Harvard Business Review that unleashed a torrent of comments (724, at last count).
Kyle runs iFixIt and Dozuki. He hires a lot of people. He gives every single one of them a grammar test. For him, it’s a litmus of a candidate’s attention to detail. If you don’t pass the test, you don’t get hired.
This approach wouldn’t work for everyone, Wiens admits, but it works for him and, boy howdy, did people have opinions about his approach.
Most didn’t disagree that grammar is a pretty good proxy for attention to detail. What bugged them was that, in their opinion, Wiens didn’t use good grammar in the article itself. Nor syntax. And his word choices weren’t always up to snuff. None of these things are earth-shattering. Irksome, perhaps, but not huge deals in the Grand Scheme of Things.
So why all the outrage? Everyone has their “thing”. Maybe yours is when someone uses “alot”. (The word doesn’t exist. It’s “a lot”.) Or “its” instead of “it’s”. Or maybe typos are like fingers on a chalkboard for you. These small things are a big deal to people. They represent something bigger.
A poorly placed comma may not fuss you a bit–but it’s not about you AND it might be costing you big time when it comes to engaging donors, volunteers and supporters. They all have their “things”. Do you know what they are?
Yesterday morning at 6:30am, I found myself bobbing on a dock watching 1,000+ wetsuit-clad people of all shapes, sizes, and ages hit the water as they began Lake Stevens Ironman 70.3. My husband, Rod, was among these kooky cats.
It makes you wonder what motivates people to do it.
For Rod, the answer was heart-breakingly straight-forward: he was doing it in honor of our friend, Sean Murphy, who had passed away doing the Coeur D’Alene Ironman a few weeks ago.
But most people there had never met Sean. (For the record, Sean was one of the most exuberant, awesome, full-of-life guys you’d ever have the great good fortune to know.) So why do something that grueling?
We often wonder what’s possible–physically, emotionally, mentally–but we don’t often push ourselves to find out. Every single one of the athletes yesterday was pushing themselves to find out.
As organizations, it’s even easier to convince ourselves to play it safe. Too risky, we tell ourselves. The funders/donors/supporters wouldn’t like it if we failed.
Is your goal for people to say that you’re cautiously plucking your way toward moderate mission impact? Likely not.
In his ‘Eulogy from a physicist’, Aaron Freeman makes a moving case for seeking solace in the first law of thermodynamics:
“According to the first law of conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you’re just less orderly.”
This thought brought me a lot of peace as I watched all those athletes yesterday. It gave me a way to understand that Sean was there, even if we didn’t see him leap into the water.
That we can convert energy should be a call to arms–if the goodness that is you and your organization already exists and will always be here, shouldn’t we do what we can to harness as much of the universe’s energy so that those particles become Ambassadors of Good, forever on a mission to make the world a better place?
Sean was an Ambassador for Good. Rod did him–and all of us–proud yesterday when he raced on his behalf.
The Ironman may not be your thing. But making your supporters proud and doing good by your cause is. Please do so without ever apologizing for the boldness of your efforts and the limitless potential of your impact.