OK, admitted: In the run-up to this special public speech, I was really nervous. Speaking on public stages in front of large audiences, keynoting, paneling, whatevering, is not new to me; in fact, I feel pretty comfortable doing the stage thing.
But then came this invitation …
The official title of the event alone made me shudder in awe: “INTA Public Hearing on ‘Europe-Asia Connectivity: what is the impact on trade?'” – INTA standing for “Committee on International Trade”, as I found out after some thorough research. The hearing was to be held in front of and physically IN the European Parliament in Brussels, so holy hallways from the finest.
Plus: “Public Hearing” sounded very much like interrogation to me. But I went for it anyway, as it seemed like the only delinquency I was accused of was apparently being a corporate expert on Eurasian Connectivity in general, and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative in particular. However the EP came to this perception…In any case yet again one of those moments in my career when I asked myself: “How the hell did I get here???”
Seven minutes was the guidance for my statement – and I almost made it in time. What I spoke about? Well, the usual messaging suspects when I talk about this topic: proactive co-creation and mindful collaboration; broadening the view on connectivity (from physical to digital), listening, and changing the perspective (from “us” as givers to “them” as receivers).
It was indeed a lot of fun and highly inspirational in many ways. Especially sharing the stage (which wasn’t really a stage, because we speakers we sitting in the middle of the audience with questions then coming from every direction, a little akward…) with illustre and true experts on the matter like Francois Godement (Advisor on China an Asia at the Institut Montaigne), Thomas Eder, (Research Associate at MERICS), Astrid Skala-Kuhmann (Senior Advisor at GIZ), Ville Varjola (Economic Advisor to the ASIAPAC and Managing Director at EEAS), Wei SHI, (Counsellor at the Political Section of the Chinese Mission to the EU), Maja Bakran Marcich (Deputy Director-General for Mobility and Transport at the EU Commission), Francesco Rossi (Founder of TechSilu), and Tim de Meyer (Senior Advisor at ILO).
Needless to say, with so many elaborate experts, that it was a looooong event, but hey, if you get the chance to be heard in front of the EU Parliament, you better have some chair glue. I only regret that my words seemed to have struck my left desk neighbour with sheer ennuie and fatigue, sorry about that! 😉
Sollten Unternehmen ihren Content im eigenen Hause produzieren oder auf eine Content-Agentur setzen? Content-Experte Tobias Dennehy hat im Siemens Corporate Newsroom beides miterlebt und zeigt die Stärken und Schwächen beider Varianten auf. Für Unentschlossene hat er einen Kompromiss.
Image courtesy of publish! Medienkonzepte GmbH
Herr Dennehy, wann sollte sich ein Unternehmen für die externe Erstellung von Content entscheiden?
Das lässt sich natürlich nicht pauschal beantworten. Eigentlich nur dann, wenn es die Kompetenzen inhouse nicht hat, die es benötigt, um die gewünschten Inhalte in hochwertiger Qualität zu produzieren – und zwar nicht im Sinne einer teuren Hochglanzproduktion, sondern im Sinne eines hohen Werts für mein Publikum. Und da vermutlich kein Unternehmen, egal wie groß, Kompetenzen für alles komplett im eigenen Stab in den Startlöchern haben kann, wird es da immer wieder die berühmten White Spots geben, für die man eine Agentur braucht. Wo die meisten Unternehmen aber in der Tat dringend Unterstützung, frischen Wind und naive Kreativität brauchen, ist bei der Content-Strategie. Hier ist die Handbremse des „Oh, das bekomme ich niemals freigegeben“ in den Köpfen der eigenen Mitarbeiter einfach zu groß, da braucht es unabhängige Impulse von außen. Zusammengefasst: White Spots und Strategie mit Hilfe von außen, den Rest selbst machen.
Sie sind also ein klarer Verfechter der internen Produktion. Worin genau sehen Sie beim Auslagern die Nachteile?
Der größte Nachteil ist, dass man als Unternehmen die Kompetenz über die eigenen Themen und deren Umsetzung in gute Geschichten aus der Hand gibt. Denn was für jeden klar ist, der mal journalistisch gearbeitet hat: Gute Inhalte (oder idealerweise sogar Geschichten) zu produzieren impliziert viel Recherche, bevor man überhaupt anfängt zu schreiben. Und das in diesem Recherche- und Produktionsprozess angeeignete Wissen über die eigenen Themen und Inhalte sollte man als Unternehmen nicht outsourcen. Die daraus resultierende Abhängigkeit gilt es mit allen Mitteln zu vermeiden. Aber auch die individuellen Stimmen der vielen Mitarbeiter, durch die ein Unternehmen idealerweise sprechen und nach denen es klingen sollte, werden durch die namenlosen Redakteure, die bei Agenturen Content im „Corporate Tone of Voice“ des Kunden verfassen, verwischt – und somit charakterlos im buchstäblichen Sinne.
Gute externe Redakteure sind ebenfalls in der Lage, den „Corporate Tone“ zu treffen – Voraussetzung dafür ist, dass Unternehmen sie so nah wie möglich an sich heranlassen…
Nur fürs Protokoll: Ich halte nichts von nivellierendem „Corporate Tone of Voice“. Aber, wenn Sie auf das Thema Zusammenarbeit zwischen Agentur und Kunde anspielen: Ja natürlich, alles andere ist in der Tat kontraproduktiv. Eine Agentur holt man sich doch immer an Bord als Unterstützung, weil man selbst bestimmte Dinge nicht machen kann. Ergo: Man ist auf derselben Seite, oder? Partners in Crime sozusagen. Und von einem Partner erwarte ich ja nicht, dass er immer macht, was ich sage, weil ich ihm Geld gebe, sondern dass er mich immer so berät, als wäre er Teil meines Teams, Teil meines Unternehmens. Wenn Kunde und Agentur sich als ein Team verstehen und eventuell faktisch und organisatorisch sogar so behandelt werden, dann fördert das garantiert die besseren Ergebnisse und erfolgreicheren Projekte zutage. Überhaupt: Content-Agenturen, die sich nur als Exekutive des Kundenwunschs verstehen, sind keine guten Agenturen.
Das ist ein gutes Stichwort: Woran erkennen Unternehmen die passende Content-Agentur?
Zunächst einmal daran, dass sie einem nicht weismachen will, sie könnte alles – ich glaube nicht an Full Service. Vielleicht auch daran, dass sie selbst viel zuhört, bevor sie etwas von sich gibt, und so die Content-Formate findet und kreiert, die einzigartig zum Kunden passen und nicht austauschbar sind wie der meiste Corporate-Content, den wir so vorgesetzt bekommen. Und zuletzt vor allem auch daran, dass sie einem drei Faktoren als Ausgangspunkt empfiehlt und diese auch selbst beherzigt, bevor überhaupt Content produziert wird: Zuhören, Qualität und Planung.
Das müssen Sie genauer erklären…
Wenn ich die Menschen nicht kenne, für die ich Inhalte produzieren will, kann ich auch nicht wissen, was sie wann wo brauchen oder wollen. Also muss ich zuhören, lernen und verstehen – entweder mit technischen Hilfsmitteln oder durch tatsächlichen Dialog, analog oder digital. Der Punkt Qualität meint dagegen, dass richtig guter Content nur dann entstehen kann, wenn dieser dem Anspruch der meinem Unternehmenscharakter zugrundeliegenden Brand-Story gerecht wird und sich dann mit dem inhaltlichen Qualitätsanspruch meines Publikums paart. Und zur Planung: Ich muss wissen, wann bei meinem Publikum welches Thema wo und wie funktioniert – und dann in einem Redaktionsplan dafür sorgen, dass die richtigen Inhalte auch zur richtigen Zeit am richtigen Ort erscheinen.
Für Letzteres waren Sie vor einigen Jahren als Chefredakteur und CvD des Siemens Corporate Newsrooms zuständig. Dort haben Sie auch den Umbruch vom Out- zum Insourcing mitgestaltet. Was gab den Ausschlag für den Wandel?
Erstmals in der Firmengeschichte sollten in der Kommunikation nicht Kanäle und Zielgruppen an den Anfang der Maßnahmenplanung gestellt werden, sondern relevante Themen und Inhalte. Dieser Wandel vollzog sich aus dem Bewusstsein heraus, dass das Internet und seine Weiterentwicklung zum Web 2.0 große Veränderungen mit sich gebracht hat: Zum einen das Verschwimmen medialer Grenzen, was dazu führt, dass es den Menschen egal ist, wo sie gute Inhalte herbekommen, Hauptsache, sie bekommen sie. Dadurch wird übrigens Revolutionäres offenbar: dass Kunden, Mitarbeiter, Journalisten und sogar Investoren keine abstrakten Personae sind, sondern Menschen. Diesen Menschen Hochwertiges und Kongruentes liefern zu können erfordert ein neues Maß an Zusammenarbeit über Abteilungs- und Ressortgrenzen hinweg. Eng damit verbunden ist auch die Geschwindigkeit der Kommunikation, die mich als Unternehmen dazu zwingt, nicht nur schneller zu reagieren, sondern auch proaktiver zu agieren. Nicht nur Shitstorms abzuwenden, sondern auch (scheinbar abwegige) Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten auf dem Radar zu haben. So kann ein Unternehmen agil und abteilungsübergreifend agieren und kommunikative Impulse setzen.
Bei Siemens waren dafür bis zu fünfzig Menschen in einem Newsroom, die an Inhalten für die Firma arbeiteten. Heißt das im Umkehrschluss, dass nur große Unternehmen Inhalte im eigenen Hause produzieren sollten?
Auf keinen Fall. In der Tat braucht sicher nicht jedes Unternehmen einen physischen Newsroom – wenn zehn Leute in der Kommunikation arbeiten, dann ist das Großraumbüro schon ein potenzieller Newsroom. Es geht eher um die „Einstellung Newsroom“. Das Zusammenarbeitenwollen. Zusammen recherchieren. Zusammen produzieren. Zusammen planen. Das ist für jedes Unternehmen heutzutage Pflicht, nicht Kür. Denn wenn meine Presseabteilung eine andere Content-Agenda oder -Strategie fährt als das Marketing, dann wird das früher oder später zum kommunikativen Bumerang. Und klar, je weniger Leute ich an Bord habe, desto mehr White Spots muss ich möglicherweise durch Outsourcing abdecken. Aber auch hier gilt, wie überall: lieber fokussieren und etwas weniger, aber dafür gut machen, als mit einer großen Agenturarmada aus vielen Rohren schießen, dabei diffus bleiben und nichts Außergewöhnliches bringen. „Less is more“ lautet hier die Binsenweisheit.
Weniger ist vor allem auch deshalb mehr, weil der Zeitaufwand bei einer Umstellung auf Inhouse immens ist…
Veränderung ist immer ein langwieriger, schwieriger, aber auch spannender Prozess. Damit das wirklich funktioniert, bedarf es einer komplett neuen Strategie, gegebenenfalls einer neuen Organisation, definitiv neuer Prozesse und eben neuer beziehungsweise anderer Kompetenzen. Da ziehen manche mit, manche rebellieren und manche bleiben indifferent. Man muss einen langen Atem haben und mit gnadenloser Konsequenz an die Sache herangehen, sobald die strategischen Weichen gestellt sind. Aufgeweicht wird alles von selbst in einer großen Organisation, auch ohne das eigene Zutun. Einfach „Ab jetzt inhouse!“ zu beschließen, aber alles sonst zu belassen wie vorher, das wird jedenfalls nicht klappen.
Hätten Sie denn, abgesehen von der internen und externen Produktion, noch einen anderen Vorschlag, wie Unternehmen für ihr Publikum hochwertigen Content erstellen können?
Okay, jetzt wird’s widersprüchlich – aber nur scheinbar. Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, habe ich mich die ganze Zeit als Insourcing-Fan geoutet. Das ist aber nur die halbe Wahrheit. Die andere Hälfte ist eine etwas andere Art des Outsourcings, als wir sie hier die ganze Zeit diskutiert haben. Sie firmiert gemeinhin unter dem Namen Co-Creation. Das heißt, nicht mehr nur für, sondern gemeinsammit dem Publikum die eigenen Inhalte und vielleicht sogar die eigene Marke neu erschaffen. In Zukunft ist dieses Konzept mit Sicherheit Erfolg versprechend, wenn nicht überlebensnotwendig. Einerseits muss ich als Unternehmen zwar all die eingangs beschriebenen Stufen des Kompetenzaufbaus für die Content-Produktion durchlaufen, um instinktiv zu fühlen, wer ich bin und wie ich erzählen will. In Zeiten sozialmedialer Vernetzung und medienversierter Publika mit erhöhten Ansprüchen an authentische und nachprüfbare Kommunikation müssen wir als Unternehmen aber auch lernen loszulassen, sollten nicht mehr nur Sender der eigenen Geschichten sein, sondern eher Empfänger und Weiterverarbeiter werden. Wir müssen die Markenverbundenheit und Kreativität der Menschen da draußen nutzen, ihnen Impulse und Ideen für Geschichten rund um das eigene Unternehmen geben, ihnen bei der Umsetzung dann freien Lauf lassen und das Ergebnis zielgerichtet zum Teil der eigenen Markengeschichte machen.
*Dieses Interview erschien wortgetreu am 30. Mai 2017 im Content-Marketing-Blog “editorial.” aus dem Hause publish! Das Interview führte die Redakteurin Jacqueline Brunsch.
Da saß ich neulich bei meinen Freunden von der Austria Presse Agentur in meiner Lieblingsstadt Wien. Der APA Campus hatte zu meinem Seminar “Video-Storytelling” geladen. Ich war gefolgt. Ein paar andere auch.
Kurz vor Öffnen der Teilnehmerschleuse die Juliane so: “Du, haste mal drei Tipps für ein gutes Unternehmensvideo?”
Ich so: “Klar, wie lange haste Zeit?”
Sie so: “Eine Minute.”
Ich so: “Uff.”
Da stand sie schon da mit der Kamera und meinte “Los geht’s!”
… Es sind dann doch eine Minute und sechs Sekunden geworden. Sorry, Juliane.
The inventor of the web has spoken. Once again. And he is not amused. Once again. Maybe even a little scared, definately concerned, positively scrooged.
In his article on theguardian.com (March 12, 2017), Tim “HTTP” Berners-Lee, Sir TIMBL for short, sounds a little like Oppenheimer after seeing the dark side of what he had invented:
“I imagined the web as an open platform that would allow everyone, everywhere to share information, access opportunities, and collaborate across geographic and cultural boundaries. […] Over the past 12 months, I’ve become increasingly worried about three new trends, which I believe we must tackle in order for the web to fulfill its true potential as a tool that serves all of humanity:
1. We’ve lost control of our personal data. 2. It’s too easy for misinformation to spread on the web. 3. Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding.”
The Internet may not be comparable to the atom bomb, yet. But: Does it have the potential of a weapon of mass destruction, with good intentions turned bad? Is it already beyond our control, in the hands of the web’s political and business dictators? Is Big Data the new plutonium? And, if so:
Who is going to come to our, the People’s, aid to guide us and protect us from possible malfunctions of TIMBL’s invention?
Politicians? Highly unlikely. They are more or less powerless in regards to this new crime and war scene. One law enactment for the virtual world breeds ten workarounds before it’s even fully implemented. And with the likes of Trump on the rise around the world, their solution would probably be throwing bombs at foreign server farms, followed by salves of diss tweets … so that doesn’t really do the comforting job. TIMBL’s 2015 Christmas call for an online “Magna Carta” is in this regards laudable, but in my eyes unrealistic — at least in the current state of the world.
(So-called) “moral” institutions like churches, NGO’s or foundations? Just like politicians, they have not only lost their factual power and influence, but more so even their credibility and trustworthiness with an increasing public awareness and common knowledge of misconducts displaying despicable levels of corruption. Not even good men like Pope Francis will be able to change this in the short term needed, too much reputation damage done over decades and centuries.
Science? Should indeed have the potential, and the facts, and the solutions, but something went so completely wrong over the last few years is this respect: the mass of people isn’t listening anymore, and a dangerous intersection not believing anymore, and neither are many of today’s new leaders. Don’t like the fact that climate change exists, and that man caused it? Call it fake news, a complot. It’s like not listening to Galileo all over again: The world is flat, now shut up, off to the stake with you! Science has the facts, maybe even solutions, but some don’t trust anymore, most don’t listen. So currently not our saviours, sadly.
We, the People? Wasn’t the internet initially made for us? A new universe of transparency, openness, truly human interaction across borders, for the better of mankind, fostering an unprecedented level of togetherness and cross-cultural understanding? Between humans as much as between the human beings infront of and behind institutional and corporate walls, literally the end of business as usual?
While many of us are using the web exactly for this purpose and bridging real worlds in the virtual one, the history of the Internet, and especially it’s social offspring, has clearly shown that TIMBL invented a truly human monster. The Internet is the most human way of communicating since mankind learned to interact with other specimen by using language. Human in a comprehensive sense of the word: light and shadow, angel and devil, knights in white satin just as much as dark knights rising, not only in the Internet’s Mordor, the so-called Dark Net, but everywwwhere. I’m only human, after all, so don’t put the blame on me.
So, Power to the People? Pah! That was given to us in 1989, but we fucked it up big time, or at least we’re doing a good job at fucking it up. Our biggest misdemeanor? We’re letting it all happen!
What has become most obvious and transparent by taking a distant look at this spider web is the grimace of human nature and behaviour. (Wo)man’s foremost interest is egoistic and egocentic: fortune, wellbeing, success, complacency. No altruism, not really. It’s never truly about others’ advantage and gain; it’s always about my own, mine, mine, mine! In this respect, the Internet is the El Dorado for medium-savvy egomaniac leaders (and their nonetheless egomaniac executioners and followers) in the business of politics (e.g. Trump, Putin, Erdogan), the business of ideologies (e.g. islamists, right-wing political parties, fanatics), the business of business (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon), and even the business of transparency (e.g. Wikileaks, Snowden). All the same, in a way, driven by egoistic interests, despite all contrary avowals.
So, again: Who can help us and guide us in the right direction?
Regardless of the above and not repugnant: We, the People, can. And we must! We have to awake from our Garden Eden dream, from our careless spa life in the land of virtual milk and honey, where the web brings us everything for free right to our doorstep: services, friends, truth, anytime, anywhere. Wake up! Nothing is for free, and those out there offering you stuff for free don’t have your best interests in mind, actually not yours at all! Dream’s over, get over it. And rebel! Against data kraken. Against useless, questionable news streams, from the traditional media as well as new sources of content. Against ever more latest technological shit, must-have apps, to-die-for features. They’re all made to make money, and you pay with your freedom and identity.
Now here’s another idea, maybe far-out, but maybe also worth thinking through:
What about the role of Brands in this scenario?
I’m deliberately not saying “companies” or “enterprises”, as these titles quite rightfullyevoke the notion of capitalism. No: Brands. With their larger-than-business potential to stand for something bigger, inspire something out of the ordinary, have actual meaning — and in some cases even the potential to be role models. Brands indeed have the power and means to be guiding poles in a foggy virtual swamp of mediocrity and misanthropy, if directed in a prudent way. This at least holds true for brands who have already been taking the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility seriously in the offline world, and not just as a PR pin for their reputation lapel.
We need a movement of Digital CSR!
We need a corporate sense of responsibility for what’s happening in the digital space. The courage and farsightedness to perceive the megatrend of digitalization and the internet not as a phenomenon that allows us to make as much money as possible at any sacrifice. The idea of “Business to Society” is a great and support-worthy way of approaching a business strategy, but society is no longer just real people living in the analog world, but also real people interacting in the digital world (although with the uprising of VR, many might run danger of believing that they indeed live there, but that’s another story). The boundary between the so-called real world and its virtual counterpart is blurring.
Big corporate brands have the chance to become regulatory lightposts, offer guiding principles and places to turn to for safety, from data kraken as well as malevolent community members. Why should they? Because they can! And if they want to, they will. Many big brands have the resources to invest in projects that have nothing to do with their business, but serve a greater cause, they have been doing this in the real world, so why not extend this approach to the digital space? Such an broader, responsible attitude towards digital business will definately become a prerequisite for future generations of employees to consider working for a brand — already today, they are wanting more than just high salaries, a Senator aviation card, and a neat office.
I truly believe that brands that have started making money before and outside of the web, that have a reputation of thinking outside of the money box, and that are not built upon the business model of raping people by data extraction, will be able to build upon a community of trusting fans and supporters who would probably join them in such an venture.
As TIMBL put it:
“I may have invented the web, but all of you have helped to create what it is today. [..] It has taken all of us to build the web we have, and now it is up to all of us to build the web we want — for everyone.”
But we, the People, can’t do it alone. Neither can TIMBL with his Web Foundation. We need our brands, the brands that have the guts to be more than just money makers, the brands we trust, because we know them, because we are part of them, because we want them to be and remain part of lives, because we want to co-create our joint future together, inside and outside the web — for the better, not for the worse.
They’re everywhere, omnipresent. Exhaustive articles about why Content Marketing is revolutionizing professional communications. Dreadful lists with “Ten Rules to Successful Content Marketing”. Repetitive, full-of-themselves conferences with self-acclaimed gurus, self-advertising agencies and boastful corporations sharing Content Marketing commandments and so-called best practices (although most of the time they’re at best merely good). Holy Grail, here I come!
“He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the Holy Grail in the Castel of Arrrr…” (“Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, 1975; Image: Screenshot from youtube.com)
Here’s old news to all you helplessly disoriented: Content Marketing ain’t no holy grail, ain’t even the end of no road. It’s simply a step in the right direction, to where we need to venture as corporate communicators and marketers. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop jerkin off, pull up your trousers, and move on!
Why and where to, you might ask (or might not, but I’ll answer anyway…)?
Firstly: Content Marketing is acting upon the idea of content as an adjective (which is good and overdue), but
the Marketing aspect clings to an outdated, wrong concept.
It implies that there is stuff to market which in the first place no one wants or needs, a clear old-school messaging and sales approach. In this respect, the term Content Marketing is a contradiction in itself: You publish content that is supposed to make users, consumers, personas (or whatever terminology you use to categorize and de-humanize audiences) happy, but you create and distribute it with a one-directional sender-recipient marketing attitude. Ain’t gonna work in the long run, sorry. Conversation markets have already become smarter than enterprises, immune to advertising, just forget it, remember? And, if we’re honest: In the end, Content Marketing is advertising, very subtle, indirect, outside-in, but still: advertising.
Secondly: In the words of Jay-Z: I got four revolutions, but Content Marketing ain’t one.
Content Marketing is not a revolution,
even though it might be shaking up and (in a colloquial sense of the word) ‘revolutionizing’ the way many corporations approach their communication strategies and operations. Revolution is a strong word, one we should only use cautiously, a noun stronger than its verb. The history of modern, professional, mass-oriented communications mandates a more humble perspective. There have only been four true revolutions, i.e. developments that have irreversibly changed how people produce, receive, consume and conceive information: The invention of book printing (1450), the invention of TV (1884), the invention of radio (1893), and the invention of the Internet (1989).* That’s it, end of story. So far at least. Every trend that was born in the wake of these revolutionary technological developments is nothing more than an evolution step, making more and more sophisticated use of the opportunities offered thereby: Advertising, Public Relations, Marketing, Branded Content, Brand Journalism, you name it. They were all set out talk about a company’s product portfolio or brand in a broadcast fashion, addressing huge target groups with an unbelievable divergence loss.
The first such trend consequently taking advantage of digital media, the internet and its social version 2.0 is indeed Content Marketing. By collecting big amounts of data and clustering target groups into smaller entities – so-called personas – the observed behavioural patterns of customer journeys enable companies to deduct apparent consumer desires and preferences, and give them what they apparently want, at the right time in the right place. Content Marketing finally starts to put the other side of the communication spectrum, the listener, viewer, reader, into the centre of strategies, and not the corporate sender.
Thirdly, nevertheless: Content Marketing disregards one important aspect of modern communications: The social web has long turned us all from target groups and personas into what we truly are: Humans. Individuals. Emotional, irrational, unpredictable beings. No more B2B or B2C, it’s H2H we want!
The past of how people communicated before above-mentioned technological revolutions may indeed show us the future. Way back then, people used to share stories (not content, not data, no: story!) to exchange information and convey messages. They knew that by sharing their stories, these would be re-told to others, would be interpreted, and turned into new versions, or even new stories. It wasn’t about the singer, it was about the song. Before we were able to manifest and archive content on paper and other ‘devices’, it was the most normal thing to carry them from place to place, from generation to generation, in altering versions. In 21st-century pro speak we would probably call this phenomenon “Co-Creation”. So yes:
We need to go back to the roots of human Story Co-Creation.
Back to the openness of the fireside where we allowed our listeners not only to comment on our stories, but also add dramatic ideas, maybe even take the narrative baton from the storyteller and continue the story in their own words, with their own dramatic twists, maybe even their own ending.
People in the social web are like those people sitting around the fireplaces of the past: They want to become part of the stories they hear, read and see. They don’t merely want to listen, read, watch, and comment; they want to add their version of the story to a brand’s narrative, carry it on to the next chapter, with or without the company’s active involvement, add dramatic spice (positive or negative) on their way. And they will reward the brands for this deliberate loss of control by bringing unknown stories, insights, and maybe even new listeners aka fans back with them from their journey. Like a boomerang you throw away to get it back.
For those who think less in words, here is a simplified (too simplified, academics will rightfully say, but sometimes you have to get rid of the clutter to see the light) graphic, visualizing the morale of my story:
Communication in a “professional”, i.e. purposeful, message-oriented sense, has developed and changed in waves: In a pre-technology period (the so-far longest in human history), which was dominated by oral and hand-written content, audience interaction, sharing and co-creation was on a relatively high level in terms of quality, but limited to small audiences. Content in today’s marketing slang didn’t exist yet; it was stories people shared to make their point and make it stick in others’ hearts and minds. We refer to this period as the Pre-Technology Age.
Later, print, radio and TV destroyed this interaction quality by losing direct contact to audiences, but on the other hand brought professional communication to unprecedented heights in terms of quantity, both in terms of content and target groups (including the already mentioned divergence loss). Audience interaction dropped to an historical low, and was also not really desired by senders. That’s why we refer to this period as the Broadcast Age.
Then, only 27 years ago, the emergence of the hybrid medium Internet / WWWeb not only enabled a combination of all kinds of communication formats, but more importantly became the first mass medium for individuals – many-to-many, many-to-one, one-to-many, one-to-one, all in one. Suddenly, content and story creation, consumption and sharing became democratic, simultaneous acts. The result for enterprises: loss of control combined with the sudden need to interact with audiences, acknowledge their individualism and desires. Operationalizing this insight is currently merging into the Content Marketing Age. This will, however, be a short evolution period compared to the others before, as it is already being overtaken by the resurrection of the Story Co-Creation Age, on an unprecedented level auf audience interaction, both regarding quality and quantity. Product co-creation has already been around for quite a while, content crowd sourcing or crowd funding all the same, but the full-blown dawn of the Story Co-Creation Age will lead to nothing less than the democratization of brands, their reputations, and their stories. These will equally belong to the company and its audiences, giving birth to an unknown amalgamation of sender and recipient. Exciting. Promising. Essential for survival.**
P.S.: Oh and, the future after that? Who knows? Nobody knows. So I presume “???” is the appropriate way to make a reliable prognosis of future technologies and audience interaction schemes. Only time will tell, and the answer, my friend, is blowing in the web.
**For more about the end of (corporate) storytelling and the art of letting go, you’re welcome to refer to “Vergesst Storytelling!” (if you can’t order or download it there, send me an email at herrdennehy@storycodex.com, and I will happily send a copy to you).
Vor gut eineinhalb Jahren hatte ich Freude und Ehre, im Rahmen der Vortragsreihe “DACS Show and Share” der Münchner Architekten Dina Andersen und Christian Schmid zu sprechen.
Es war ein heißer Juliabend, der erste heiße Abend nach vielen Wochen ungewöhnlicher Kälte und Regen im Juli. Das war cool. Einerseits, denn die die Atmosphäre im Hinterhof der Türkenstraße 21 in Münchens Studentenviertel war an diesem Abend mediterran, einladend ausladend, ausgelassen gelassen, geschichtenträchtig. Andererseits hingegen, was macht man an so einem heißen Sommerabend in Minga, gerade nach einer gefühlten Eiszeit? Genau: Biergarten. Dem geschuldet (so nahmen wir selbstsicher an) kamen statt der angemeldeten 80 Gäste gerade mal 35…
Enttäuschung? Nur im ersten Moment. Denn die, die kamen, wollten’s wirklich. Setzten erfreuliche Prioritäten, nahmen kurze wie längere Wege auf sich, um beim Vortrag “Geschichten als Gestaltungsräume für moderne Marken” über das immerheiße, immergrüne Geschichtenerzählen (neudeutsch: Storytelling), Bedeutung und Chancen für Imagebildung, Imageschärfung, Dialogfähigkeit und Geschäftsunterstützung moderner Marken (erfolglos) der Hitze zu entfliehen. Verschmähten Hoibe und Brezn, tauschten sie gegen Flaschenbier und Hirnschmalz, eingerahmt von Bob Dylan, Tracy Chapman, Mr. Jones und Guy Clark. Ein Traum von Sommer in der Stadt.
Warum denke ich gerade jetzt an diesen Abend zurück? Sicher, weil’s draußen grad mal wieder eklig regnerisch windet und in schwachen Minuten gar schneit. Aber auch, weil mir folgendes Video, das im Vorfeld dieses Vortrags entstanden ist, zwar nicht in die Hände, aber doch virtuell zufällig vor die Augen fiel, als es schüchtern aus seiner Verbannung hinter den Gittern von Vimeo heraus lugte.
Alles noch so wahr wie damals, so wahr wie gestern und vorgestern, so wahr wie heute und morgen, so wahr ich dort stand):
“You better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone, for the times, they are a-changin’. — Bob Dylan, 1964
Alles im Wandel, immer zu, immer wieder. Evolution, das reicht uns schon lange nicht mehr. Talkin’ ’bout a revolution! Allerorten, politisch, wirtschaftlich, medial. Auch im Land der unbegrenzten Marketingmöglichkeiten des Internet. Hochkonjunktur der Hilf- und Orientierungslosen. Und tatsächlich: Angeblich revolutionäre Trends schießen wie kontaminierte Pilze aus medialen Böden, seit Jahren. Werden uns professionell Kommunikativen auf dem Altar der digitalen Eitelkeiten feilgeboten wie heilige Grale: Folgt dem Messias – oder gehet unter im Fegefeuer der Followerlosen! Und was tun wir? Folgen, natürlich. Wie Brians Jünger der liegengebliebenen Sandale.
Schluss damit, liebe Volksfront von Digitalien! Emanzipiert Euch!
Übt Euch in kritischer Distanz zur selbsternannten Content Revolution. Zu altem Wein in neuen Schläuchen. Übt Euch in demütiger Bescheidenheit, bevor Ihr das Wort ‚Revolution’ in Mund oder Feder nehmt! Demut vor der Geschichte, die retrospektiv gnadenlos so Manches ins rechte Licht rückt – oder in den Schatten stellt.
Mit dem Weitwinkelobjektiv der Geschichte empfiehlt der Literaturwissenschaftler – vulgo Ego – Besinnung auf alte Werte aus Zeiten, als Storytelling noch Geschichtenerzählen hieß, und Content Literatur oder Dichtung. Lest Aristoteles und Opitz, Shakespeare und Goethe und all ihre Erben. Und lernt so ein wenig mehr Gelassenheit im Umgang mit scheinbar neuen Medien und deren Bewohnern, der unheimlichen Spezies namens User. Entlarvt und demaskiert ist dieser gar nicht mehr so undurchsichtig, bedarf gar keiner großer Daten (für Dengländer: Big Data), um verstanden zu werden. Zwar hat die multidirektionale, grenzenlose Erreichbarkeit und Vernetzheit des Indivualmassenmediums Internet (ob 1.0, 2.0 oder x.0) zu einer medialen Gerissenheit und einem kognitiven Vorsprung des Empfängers vor dem Sender geführt. Doch das ist keine schlechte, sondern eine gute Nachricht, führt sie doch im Kant’schen Sinne zu einem Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit. „Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!“, lautete 1784 der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung, und das Internet ist Aufklärung 2.0: Menschen, die Corporate Messages und Corporate Advertising keinen Glauben mehr schenken, Menschen, die, unterstützt durch Technologie, gleichberechtigte Gesprächspartner werden. Nicht mehr der Leitung anderer folgen, sondern selbst diese Leitung zu übernehmen. Über Marken, deren Wahrnehmung, deren Inhalte. Insofern gibt es keine Content Revolution, sondern nur eine Content Quality Revolution, in der das Wort Content nicht nur für Inhalt, sondern auch Gehalt und Zufriedenheit des Empfängers, nicht des Senders steht.
Menschen sind kein Big Data, keine Nullen und Einsen. Sie sind subjektiv und individuell, nicht objektiv und kollektiv. Ein unberechenbarer Teil jeweils unterschiedlich beschaffener, unterschiedlich großer Gemeinschaften (neudeutsch: Communitys). Diese Menschen sind im digitalen Zeitalter Projektionsflächen für Geschichten, für Geschichten, die sie selbst erleben, aber auch für diejenigen, die sie aufsaugen – oder auch wieder angewidert ausspucken. Sie sind eben nicht mehr nur Rezipienten, Konsument und Lemming, sondern Produzent, Prosument und spielregelverändernde Punks.
Schreck lass nach!
Ein Entschreckungsszenario in drei Thesen:
1. User sind Menschen. Menschen lieben Geschichten. Und Geschichtenerzählen kann gelernt werden!
„Der storycodeX“ nach @herrdennehy: Erwartunges schaffen und befriedigen. Überraschen. Verändern.
2. Punks wollen sich nicht bevormunden lassen. Sie wollen mitgestalten und mitbestimmen. Lassen wir sie!
Poe weitergesponnen: Konzentration auf das Individuum in der Crowd, Beobachten, Loslassen. Als Marke zur Crowd werden, und die Crowd zur Marke werden lassen.
3. Alles ist vernetzt und organisiert. Drum müssen auch wir es sein!
Der Siemens Corporate Newsroom in der Unternehmenszentrale in München: Pionierarbeit und erfolgreiches Experiment themenbasierter Zusammenarbeit über Abteilungsgrenzen hinweg.
Die „Corporate Story Architecture“ nach @herrdennehy: Von der großen Markengeschichte über all die kleinen Geschichten, die diese zum Leben erwecken und glaubhaft machen, bis hin zur strategisch geplanten Präsenz der Marke im medialen Mark. Ein stabiles Gebilde, das so manchem medialen Hurricane standhält.
Mehr zur Corporate Story Architecture, dem storycodeX und der Idee der Co-Creation aus dem Corporate Newsroom im Buch „Storytelling – Digital, Multimedia, Social: Formen und Praxis für PR, Marketing, TV, Game und Social Media“, das im Frühjahr 2016 im Hanser Verlag erscheinen wird, nach- und weiterlesen.
Ever since I made my first professional walking attempts in the digital world (20 years ago that must be #feelslikeyesterday), I heard this mantra everywhere in the pre-dotcom bubble euphoria of Cluetrain afficionados, would-be Internet prophets, and notorious panjandrums:
CONTENT IS KING! They all said.
I had been studying Storytelling for five years, long before I even knew it was Storytelling. Back then they called it literature. So it seemed a little odd to hear these Internet geeks regurgitating their royal mantra when I had just meticulously learnt about the history, structure and perennial powers of stories told by early-day classics like Homer, Cervantes, Dante or Boccaccio, classic classics like Goethe, Schiller or Lessing or modern classics like Grass, Mann or Böll. Admittedly, I was also getting carried away by this millennial the-end-of-business-as-usual atmosphere of imminent change. Felt somehow audacious to dust off the venerable Germanstik patina in favour of some fresh … ehem, content?
It was only many years later, after necessary detours through the fires of corporate Mordor, that I realized one ring, I mean thing: The business world was (sorry: IS!) overly attracted by the glare of technological possibilities and features, fanatically prone to wanna-be-first- and because-we-can-itis. And thereby narrowly and one-sidedly interpreting the word “content”, neglecting other, much more elementary facets – facets that become clearest in the three different German translations the word “content” offers.
Back in the late 90’s, corporate content creation had nothing to do with journalistic research or writing talent. Its creators literally were content “managers”, i.e. project managers for pieces of content that they 1:1 transferred from paper to HTML and pinned to the newly discovered digital blackboard called website. Period. Their job was simply about the most general interpretation of content: words and pictures on a screen, publishing material. The (most probable and wide-spread) German translation for this aspect of content would be:
INHALT.
Or: “Something that is to be expressed through some medium, as speech, writing, or any of various arts … something that is contained.” (dictionary.com)
But it this Inhalt automatically something meaningful? Something that goes deeper than letters strung together by punctuation marks? Something that links beyond the surface not to just another succession of trivialities and soulless pixels, but to true substance? Mostly not. This is where in recent years (in continental Europe) or maybe decades (in Anglo-American dominated countries) the bandwagon of storytelling has already been able to do a lot for the greater good of meaningful content. If understood well and deployed according to the storycodeX of Expectation, Surprise and Change. The (a lot less wide-spread and more rarely spotted) German translation for this aspect of content with substance would be:
GEHALT.
Or: “Significance or profundity; meaning” (dictionary.com)
But interesting: Gehalt also means “salary” in German. So maybe in the end all just about the dough, be the content meaningful or not. Surely, what did you think? Now let’s once and for all get past the naïve, childish, even insulting notion that any one corporation on this planet has a different purpose than making money. And the more they want you to believe that they’re sustainably trying to save the world, “do something good” on the side with CSR and foundations, a little like a Hollywood actress doing charity, the more they’re deceiving you.
The labyrinth of linguistics … Whatever. What I actually wanted to say was: Meaningful content with substance is a good thing. But is it enough? No. Not today anymore, that’s for sure. Inhalt and Gehalt were a great, successful and sufficient, but nevertheless rare combination in the pre social media age. When the third facet of “content” didn’t really matter. It was the age of broadcast after all, old-school Shannon-Weaver style.
Bad news: those days are over. Interactivity, ubiquitous commentaries, likes and forum discussions have changed the recipient side practically over night (in a historical sense of time).
People and the conglomerates they form called audiences (NOT users!) will no longer be satisfied with consuming content-turned-into-great-stories and commenting on it in a more or less intelligent and fruitful discussion with fellow audience members or members from other audience groups. They will first of all want to be able to dig deeper behind your story, deeper into the spider web, find proof for your story, get in contact with the heroes of your story, and maybe some day also with you. If they’re not disappointed on their journey.
But, even more substantial, they will want to become an active part of a company’s business story and stories, not as actors or heroes, but as co-authors. After all, they are the other half of the corporate truth, the devil on the corporate shoulder, internal versus external perception. Devils who might become angels when they turn into a renowned and emancipated member if a brand’s story creation team. Only then will they be what the third, most vital and rarest facet of German translation attempts hints at:
ZUFRIEDEN.
Or: “Satisfied with what one is or has; not wanting more or anything else … Archaic: willing.” (dictionary.com)
Yep, content is also an adjective, not only a noun.
And the central question is: Who is it that you want to satisfy with your content? Yourself? Your bosses? Your bosses bosses? Or maybe, only very maybe … your customers? Your customers’ customers? Your audiences? Maybe even a targeted small portion of your audience? Certainly, your answer will be: Of course my customers! Of course my audiences! Plus the fact, now I have all these big and massive and powerful data, I now even know what my audience wants before it knows that it wants it! Ha! There you go, eat this!
I’m eating …
Only: Lies are hard to digest. And all the easier to unmask. As written in the world’s most successful example of purposeful storytelling: “Thou shalt not lie!”
Which brings me to the answer of above-asked headline question: As long as you betray yourself and thereby the people you are apparently creating your content for, there will be no sustainably successful content! Take all your pig data, winnow the refuse from the valuable gold nuggets, take an honest and disarraying look at them, shuffle your cards anew, do away with your organization’s and your management’s old shibboleths, dare, launch a pilot, let go, and see what happens.
There is an even older mantra from our economy’s service sector, way back from the days when storytelling was still literature, when relevant content didn’t need to be called king, when it in fact was a rarity due to its scarcity, not due to its abundance. Back then, the saying went:
Der Kunde ist König. The customer is the King.
Aha. So, so. Let’s try that for once, what do you say?
I can’t get no satisfaction, he says? All the better; let that be your stimulant.
Valetta, Malta, late November. It’s an evening at the end of one of those days. Summer has finally lost his last fight against Jack Frost, reinvigorated by Judas Autumn, his beautiful, deceptive seasonal companion. Stealing the remaining rays of warmth from the year’s sunny season for his own colourful performance. Just to lose his beauty to master Winter with the blow of a November wind. The last moment before the days become grey and miserable, foggy and wet, cold.
Nature’s true game of thrones, a drama of expectation, surprise, and change, story in repetition mode. A perfect platform, autumn the perfect time of year, an island the perfect location for a very unique scene, at least in my life story …
Clouds over Valetta. Nature’s Game of Thrones in the Mediterranean. (copyright: http://idonotdespair.com)
… Dinner with Robert McKee, one of the world’s most renowned, respected and successful story teachers, accompanied by his wife and my dear friend and story consultant James McCabe. Great food and even greater Maltese wine were the witnesses of an evening of lively and inspiring discussions about, naturally, all stories great and small, good and bad. About stories from Hollywood, McKee’s professional backyard, behind and in front of the scenes (very interesting to a provincial Bavarian story lover like me!); about movies galore; about the rise of sophisticated and elaborate TV series like Breaking Bad (the best ever produced, I recall McKee raving, that was some common ground to start an evening on!), and … about the poor state our world is in when it comes to business stories.
From Hollywood Entertainment to Malta Business
“Write the Truth”, he told me.
Robert McKee is not only Hollywood’s #1 story expert and creative writing instructor: His seminal book “STORY” is as famous and well-reviewed as his four-day “Story Seminar” is legendary, a must-attend guide for every ambitious (screen)writer willing to learn the craft or recall its essence. I have yet to judge this for myself, but allegedly 410 of his alumni have won Golden Globes, Academy Awards and many other renowned prizes. Not bad. Alumni like LOTR’s Peter Jackson go into rapture saying things like “McKee is the Guru of Gurus of Storytelling” (whatever a storytelling guru is…), or John Cleese who less guru-ishly claims: “It’s an amazingly important course that I’ve gone back to do three times.” Not bad either.
McKee has as of late also embarked upon the effort to transfer his knowledge and expertise in fiction story (mainly designed for entertainment purposes) to the sphere of business, corporate communications and marketing – storytelling with the slightly altered purpose of not only telling, but actually selling something, products and ideas, by means of entertainment. (Ideally. Mostly though, the State of the Business Story Union suggests that these means are currently mainly boredom, repetition and tutelage.)
McKee’s seminar builds upon one major notion: That companies are not abstract enterprises, they are not their portfolios; they are their employees. And these employees are actual human beings, people creating and experiencing stories every day. Only: They’re simply not telling them, rather burying them on power- and pointless PPT’s, vertiginous data sheets, and propaganda wolves in a press release’s sheep skin.
Frowning at the sight of too many appalling business stories? Robert McKee’s helping overcome self-centred corporate communication and marketing nightmares. (copyright: http://www.storylogue.com)
Businesses must shift from “We” to “You”.
So, there’s a urgent need for action here, a demand that McKee has identified and tries to answer with his “Storynomics Seminar”, which premiered under the then name “Story in Business” (which I find much more intuitive, to be honest) in Valetta, Malta, on above-mentioned autumn day.
Upfront: I sincerely believe that endeavours like this should be on the mandatory training list of EVERY person responsible for communications and marketing, from one-man enterprises to multi-national companies. Actually, while I’m thinking about it: slam McKee business story seminar it into the PMP files of every manager attempting to lead in a meaningful and not just power-centric way!
And why? Cos it’s good. Not perfect yet, but really a great start to break up fossilized PR and Marketing dinosaurs, and introduce them to a world where people are people and not abstract target groups, people that indeed WANT to embark upon meaningful dialogue with people from companies (not the companies!), for whatever purpose.
Here are a couple of notes I made, ideas and impulses that I got from that one day in Valetta – they’re pretty spot-on and need no further commentary:
Everyone has storytelling skills, it’s natural. It only got erased by the way we are trained in schools.
Very little in life that really matters can be measured.
Facts are not the truth. Facts are what happens. Truth is how and why things happen.
The only thing our mind is really interested in, is change. And change is NOT activity.
Story means “learning by inquiry”.
A story needs a violation of expectation.
The business malady of “solutionism” ignores life, ignores duality and ambiguity. Most corporations suffer from “negaphobia”.
A good (business) story gives the audience insights into their own life, it makes wise use of the “like me” effect.
Before you can find your story’s character(s), you need to know who you are as a company. The spirit of every story a company tells needs to fit into its identity.
Businesses must shift the pronoun from “We” to “You”.
Let the events tell the story. Events are much stronger than the commentary on events.
Amen.
A little less conversation, a little more (inter)action, please.
The seminar is structured into three parts: Story Purpose, Story Design, Story Telling. McKee convincingly demonstrates the principles of a good story that “serves its purpose” (be that entertainment or a trip down the sales funnel), mechanisms are the same everywhere. A story is a story is a story. With many a business video example, good and bad, reinforces the fact that “story is a metaphor for life”, hence also business life. Very illustrative, very stringent, very substantial, at times maybe a little dogmatic, definitely too much from-stage-to-audience style, and unfortunately almost completely interaction-free (apart from a pre-structured Q&A session at the end). Granted, this is probably the maximum you can do in the course of just one day with such a fundamental topic.
Still: While his screenwriting reputation and Hollywood expertise is the greatest asset and perspective-changing element of this lecture, it’s also maybe the cause for its only weakness, or let’s rather call it room for improvement. I really feel that it’s an opportunity wasted for McKee to have so many interested business people in a room hanging on his lips for story expert advice and only TELL them stuff, and not let them experience it themselves. Not just transfer fiction story mechanics to business story in a demonstrative way, but let them experience it hands-on.
Corporate dinosaurs need more than one day to be story-empowered
Maybe invite a co-lecturer or break-out session lead who actually has extensive experience of working INSIDE and just WITH companies, for the benefit of the much-aspired “like me” effect. To share this business expert’s experiences, especially in terms of overcoming organisational hurdles and convincing notorious nay-sayers nevertheless. Let the audiences maybe even work on short business story challenges amongst themselves, so they don’t just see and hear how it’s done, but can actually do it and feel it. Turn it from a lecture into a true seminar where PR and Marketing professionals are not only evangelized but actually enabled and empowered to go back to their desks and produce their first-ever real business story.
That would probably turn the one-day event into a two- or three-day event. But so what? Why not? Business story lecturing is faced with far crustier mindsets than the entertainment sector where disciples already know the Why’s and want to learn the How’s. Corporate dinosaurs need convincing before you can even get to the tutorial, the hands-on learning part. And that requires more than a day, and more story engagement spice in the story telling soup.
“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”, Churchill once said.
So please continue, Bobby McKee! And thanks for great insights – and great wine.