June 25, 2008
Why Associations All Sound the Same
Posted by Kevin | Print This Article
I haven’t read Rohit Bhargava’s book Personality Not Included yet, but it’s on my list as soon as I can come up for air and frankly I’m looking forward to it. Rohit’s an engaging writer, as evidenced by his blog, but apparently the book is not really about “social media” though those types have been all over it. I may have more to say about it when I have had the opportunity to actually read it.
However, the main reason I’m looking forward to reading it is that I am interested in Rohit’s insights on a topic that I’ve been obsessed with for many years, namely: “Why are so many associations so completely devoid of personality?”
Associations, which are often viewed as “groups of like-minded people with a common interest” (I actually think they are more complex than that), all too often come off as automatons — not people at all.
Communications are stripped of language that conveys any emotion beyond a smug Stepford-like optimism. Emails from the XYZ Association come from “XYZA”. (Just how am I supposed to connect with that?) Newsletters are written like press releases, “chairman’s pages” are published that could be interchangeable with any individual holding the office in this decade or the last, speeches given that boldly avoid any “controversial” topics — every article, every interview, every email safely scrubbed of opinion, wisecrack, or uncomfortable truth.
Members are not engaged, they are “handled.” They are not communicated with, they are “spun.”
Believe me, I am not saying that there shouldn’t be standards, because there should. I’m not saying that you don’t have to be careful, because you should. I’m just saying — for god’s sake, lighten up. Allow members to get to know your people, not just your organization — because your people ARE your organization.
And the fact is, if your organization is coming off as impersonal and distant, it’s the PEOPLE who are the reason, not the “organization” (because, well, see the last line of the last paragraph). I used to think that it’s because people are afraid to reveal themselves. Over time, I’ve realized it’s really because:
An alarming number of people, at all levels of all organizations including the highest, simply don’t know how to write.
They write stuff the way they do because THEY THINK THAT’S HOW THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT. Junior level staffers write something engaging and “personable” and it comes back devoid of personality, not because the upper-level person is evil or overbearing, but because the upper-level person did what she thinks she’s SUPPOSED to do.
But it works the other way, too. I once gave an article back to a staffer and told her, “Write like you talk,” and she gave me a blank look. She rewrote it, but it didn’t sound anything like she talked, which was actually funny and quirky.
The end result? A bunch of associations that all talk, walk, and sound the same.
I see lots of people calling for all sorts of new ideas and new technologies and new strategies and new things that association staffers should learn how to understand and how to implement. I do it, too! But I’ve realized that there’s something else we need to say, first, which is:
“You need to learn how to WRITE.”
Without that, frankly, all the other stuff ain’t gonna work, anyway.
Kevin, while I agree with your post, I don’t think of this as primarily a communications problem. Sure, it’s important for people to know how to write well, but they must also have something worth writing about.
The real reason why so many associations are devoid of personality is that they lack the will to be truly inventive and break free of what they’ve always known.
Perhaps the inherent likemindedness of associations is an even more significant obstacle to building a unique personality than we’ve realized?
Jeff,
And if they were “truly inventive” and “breaking free” with wild abandon and gleeful laughter, and no one knew how to communicate it and they sounded as sterile as all the other associations out there — who would know?
I know what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree. Except, I do disagree with the notion that communications is an afterthought (”We do, and then we write about it”). Communicating is no more a separate function to an association than breathing is to a human being. If an organization cannot communicate honestly and humanly about whatever it’s doing right now, what chance does it have to honestly and humanly “break free of what [it's] always known”?
Thanks!
Kevin, I agree! I had an assoc boss who formalized (and dehumanized) everything staff wrote. Everything was in the passive tense - you know, “A good time was had by all.” Drove me nuts…but I eventually learned that if I didn’t write it that way to begin with, it’d end up that way after mark-up so I adjusted. That’s been 12 years ago and I still sometimes catch myself writing too formally!
Ironically, though, I’m currently receiving assoc exec feedback on a manuscript that I purposely wrote in a conversational tone. Feedback so far: Love the casual tone BUT it is appropriate for the topic and audience? Aaaaaahhhhhhh. I say YES and I’m keeping it conversational style.
Great post. (And have Rohit’s book right here! To read today! What a coincidence!) And I also think you cannot separate communications from actions. Sterility of thinking, of doing, and of speaking all go hand in hand. Maybe if people were encouraged to write about their associations’ activities in more inventive ways (which, really, is what social media is partly about) and from more personal viewpoints (ditto), then inventive ideas and actions would come out of that!
Yes! Rohit’s book has really been resonating with me since reading it. I’ve seen first-hand how writing with personality can have an enormous impact. And assuming the organization has personality, communicating it is essential.
If the organization is devoid of personality, the problem is much bigger.
Kevin,
Thanks for mentioning the book here and sorry to come a bit late to comment here! You raise such an important point here about the importance of writing and the voice that we should use to have a personality. I spend a lot of time on that in the book, even focusing a whole chapter to rethinking how we write marketing materials to learn lessons from Hollywood screenwriters on capturing human dialogue. I’m looking forward to hearing what you think about the book and please do shoot me an email at any point if you’re interesting in chatting about any of the ideas you find there or how they might apply to associations. You know I’m a fan of your work and your blog and have been for some time!
Rohit, thanks for stopping by! The book arrived today from Amazon and now I can’t wait to read it, particularly in regards to your comment about learning from screenwriters.
A few years ago I actually took an online course from UCLA in screenwriting precisely because I believed that this particular craft has a lot to teach us about communicating in today’s world. I learned a lot, not just about dialogue, but about story structure, visual impact, cause and effect — things that sound as though they have nothing to do with association management, but really have everything to do with how people connect in modern society. I’ve carved out some time over the holiday weekend to spend time with your book and I’ll let you know my thoughts. Thanks again!
As a former journalist, now speaker (who advocates more social media useage by associations) I’ve been raving about Rohit’s book when in conversation with people in the meeting industry. Kudos for this post