Comments on: Why Associations All Sound the Same

By: andrea caldecourt

andrea caldecourt — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:31:43 +0000

Often organisations that use the passive or third person voice are also those with a large headcount and high staff turnover.

After all, it doesn’t matter what your personal opinion or attitude is, if you’re not going to be there next quarter; we don’t want to start a conversation with someone if we end up talking to a different person next time we contact the organisation.

So official communications end up written in a non-committal style, so that anyone can take them over, seamlessly, at any given moment.

I would say also, far too many people in bureaucratic roles use formal language because they think it makes them sounds better educated. Check out the passenger announcements next time you’re travelling by train, for instance – "beverages and refreshments", instead of drinks and snacks…

I keep in mind a quote from WB Yeats (who did know how to write) : "Think like a wise man, but communicate in the language of the people."

By: Kare Anderson

Kare Anderson — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:00:27 +0000

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

By: Kevin Holland

Kevin Holland — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:39:46 +0000

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!

By: Rohit

Rohit — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:43:07 +0000

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!

By: Lindy Dreyer

Lindy Dreyer — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:36:41 +0000

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.

By: Maddie Grant

Maddie Grant — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:37:33 +0000

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!

By: Mickie Rops

Mickie Rops — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:43:36 +0000

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.

By: Kevin Holland

Kevin Holland — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:45:33 +0000

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!

By: Jeff De Cagna

Jeff De Cagna — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:29:51 +0000

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?