Category Archives: Communications

Analyzing Core Messaging in the 2024 Election

Posted on January 20, 2024 | 13 comments

Once in a rare while, I address political issues in my blog. Why? Well, because when it comes to messaging and positioning, it’s the big leagues. Politics is Major League Baseball, consumer packaged goods (CPG) is AAA, and here in Silicon Valley we’re only AA. It’s hard not to look at the big leagues to try and learn from what they do. Plus, they drown us in their communications, which makes it easy to find familiar examples to discuss.

Through looking at politics, I’ve become a fan of Frank Luntz‘s methods, specifically his research-driven approach to messaging. While one side hires Luntz more than the other, that shouldn’t matter. As Patton reminds us, you should learn from the best and brightest of both [1].

“Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book.”

In this post I’m going to pick a white-hot topic — core messaging in the US 2024 presidential election — and try to analyze it. Here’s the hard part: I want to do so without dragging myself or my readers into a debate about politics. I believe the key to doing this successfully is not objectivity (an impossible goal), but dispassion [2]. 

Ground rules help, too — I’ll immediately delete any comments or messages that move off messaging/positioning and into policy. If you want an example of the difference, see note [3].

If this exercise is going to bother you, stop reading here. Otherwise, let’s go!

In this post, I’m going to:

  • Reduce the messages to two words, each.
  • Analyze that reduced messaging using three tests: (1) is it compelling, (2) does it have cross-over appeal, and (3) how good is it as a capstone?
  • Share who I think has the stronger message, and why
  • Make suggestions on how I’d improve the weaker message

The Reduced Messaging

While I don’t think the messaging has completely converged yet, I think we’re headed here.

Please choose one.

That’s the choice. Save Democracy or Save America.

How Compelling Are The Messages?

Putting aside the execution of the two signs [4], both sides argue that they’re fighting to save something. The Democrats want to save democracy. The Republicans want to save America. Who’s got the better message?

Both sides pre-suppose something needs saving. The Republicans argue that America needs saving from a list of real, embellished, or imagined crises, including immigration, inflation, wars, the IRS, Democrats, and the swamp. The Democrats argue that our system of government, democracy, needs saving from a real, embellished, or imagined dictator in Donald Trump, who is under indictment for numerous crimes, perpetuates the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen, and who tried to prevent the proper transfer of power at the end of his presidency.

In short,

  • Republicans want to save the country from a list of crises.
  • Democrats want to save the system of government from a man.

This x-ray view makes it easier to analyze the messages.

  • Republicans want to save the country, Democrats want to save an idea. Saving the country is infinitely more visceral and motivating.
  • Republicans want to fight crises, Democrats want to fight a man. This positions the Republicans as trying to help the average American [5] and the Democrats as fighting a personal battle [6].

Logically, the Republican message almost auto-justifies extraordinary means in order to achieve its critical end. Who cares about saving democracy when America itself is at risk? We need to save our country and our way of life — and if that means taking a few liberties and/or tyranny of the minority, then so be it. We’re talking about saving America, here. We can fix that other stuff, later.

The Democratic message is quite cerebral. We need to save the American ideal, the soul of the nation, and Western liberal democracy. We need to be a beacon of hope for would-be democracies around the world. But tangibly, what does that actually mean? It’s actually kind of a meta-message [7]. It says nothing about what they want to do after saving democracy. There’s no future promise. 

To have some fun, and I’ll exaggerate here, let’s contrast two chants that seem to go with these messages:

What do we want? A Western, liberal, democratic system of government in order to save the soul of the nation and to ensure we remain a beacon of hope to would-be democracies. When do we want it? As soon as reasonably can be expected.

Versus:

What do we want? To save America. When do we want it? Now.

Less is more. Less is more. Less is more. Burn it into your marketing brain. Less is so much more when it comes to messaging. Most software companies miss this, too.

But there’s an even bigger problem with the Save Democracy message that I learned years ago when writing, of all things, a business intelligence white paper on information democracy [8]. I wanted a pithy quote on the benefits of democracy, so I did what I thought would be a quick search. And kept searching. And kept searching. In the end, I had to use this.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” 

— Winston Churchill

It turns out that people don’t like democracy all that much. It’s hard to find people with a kind word to say. Churchill captured the spirit perfectly. In this light, then, let’s re-evaluate the Democratic message.

  • Republicans are fighting to save the country.
  • Democrats are fighting to save an idea that most people don’t even like all that much.

I think this makes Save Democracy a significantly less compelling message than Save America.

Do The Messages Have Cross-Over Appeal?

I’m not a political strategist, but I’d guess in a world where only 54% identify as either Republican or Democrat and 43% identify as Independent, that you’d want a message that does two things: (1) rallies the base and gets them out to vote and (2) appeals to those outside the base, particularly the Independents. Now let’s analyze how our two reduced messages fare on this test.

Save America is a strong message for the base. And I think it’s a reasonable cross-over message that has some appeal to both Democrats and Independents. Sure, I don’t want to be a member of your party, but I’m down for saving America. What you want to do and how you want to do it may well turn me away, but for a two-word message, with Save America you still have my attention.

Save Democracy is a good message for the base. It’s too cerebral for my taste, but many members of the base are cerebral themselves, so that shouldn’t bother them too much. The problem is with cross-over appeal. For Independents, I think it’s a reasonable message. Yes democracy is important, but again, fairly cerebral and a bit too meta — and then what? 

For Republicans, however, it’s a total non-starter. Wait, you want me to save democracy by putting the people I disagree with in charge? That’s your sales pitch? Take one for the team in order to save democracy? Please tell me that your marketer hasn’t pinned your hopes to this message.

For these reasons, I think the Save America message has better cross-over appeal than Save Democracy.

What is the Capstone Utility of the Messages?

Capstone is a fancy MBA word, typically referring to a capstone course and/or project that integrates everything you’ve learned in the program. I think it’s a useful concept here. Your reduced messaging really should serve as a capstone. It’s thus both the ultimate summary of what you’re saying as well as the starting point for your stump speech. For example:

“Thank you for coming out today. We’re here to Save Schmumble. If we don’t, here are some of the bad things that will happen. If we do, here are all of the good things that will happen. Do you folks want to Save Schmumble? So do I. Let me ask you, is there anything more important than Saving Schmumble? No, I didn’t think so. Now, let’s talk about how we’re going to roll up our sleeves and do it.” [9]

I believe that the reduced messaging naturally points you in a given direction. Let me demonstrate that with an example of where Save America would point me.

“We’re here to Save America. Our country is under threat. Threats from immigration and our open border policy, inflation and the erosion of the US dollar, endless wars that siphon our resources and put our brave troops in harm’s way, taxation that stifles both American business and the American spirit, slowing job creation and the economy … Are we going to do something about these threats? Can we stop them? You bet we can, and we will.”

Save America points you in the direction of talking about the threats to America. That is, from the audience’s perspective, the day-to-day problems they face. As I’ve said many times [10], convincing someone you understand and care about the problem — in software or in politics — counts for about 80% of the sale. 

Unlike software sales where customers require proof that you can solve a problem, to win the rhetorical war you don’t actually need concrete solutions to close the deal. All you actually need is to convince people that you care about the problem and that you can solve it [11]. We can talk about how, later.

Let’s see where Save Democracy points me:

“Our system of government is under threat from a man who has shown us that he believes he’s a king. From granting key government jobs to unqualified family members, to the use of government to pursue personal vendettas, to abusive pardons of convicted criminals, to the events of January 6th and all that surrounds it. Democracy itself is at stake here … And it’s up to us to protect democracy and its sacred light. And we’re going to do just that in November.”

Save Democracy points you in the direction of Trump. He is the threat to democracy. So you start to talk about the things he’s done and the risks of what he might do. That leads to talking about the people who’ve joined him, the inner circle at first, but if you keep going, you get to the entire Republican party. Ending here is disastrous because, as Hillary clearly demonstrated, insulting people isn’t a great strategy to win their support.

The narrative ends up sounding personal, angry, and negative. And it can lead to a deplorables style write-off of your opponent’s supporters and, more dangerously, the Independents who sympathize with them. 

Believe it or not, I didn’t try to throw the exercise. I just started with the two different themes and followed where I felt they were pointing me. Save America pointed me to a place where I could rant about problems and gloss over solutions. Save Democracy pointed me to attack Trump, his people, and those who support him. For these reasons, I think Save America has higher capstone utility.

Thoughts on Improving the Weaker Message

In the spirit of bringing solutions, not just problems, I’d recommend the following ways to improve the Democratic messaging:

  • Not adopt a save-something counter message. This blows things up on the launch pad and lets the opponent define the agenda.
  • Sell today’s success. Several surveys show that many Americans think they (and interestingly, other Americans) are doing worse than they actually are. The cardinal sin of marketing is under-marketing reality [12].
  • Sell a vision for a brighter future. I’m not sure what or how, but that’s what people want to buy. Sell it to them. It’s a far better strategy than attacking the other guy in the name of saving a relatively unpopular idea.
  • Don’t turn the race into a good vs. evil battle. This is precisely what the opposition wants. Don’t give it to them.
  • Put an emphasis on actual solutions. Where’s the beef? What are the details of the “better” health plan? This one’s dangerous, but so is giving your competitor a pass on their ability to solve problems.

I can’t start out talking about Frank Luntz and not say that I’d research the heck out of all this. Don’t get confused. I am a big believer — as this post shows — of thinking deeply about what we are actually saying. More software companies should do that. But I’m also a big believer in understanding what they are actually hearing. More software companies should do that, too.

Thanks for reading. I’m not here to change anyone’s mind about the election, but I am hoping to help us all learn something about marketing by examining it.

# # #

Notes

[1] The movie took some cinematic license. The scene appears made up. Nevertheless, I think the point stands because it’s made by many others, who have expressed an equivalent idea, if not so dramatically.

[2] Hard as we try, none of us can ever be objective. We can do our best, try to see both sides, etc., but our opinions are definitionally subjective. Research is probably the only way to do objective anything — and there are plenty of ways to bias research as well. Ergo, rather than strive for an unattainable goal (and potentially get sucked into debates about the degree of my objectivity), I’ll admit now that I’m not objective. I have opinions. But my purpose here is neither to share them, nor persuade you to believe them. To make this kind of post work, objectivity is the wrong goal. I think dispassion is a more realistic goal and I will thus in this piece attempt to dispassionately analyze the messaging.

[3] For example, in this context debating policy would be debating the pros/cons of a Mexican border wall, including its effectiveness, efficiency, cost, morality, environmental impact, and such. Analyzing messaging would instead look like: should we pick immigration as a core issue, and if we do, can we successfully use “the wall” as our solution? In a problem/impact/solution format, immigration is the problem, impacts are the various troubles it causes the audience, and the wall is the solution. In this context, it’s fair to ask if you can sell the audience on a wall as the solution to the problem. But you get a penalty flag if you enter into a debate about your opinions on the wall.

[4] I can’t resist. Let’s quickly analyze the execution of the two signs. What do I see?

  • The left sign is generally inferior to the right.
  • The left sign has two messages, the right sign has one. For a quick-read sign, pick one. (The only person who reads all 30 words on this lawn sign risks running over the neighbor’s kids.)
  • The left sign inverts the relative importance of its messages, heavily weighting Vote Blue over Save Democracy. I hope it was intended to sit outside a polling place, otherwise I don’t get it.
  • The right sign is clearly a lawn sign. I tried to find the left sign in a similar aspect ratio, but couldn’t. Either way, this demonstrates an important lesson about aspect ratios when making logos or images. The left sign loses relative space here due to an arbitrary choice I made (i.e., equal height) in designing the composite.

[5] A particularly unfortunate built-in concession, given the opponent’s lack of a policy platform in 2020.

[6] Enabling the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” genre of messages.

[7] By meta, I mean, “we’re not sure what we want to do, but we know how we want to do it — democratically!”

[8] Which I was going to turn into a quadrant (access vs. control) with boxes named things like information dictatorship, information anarchy, and such.

[9] If needed, you could add a dash of: ”Can you believe that my opponent doesn’t even want to Save Schmumble? Why just last week, he said Schmumble didn’t matter. I can’t believe it. How are you going to Save Schmumble if you don’t even care about it? Well, we can’t let that happen.”

[10] My definition of “solution selling” is convincing the buyer of three things: they understand my problem, they can solve my problem, and I want to work with them. You score most of your points on the first and the third item; demonstrating proficiency on the first often gets you credit on the second. That’s why I like completing the customer’s sentences occasionally when they’re describing the problem.

[11] In this light, real policy is actually kind of dangerous. It’s hard work to create and details matter (which is why you need “policy wonks” to help). Worst yet, once you create a policy, you pin yourself down. It can and will be attacked. It’s far easier and less risky to devote your messaging to high-level vision and detailed discussion of the problems, but with only a cursory discussion of the solutions. If your audience and your opponent let you.

[12] I’m not saying this would be easy. Convincing someone they’re doing better than they think they are is no easy task. I know it’s dangerous ground, but so is letting people think they’re worse off when they’re not. As with many situations, the best way to get out of this one is to not get into it. But that’s where they are.

13 Comments

Posted in Communications, Positioning

Tagged ,

The Elements of a Good Apology

Posted on October 30, 2023 | 2 comments

After a negative customer experience on a recent fishing trip an old friend of mine said, “I judge people by the quality of their apologies.” Interesting idea, I thought.

This led to a discussion about the apology given to us by the proprietor of the ranch at which we stayed, roughly summarized as: “this only happened because it’s the end of a long, hard season, and there are things — things I can’t tell you about — that took a lot out of me.”

I, being something of a sucker, bought it — pardon the expression — hook, line, and sinker. “Oh you poor man, I hope you get through this.”

My friend, who is somewhat more skeptical, responded differently: “He didn’t really own it. He literally blamed it on something that he declared secret and couldn’t tell us about. And does that really matter anyway? Do we really care why something undesirable happened? Or do we want him to just own the mistake and apologize for it?”

This led to a conversation where I came up with these simple elements of a good apology.

  • Hear it. Let the customer talk. Hear what they say. Don’t interrupt. Don’t get defensive. Listen. When they’re done, repeat it back: “I understand that the door flew open, Fluffy flew out, and that terrified everyone.” Or, “I understand that the software repeatedly crashed and was basically unusable during your end-user onboarding session and that was horribly embarrassing for you personally and a waste of time and money for the company.”
  • Own it. Admit the mistake and say it was your fault. “I didn’t attach the schmidget properly and because of that the door flew open. It was my mistake.” In a tech context, “I’m sorry that the release was not adequately tested and caused the software to crash repeatedly during your user onboarding session.”
  • Apologize for it. Say, “I am sorry.” Don’t ask anyone to accept that apology as it feels you’re asking for absolution. You’re not. You’re apologizing.
  • Avoid deflection or transference. Don’t say, “I’m sorry that you didn’t notice the schmidget was not attached.” Or, “I’m sorry that you chose to hold your training the day after a major, new release.” Doing this is the opposite of owning it. Avoid at all costs any apology that starts with, “I’m sorry you were offended by.”
  • Optionally, say how you feel about it. “I feel terrible that your cat flew out the open door (but was happily uninjured).” Or, “I feel terrible that we hung you out to dry in front of your end users, especially after you went to bat to help us win the deal.”
  • Optionally, tell them what you’re doing about it. Some people will care about this and want to know how you’re preventing this from happening to others. Some won’t. Read the room. “I’m going to revise our departure checklist to add schmidget attachment.” Or, “I’m going to fly to India, show the team your picture, tell them how much you did to support us, and then tell them how this impacted you.” (This, by the way, is a real example and I did fly to India the next week and do precisely that.)
  • Don’t quibble over details. If it’s an online product review and it says, “the schmidget was not attached on the 20-foot vehicle,” do not reply, “our vehicles are 19 feet.” If you worry that failing to do this concedes incorrect facts, then say, “Some details notwithstanding, the important part here is the cat flew out the door, and we are deeply sorry about Fluffy and the trauma she endured.”
  • Optionally, offer compensation. Not everyone wants compensation. For some, it’s about principle. For others, it’s about ensuring future clients don’t have the same problem. For others, it’s all about compensation. For others still, it’s about putting some wood behind the apology arrow. Read the room. Ensure the compensation matches the problem: “I’m offering you a free day with our top guide on your next trip out.” If you’re unsure, you can offer in the hypothetical: “would it help if I were to offer you blank?” Avoid proposing illogical compensation: “I’ll give you two free days from the same plumber who misinstalled the pipes that flooded your house in the first place.” (No thanks!)
  • Finally, thank the customer for their business. “You are important to our company, that’s why I wanted to make this apology to you personally. And thank you for being a customer.”

I worked with a sales VP who began every customer conversation by saying, “thank you for being a customer.” It’s not a bad way to end one, either.

2 Comments

Posted in Communications, Leadership, Management, Sales

Tagged , ,

Four Lessons From the Carta Communications Train Wreck

Posted on October 28, 2023 | 3 comments

Carta, an otherwise boring company solving a mundane-if-important problem, managed to get itself in the news this past week for all the wrong reasons. The fiasco was the result of CEO Henry Ward writing a post on recent negative press that was presumably intended to inoculate his audience, but instead backfired spectacularly. Headlines in the past week:

The catalyst for all this seemed to be, in particular, an article in Fortune entitled Inside the mounting litigation and high turnover at startup unicorn Carta.

Because our purpose is to take a few communications lessons from this PR mess, I’m not going to dig into the story itself. Instead, we’re going to study what I guess happened — and there are some big guesses here — and then make four recommendations that could prevent something like this from happening at your startup. Note that these recommendations will work even if my guesses are entirely off the mark.

My Guess as to What Happened

I decided to write this post because the key mistake, the Medium post, is one I could have seen myself making. So I felt some empathy with the author for deciding to write it, if not much agreement with the angle. Why? Because I like learning and then sharing what I’ve learned. I don’t like to gloss over things, I like to go into detail. I like to explain things. Turns out that’s a great habit for an industry blogger, but for a CEO, not so much. There is a standard playbook for communications crises and writing a post like this is definitely not included.

I also felt empathy for the desire to communicate to your employees. This is increasingly frustrating in today’s world because you must assume that any internal all-hands email can and likely will be released externally. Therefore, you need to write any internal all-hands email as if it’s going to be released externally. Now, the dangerous logic: well, if you’re going to write it as if it’s going to be released externally, then why not just publish it yourself? I feel like this is perhaps the path this post took. Quote:

I know other CEOs have to deal with this so I wanted to share what I shared with employees in case it’s helpful for other CEOs thinking through similar problems.

Sharing this with employees was dangerous because it might well have leaked. But publishing it yourself to create a backfire was darn-near (and might well prove) career suicidal. And it’s definitely not helpful for other CEOs. In fact, other CEOs should use it as a counter-example.

But here’s the part where I have zero empathy. Leading with a quote like this:

To anyone sophisticated in communications and when used in this context, this quote means one thing: “I have no idea how to deal with the press and am bitter about it because I keep not getting the result I want.”

Period. That’s all it means.

No CMO could ever think this way. They wouldn’t last a month in their job. But founders, and some CFOs, think this way: “I’m not the problem. They’re the problem.” Instead of viewing the media [1] as a world they must learn to navigate — and ideally turn to their advantage — they let one or two early setbacks bruise their ego and never get back on the horse. Thus, they never learn how to ride it. [2]

I worked with one, pretty accomplished, public company CFO who’d always say: “I hate the media, they always misquote me.” Which again translates to me as: “I have no idea how to work with the media.” Were you really misquoted or did you actually say something you regret? Did they trick you into thinking the interview was over and slide in one more “what do you really think” question? Did you “buy the question” and end up getting indirectly quoted? [3]

Who hurt you?

Perhaps some have the luxury of writing off the media as “sensationalized noise” written by people with “perversely distorted” incentives. But no CMO possibly can. And no founder/CEO should either.

What should you do instead? Follow these four rules:

  • Hire communications professionals and listen to them.
  • Learn the rules of the game.
  • Use the right spokesperson for the content.
  • Build a few key relationships.

Hire Communications Professionals and Listen to Them

It’s hard to imagine that any communications professional approved of Carta’s chosen communication strategy of attacking the press via a long blog post that calls the press biased, accuses them of doxxing, says they build their careers on company “takedowns,” debates facts on seemingly pending legal cases, and calls a former employee “a misogynist and racist.” Among other things.

This, simply, is not how it’s done. For many reasons. The CEO debases himself, effectively dragging himself through the mud. The attack on the press will limit future relationships with journalists. And I’m guessing the lawyers are not in love with this strategy, either. But more than anything, you amplify the negative story. You give it a second life. A second news cycle. And now people like me are even editorializing about it.

Anyone who says “all PR is good PR,” never worked in public relations. Or they did and tried to use that to dodge an executive screaming at them — as I have been screamed at: “how, how, … how did you let this happen?”

All PR is not good PR. This is not a good story for Carta. With the stroke of his pen, the CEO transformed this story from a sadly mundane “yet another tech sexual discrimination case” [4] to a fiery “CEO writes nutty blog post” [5].

Learn the Rules of the Game

In three words: get media training.

While I generally don’t recommend using your PR firm for media training, you can and should ask them for referrals. The best media trainers are often independents, typically retired journalists who teach you the tricks used on the other side of the interview table. The older and more curmudgeonly, the better. Ask me about the time the media trainer said he tricked a nun into naming a murder suspect by closing his notebook and pretending the interview was over. Yes, that’s who you want training you.

In my opinion, the Brits have the toughest press, so I generally prefer British media trainers when you can find them. Though, that might be over-preparation to deal with the local tech blog.

But no matter who you get it from, get it. Do it every year. Find the firm you like best. Make their program your standard spokesperson certification. But do it.

The most important benefit here is indirect. You’re getting your company to understand and admit that working with the media is playing a game with rules, and the better you understand those rules and the more you practice, the better you play.

That indirectly prevents the Carta rant. You don’t think to blame the media for being the media, because you understand that dealing with the media is part of your job and you understand the rules of the game. You don’t start interviews bitter, you start dialed-in. And you don’t take matters into your own hands to try and right a perceived media wrong. You work with the media.

Use the Right Spokesperson for the Content

Even if there were some big media fuss here, the CEO’s post would still be the wrong answer because you’re not matching the spokeperson to the content.

If there were a pure media problem, the most you should consider is a post from the VP of communications to discuss the Fortune story. (And they’d almost certainly refuse to do it, so see the “listen” part of point one.) But the principle is to match the spokesperson to the content. If we’re discussing a problem in media relations, then let the VP of communications handle it. Perhaps a better example is who should answer an all-hands question about the Fortune story? The VP of communications.

If you’re worried about customers, the most you should consider is an email from your chief customer officer to the customer base saying something like: “you may have seen story X, we take any allegations of Y seriously, we are looking into them and will act accordingly once our investigation is complete. Meantime, we continue to be focused on meeting your needs and building our company. If you have any questions, call your CSM or AE. Thank you for being a customer.”

While I know some CEOs like to be all over everything, in every detail, and show everyone that fact (and I was perhaps one of them), the CEO should address CEO-level issues and other issues should be delegated. The CHRO should address HR issues. The CMO and/or VP of communications should address media. The general counsel should address legal. When the CEO addresses an issue, it has the effect of elevating the issue. That can be powerful if you want to demonstrate your commitment to a new direction. It can backfire when addressing “negative press.” [6]

Build a Few Key Relationships

Finally, once you understand the media game, I think every founder/CEO should “adopt” a handful of key journalists and/or industry analysts. That means they meet with them periodically and work to build personal, long-lasting relationships. They can provide information on background. They can share scuttlebutt. They can get dinner after the meeting or event.

This has two benefits. First, it helps the founder/CEO develop a deeper understanding of the media world, such as the pressures and constraints of the journalist or analyst job. Second, it helps build a relationship that might buy you a reference or a quote in a story, a mention in an analyst report, a few millimeters on a quadrant or wave, or simply the benefit of the doubt when the company is under attack. As well as a friend with whom to have a beer twenty years later — as I still do with a few.

In this post, I’ve offered four recommendations for how your startup can run a better communications program and avoid problems like those currently faced by Carta. I hope you follow them.

# # #

Notes

[1] By media here, I mean to include not only the traditional press and blogs, but also industry analysts and thought leaders, and eventually financial analysts. Basically, anyone thinking about, speaking about, and/or writing about your company.

[2] I’ve been blessed to have worked with some great media trainers over the years, including Martin Banks and David Tebbutt. I also took the Salesforce media certification program whose final exam rivaled only the road test for my French driver’s license in its degree of difficulty and anxiety production.

[3] Buying the question refers to letting the journalist put words in your mouth. Example: “Dave, so are you saying that Oracle is evil?” Any answer other than a clear, “no” will likely result in an article that says Dave said Oracle was evil. Note the absence of a direct double-quote, the hint that I didn’t actually say it. (Yes, that’s fair under most rules of enagement.)

[4] I don’t subscribe to Fortune so I’m assuming that’s the story based on the lede. And no, societally, it’s not a good thing that such stories are run-of-the-mill. But from a Carta PR perspective, it could have been. Think: “oh, another one did it.” That’s not breaking news. That’s not man bites dog. Unfortunately, “CEO writes story that fuels negative news cycle” is.

[5] These are not actual quotes. I am using double quotes to contain the story concepts.

[6] Note that I’m making a deliberate distinction between “the Fortune story” and “the allegations within the Fortune story.” “How did we get bad press and what are we supposed to say about it,” is a media/comms question and questions about allegations of sexual discrimination and/or harassment are a CHRO issue. Personally, I think culture is a CEO issue, so to the extent the allegations are cultural more than episodic, they quickly become a CEO issue for internal comms.

3 Comments

Posted in Communications, Marketing, PR

“You Don’t Want That!” — A Rant from Lance Walter on Product Management Communications

Posted on June 3, 2022 | 2 comments

While I don’t normally entertain guest posts, once in a rare while I hear an old friend ranting about something and the rant’s so good that I offer up Kellblog to help share it.  Today’s rant comes from Lance Walter, who recently finished up a four-year gig as CMO of high-flying Neo4j, and who I know from previous stints working together at Host Analytics and Business Objects. Lance has run marketing at six startups (Pentaho, Aria, Host, Datameer, Capriza, and Neo4j) and led product (and/or product line) marketing at three before that (Hyperion, Siebel, Business Objects).  Trivia point:  like me, Lance started what would be a successful marketing career not in sales or marketing, but in technical support.  This might also explain why he, as we’ll see, gets so excited about a product FAQ.  

One day, not long ago, Lance was trying to send a scheduled email (i.e., send-later) from his preferred email service — which we’ll call CoolMail  — and he couldn’t do it.  Ever the former product manager, he endeavored to figure out why.  He found this in a FAQ. 

Q: Why Doesn’t CoolMail Offer Send-Later / Email Scheduling?

PM Answer:  A client-side Send-Later implementation does not work reliably since the device may not be powered on or have connectivity at the scheduled time, or the app may have been force-quit by the user.

As a result, most apps that offer Send-Later / Email Scheduling opt for a server-side implementation where the scheduled email is stored on a 3rd party server till it is sent at the scheduled time.

Obviously this has privacy / security implications since not only do scheduled emails need to be stored on the 3rd party server, but said server also needs to be able to access the user’s email server via SMTP in order to send the emails.

While similar security / privacy considerations also apply to Push vs Fetch notifications, in our view the need to be informed of new incoming emails promptly and reliably justifies a server-side implementation in that case, while email scheduling, although nice to have, is not as critical.

Let’s say this, for lack of a better word, triggered Lance.  Keep reading to learn why and learn how to avoid some undesirable patterns in technical, product-related communications.

Over to you, Lance → 

When I saw this in the FAQ, I had to stop and read it twice.  How did I, as a user, feel when I read this?

  • I’ve annoyed them by asking for a feature.
  • I don’t deserve a real explanation, or maybe they think I’m too dumb to understand it.
  • I should be thankful they’re adding other features.

Basically, they’re telling me I’m wrong to want this feature because the scarlet widgetator can only do schmumble muck.  Not only did they tell me that I’m not getting the feature I wanted, but that I really shouldn’t have asked for it.

So do I think this is good product-oriented communications?  No.  In this post, we’ll analyze why and, more importantly, try to provide some tips for what to do instead.  

Let’s start with some empathy for the Product Managers (PMs) out there. It’s a hard, cross-functional job and situations like this, where you can’t give every user what they want are the norm, not the exception. Whether birthing new products or shepherding established ones, PMs never have enough time or resources to deliver what companies and customers ask of them.

A good PM has to be able to say “no” to their stakeholders while maintaining relationships.  That’s never easy, and sometimes PMs fall into one of three patterns that they really should avoid:

1) “Yeah, but if we implement this feature terribly, you won’t be happy.” The CoolMail PM makes this argument, in this case about implementing email scheduling as a client-side feature. Except that people don’t ask for client-side scheduling, which would be a dumb way to do it, as the PM explains. Note that the PM is also communicating like they’re in an internal meeting, presuming the requestor has an understanding of the meaning and implications of “client-side” and “server-side.”

2) “That would only work with an asynchronous widgetator and ours is synchronous.” The PM, going technical-ish, uses a few acronyms a user may or may not understand, but doesn’t provide a real technical explanation other than “this raises security issues.” The requestor likely hears something akin to, “this is complex, you wouldn’t understand it, and I don’t feel like actually explaining it.”  Dismissed.

3) “We didn’t put in a steering wheel because we care about safety and we view brakes as more important.”  Notice the not-so-subtle false choice here and at the end of the FAQ answer.  The PM explains why push notifications are more important, but the requester didn’t argue that email scheduling was more important.   All the requestor did was ask for something else.  And mentioning “other server-side features” isn’t relevant to this request.

So how can PMs communicate better than this, especially when dealing with skeptical prospects, stressed-out presales engineers, eager and urgent community leaders, or even angry customers?

1) Don’t just let them talk, listen. Nobody accepts a “no” when they don’t feel heard. Being fully-present, and paraphrasing back a feature request (in the requestor’s language, not your company’s feature-speak), will start to build trust and confidence before you’ve had to commit to anything. Bonus points if you can add/playback the context as well. “So Lance, you’re saying you want email scheduling so you can do emails at any time of day, but not bother your coworkers off-hours?” “YES!” says the I-just-felt-HEARD user!

2) Stay intellectually honest. The PM explains how a poor implementation of the feature would be bad. You’re the product manager.  You’re right, I wouldn’t be happy with a bad implementation — how about you make me a good one then?  PMs don’t have to unpack all their thinking for the audience, but they will lose the confidence of the audience (regarding potentially both their transparency and technical skills) if they throw out rhetorical strawmen like this.  The false dichotomy at the end is another example.  The user just asked for a feature, they didn’t argue its relative importance.  (Nor should the PM cherrypick sacred features against which to compare.)  A feature request can simultaneously be valid, valuable, and low-priority relative to others — all at the same time. 

3) Be transparent, even when it hurts. Just don’t surprise your partners or salespeople. Honesty is essential for trust in all relationships, and if you’re a PM and want stakeholders to trust you, be transparent about your constraints and high-level prioritization. Not, “they stole half my engineering team in Q2 to fix bugs in another product” transparent, but clear about having constraints. The answer to your customer is most-typically “not yet” at best, and “not ever” at worst, so make sure you’ve talked to whomever owns the relationship with that partner, customer, or prospect and is aligned (not just informed) on what you’re going to say. But once that’s done, it’s actually liberating to say things like:

  • “We’re planning multiple upgrades to the Shmumble Console expected next Fall, so you won’t get this yet, but it’s on the list, targeted for late this year.” You’re telling the stakeholder that their request fits the strategy but isn’t coming yet.
  • “Our strategy is horizontal for now, so I understand why this matters to regulated process manufacturers in Germany like you and I’ve documented it well, but for now it’s not making the cut for the next two releases and I can’t promise it will after that.”
  • “This likely won’t be in our product roadmap because for now, this is a rare use-case, and rather than string you along waiting for this feature, I’d recommend you work with our services team, partner, open source community to create a manageable workaround.” In this and the prior comment, you’re telling your stakeholder that the request doesn’t fit the current, and likely future, strategy and that they need to take another approach. Granted, telling a customer “we’re not going to deliver that feature,” isn’t pleasant, but it’s more pleasant than if they feel like you’re telling them they shouldn’t want the feature in the first place. And it gives them productive options and a feeling of control since they now know that “saying nightly roadmap prayers” for another year won’t solve their problem.

4) Under-promise, over-deliver. If you didn’t already know this one, turn in your PM badge because you may not make it to the next GA.  ;-)

 Of course, there are also ways to be a much more collaborative and effective feature requestor. Maybe I’ll explore that in another post.

 What do other product leaders out there see that doesn’t and does work?

 # # #

Notes

  • Thanks again to Lance for contributing this rant!
  • I made a few edits to Lance’s portion of the post.  Mistakes are likely mine.

2 Comments

Posted in Communications, Product, Startups

Communications Lessons from Mayor Pete

Posted on June 3, 2019 | Leave a comment

Whenever I have the chance to watch a big league politician at work, I always try to study their communications skills in an effort to learn from the best.  In a previous post, I presented what I learned watching Congresswoman Jackie Speier work a room, a pretty amazing sight, in The Introvert’s Guide to Glad-Handing.

Yesterday, I had the chance to watch Mayor Pete in action at a gathering in Palo Alto.  Political views aside [1], the man is a simply outstanding public speaker.  In this post, I’ll share what I learned from watching him work.

  • Don’t be afraid of Q&A.  I’d say Pete spent 1/3rd of his time on his stump speech, and left 2/3rds to “make it a conversation.”  It works.  It engages the crowd.  In tech, I feel like many companies — after one too many embarrassing episodes — now avoid Town Hall formats at employee All Hands meetings, Kickoffs, or User Conferences.  Yes, I’ve heard of [2] and seen [3] a few disasters in my day, but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Town Hall format is simply more engaging than a speech.  Moreover, I’d guess that when employees observe leaders who habitually avoid Q&A, they perceive them as afraid to do so.
  • Engage the person who asked the question.  I’ve gotten this one wrong my whole career and it took a politician to teach me.  I’ve always said “answer the question to the audience” (not the person who asked) as a way to avoid getting caught in a bad dialog [4], but I now realize I was wrong.  If you’re a politician you want everyone’s vote, so let’s not dismiss that person/voter too quickly.  Pete inserts a step — engage the person.  Student:  “What are you planning to do if you get bullied by another candidate?”  Pete:  “Well, what do you do at school when someone tries to bully you?”  Student:  “Well, I try to walk away, but sometimes I want to yell back.”  Pete:  “And you seem pretty level-headed to me.”
  • Answer the question for the audience, ideally building off the engagement.  Pete:  “That’s it, isn’t it?  You know you should walk away but you want to yell back.  That’s why it’s so hard.  That’s why it takes discipline.  That’s why I’m thankful that during my service in the Armed Forces that I learned the difference between a real emergency and a political emergency.  Instead of yelling back at the bully you need to …”  Note that when he finishes, he does not look back at the questioner but instead says “next question” and looks to the audience [5].
  • Squat down when addressing children [6].  There were a lot of kids at the event and Pete, somewhat surprisingly, took numerous questions from them.  There were two benefits of this:  (a) the kids tended to ask simple clear questions (e.g., “why are you going to beat rival X”) and (b) the kids introduced a good bit of humor both in their questions and delivery (e.g., “what are the names and the sizes of your dogs?”or “when will there be a ‘girl’ president?”).  I always considered the squat-to-address-children as Princess Diana’s signature move, but this article now credits it to her son, Prince William.  Either way, it’s an empathetic move and helps level the playing field between adult and child.

img_0234.jpg

  • Embrace humor.  Pete seems to be a naturally funny guy, so perhaps it’s not difficult for him, but adding some humor — and flowing with funny situations when they happen — makes the event more engaging and fun.  Child:  “Can I have an even bigger bunny?”  Pete:  “Well how big is your bunny now? [7]  Child:  [sticks arms over head].  Pete:  “That big.  Well.  Uh.  [Pauses.]  Sure.  [Applause and laughter.]  You know there’s always at least one question that you didn’t see coming.” [More laughter.]
  • Use normal diction (i.e., words) [8].  Public speaking, especially in politics, is not the time to show off your vocabulary.  Pete went to Harvard and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.  I’m sure he has a banging vocabulary.  But you’re not trying to prove you’re the smartest person in the room at a Town Hall meeting; you’re trying to get people to like you.  That means no talking down to people and not using fancy words when simple ones will do.  On a few occasions, I heard Pete auto-correcting to a simpler word, after starting a more complex one.
  • No free air-time.  He generally didn’t say the words Trump or Biden.  But he did say things like “we don’t want to go back to the Democratic era of the 1990s just like we don’t want to go back to the current administration’s era of the 1950s.  We want to go forward, …”  He used words like “White House,” “current administration,” or even “current President.”  But he didn’t say Trump.
  • Make it real.  A key part of Pete’s message is that we shouldn’t look at political decisions as some distant, academic, theoretical policy discussion.  We should stay focused on how they affect peoples’ lives.  Pete:  “When we think of climate change, we see imagery of a polar bear or a glacier melting.  I want to change the dialog so we think about floods that are only supposed to happen every 100 years happening only 2 years apart.”  Ditto for a conversation about healthcare where he talked about its impact on his family.  Ditto for a conversion about his marriage that wouldn’t have been possible but for a single supreme court justice’s vote.
  • Tell stories.  Given all the attention story-telling has gotten of late, this one probably goes without saying, but always remember that human beings love stories and that information communicated within the context of a story is much more likely to heard, understood, and remembered than information simply communicated as a set of facts.  Great speakers always communicate and/or reinforce their key messages via a series of stories.  Pete is a highly effectively story-teller and communicated many of his key messages through personal stories.

# # #

Notes

[1]  See my FAQ for my social media policy.  In short, because my Twitter feed is a curated version of everything I read, I tweet on a broad array of subjects which, in the current era, includes politics.  However, I try to keep my blog free from any political content — with one exception:  since politicians are generally highly skilled in marketing communications, I try to learn from them and apply what they can teach us in high-tech. Towards that end, by the way, I always recommend following two people:  Alan Kelly, a high-tech PR maven (the PR guy who put Oracle on the map) who decided to take his game to the big leagues by taking his system to DC and opening a communications firm there and Frank Luntz, a market researcher, pollster, and author of Words that Work.

[2] On “there’s always some engineer not afraid to ask anything” theory, I have heard the story of an All Hands where an engineer asked the CEO what he thought about the VP of Sales having an affair with the VP of Marketing.  OK, that’s awkward for the person who suggested the Town Hall format.

[3] Where at a User Conference when asked why so few women were in Engineering leadership, the VP responded that the company had many women on the team but they tended to work in the “more arts and crafts positions,” which made everyone in the crowd wonder if they were cutting paper flowers with scissors or building software.

[4] “So did that answer your question?”  Response:  “No.  Not at all.  And I have three more.”

[5] If you do, you are silently seeking confirmation (“did that answer your question?”) and potentially inviting the questioner to ask a follow-up question.  If you’re trying to work a room, you want to engage as many different people as possible.

[6] Or those, as you can see in the Princess Diana link, otherwise unable to get up.

[7] Applying the “engage the person” rule.

[8] Yes, that was a touch of deliberate snark.  :-)

Leave a comment

Posted in Communications, Marketing, Uncategorized