Comments on: Public relations post Gulliver

By: Ashish Banerjee

Ashish Banerjee — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:50:32 +0000

When the corporate entity and its market-facing brand are pretty much one, then evidence suggests this is indeed possible. The Body Shop is the first example that comes to mind. We may not all like Starbucks’ omnipresence, but it does have an authentic voice. In the UK, companies/brands like Innocent & Lush have distinct, engaging, authentic voices. I suspect we’ll see more of this in time… less artifice and manufactured meaning, more essence, soul and humanity… from companies and brands brave enough to take this path, which is not for everyone.

By: Tom Guarriello

Tom Guarriello — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:02:17 +0000

Steve, I like your question.

Can, “official” and “corporation” go hand in hand with “human” (read: tentative, ironic, etc.)? I think that’s what’s at the heart of all these anthropomorphic metaphors (“conversations,” “embracing change,” ). Can the modern corporation become more than a “legal person” and take on more of the characteristics of its creators?

Kind of like cylons.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:24:03 +0000

This is intriguing. I wonder if it is possible, though, for an “official” voice of the company to be ironic or tentative or human. Advertising can get away with this because there is a notable distancing between the message and the promise–there is an allowance for hype, a knowledge that the ad wants to be entertaining, etc. I’m not sure the audience is willing to cut that kind of slack to a statement about metal fragments in the acetominophen. “Hey, now we’re fortified with iron” or ” oops–our bad” probably won’t work very well.

By: jens

jens — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:41:19 +0000

mccracken’s posting quality reaches new heights.
‘gulliver’ is a wonderful metaphor.
and ‘conversation’ has always been helplessly misleading.

By: Reshma Anand

Reshma Anand — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:57:56 +0000

Isn’t it the TONE – sometimes that brings credibility and authority to the message ? If yes, would a conversational style or a more casual tone dilute the seriousness with which the message is perceived or received by readers?

By: Tom Guarriello

Tom Guarriello — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:48:03 +0000

I wonder if we sometimes aren’t tool literal when we talk about the Cluetrain-based “conversations” that now defines markets. For me, behavior is differently conversational than a chat, but nonetheless conversational. Dancers converse. Wordlessly. The key is to understand the customer’s vernacular and, as you say, adopt the tone most conducive to testing the meanings which the corporation’s messages ARE conveying rather than screaming out the ones it WANTS TO convey.