Why illustrators have more power than leaders

The Economist published a pithy little blog today looking at over-used words in press releases.  http://tinyurl.com/2cocc6m The blog may have been relatively nonjudgmental, but the comments below it are not. It may surprise you, I am after-all an "offender" myself being both a PR and working in the financial services sector, but I really can't blame those commentating for being thusly irked. I may find the level of vitriol a little over the top, after all, there are worse crimes in the world folks, but I confess the list includes many words that are heinously over-used in the financial and corporate world. 

For ease of use these are the top 10 over-used words according to the Economist and source. 

1. Leader (161,000)
2. Leading (44,900)
3. Best (43,000)
4. Top (32,500)
5. Unique (30,400)
6. Great (28,600)
7. Solution (22,600)
8. Largest (21,900)
9. Innovative (21,800)
10. Innovator (21,400)

As you can see, 'Leader' leads the pack (excuse the pun), three times over. If one were literal, this highlights that the industry is chock-a-block with leaders. OR, if one were a little more cynical, that the industry is crammed full of firms and people keen to be seen as leaders, when by very definition and to quote Highlander the movie, "there can be only one".

If you met someone who told you they were a great singer you'd probably nod and you may or may not believe them.  If that same person just opened their mouth and sang (and did indeed have a beautiful voice), you might applaud, you might be dumbstruck (the SuBo phenomena), you would certainly tell them that they had an incredible voice and it's quite likely you'd tell everyone else too.  Telling may be easier, but it's nowhere near as compelling, effective, memorable or indeed powerful ,as showing.

Firms use a great deal of their resources looking at what they offer customers, their values - what differentiates them. The savviest and more successful firms spend as much time thinking about how they communicate and illustrate those differentiators.  They may employ just as much 'spin' as everyone else, but it will be a good deal more compelling and a lot more effective.

PRs need to watch out or advertisers will monopolise word-of-mouth marketing business

The recent move by many big name advertising agencies in to the PR space should highlight that communicating with your customers is BIG again, and by BIG I mean it has an impact on your bottom line, not just that it's the "hip" new fad on the marketing scene.

Reading a report by McKinsey today "A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing" I saw some real figures attached to what, as a marketer, I have always known is important. Namely that if you can communicate with your customers effectively it has a positive effect on your bottom line.

If the traditional role of a salesman is to persuade people to enter a room, then I think it's fair to say that the experience people have once they're in isn't a primary concern - they've done their job, the experience element is someone elses concern. Word-of-mouth sales changes that role. It becomes about encouraging those in the room to tell everyone about what a great time they're having and so encourage more people to come in and join in with the fun. Traditionally I would suggest that advertisers had the 'get you through the door' role and PRs the 'talk about what a great time people are having' role.

Here's a quote from the McKinsey report.

"McKinsey research shows that marketing-induced consumer to consumer word of mouth generates more than twice the sales of paid advertising in categories as diverse as skincare and mobile phones."

The three magic words, in case you missed them, are "more than twice" and they explain why advertisers are dipping their toes into PR. If word-of-mouth is having a demonstrably more positive effect on sales than advertising, and ad agencies are the present top-dog sales medium, they want, arguably need, a piece of the word-of-mouth pie to remain on-top.

Yet, whilst advertisers are aware of this positive impact are PRs and are companies? Perhaps in some sectors this message has hit home, but in many I would suggest not and I would certainly question if this has registered as yet in the financial services sector.

The stock-in-trade of a good PR is to understand how word-of-mouth works and to help companies utilise this really very powerful, if tough to utilise, marketing tool positively. Obviously a key term for a word-of-mouther is "communication" and as any good PR will tell you, there is more than one communications channel open to companies. Good PRs will help companies to utilise all the communication channels available to them, of which the media is just one and the internet and social media is another. If you know who you wish to talk to, your PR agency can help you to identify the right channel and the right strategy to reach your audience. If you're seeking to encourage positive word-of-mouth, your PR agency should be an obvious first port of call to help you to do so.


Another quote from the McKinsey report: "Two things supercharge the creation of positive consequential word of mouth: interactivity and creativity. They are interrelated, and particularly important for brands in relatively low-innovation categories that often struggle to gain consumer attention."


I have always thought of advertisers as the party goer who tries hardest to get noticed - the good ones quickly becoming the life & soul of the party. PRs, on the otherhand, don't tend to do flashy. They're the person everyone talks to and if they're good, they're also the influencer, the person who's opinion everyone wants to hear.

PRs understand the art of communication and conversation. Advertisers understand creativity. Combine the two and you have a powerful force. PRs should be pleased to see the McKinsey report reinforce what they have always known - that talk is good. They should be helping clients to engage with their customers and encourage more positive 'chat' about their services, products or brand and utilising the relevant channels, of the many channels and tools that they now have to hand, to do so. Most of all, PRs should be asserting their expertise in this area and working alongside creatives and advertisers to help clients meet their business objectives. If they don't, advertisers will and it looks like many of them have no intention of admitting that PRs can do anything better.