bizcomm - Recently Updated Pages

Consulting industry

gharmon — Thu, 31 May 2007 15:52:25 CDT

Communication and the workplace:

Wikis might not cut it

With the rise of what is collectively called “Web 2.0” sites came an unprecedented level of Internet collaboration. Today's savvy user holds RSS feeds for favorite news sites, uploads photos to communities such as Flickrand comments on blogs and message boards – all as part a ever-growing repertoire of digital tricks.

And the great part? Most of it doesn’t cost a dime.

But with great power comes great responsibility. Since many of these open-source solutions cost so little – requiring only routine upkeep, not an upfront investment – many companies have rushed to embrace them. Sites are created, message boards set up, social-networking communities begun. But do any of those approaches make sense in the business world? Their implementations are not problem-free.

One of the most popular and widespread of these tools is the wiki. As repositories for information that can be tailored to nearly any need, these powerful platforms allow visitors to add, remove and edit content. They’re the metaphorical level playing field, the true “power to the People” (note the capital P) movement. Look no further than the global reach of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that, as of May 2007, had 75,000 active contributors creating 5,300,000 articles in more than 100 languages.

Ben Franklin once envisioned a government of true “republicanism” (note the lowercase r), wherein all are subject to the same laws and hold the same authority. With the rise of 21st Century collaborative digital technologies, the Internet has become that stronghold of Franklin’s republicanism. All can contribute; all can edit and delete. All users are superusers, and no one person’s contribution is greater or less than anyone else’s. In this sense, technology has become the great equalizer.

But while a wiki with a large reach – such as Wikipedia – has the luxury of a large range of minds and a cross-sampling of opinions, its direction is slow, almost glacial. Think of your average wiki as a board meeting without an agenda: one opinion is raised, discussion ensues, another opinion is voiced, debate shifts in another direction, so on. Without a defined endpoint, the meeting dissolves into deliberation and dispute. Nothing is accomplished – and we’ve all sat through those meetings.

So is the idea of using a wiki as a business tool completely debunked? Not entirely. As a way to test the collaborative powers of a wiki – and with the goal of describing “The State of Business Communications Today” – this class began a quarter-long project to discuss not only the topic at hand but also to investigate the medium’s limitations.

What emerged was not so much a integrated, collaborative effort, but moreso disparate chapters written on different aspects of the same general topic. While all articles merit their own discussion, that lack of a unifying theme may have ill-served the project’s aim. A sampling of topics available in the Bizcomm wiki:

Sports talk in the workplace can keep you in the game
Departmental jargon: Fodder for silos
Acronyms clutter corporate communication
Postcards pack the perfect punch
Communication via text messaging

With a more defined goal – and given a long enough timeline – the wiki at hand could undoubtedly grow into an organic means of collaboration. As it stands now, however, it’s a repository of disparate thoughts. While this conglomeration of different ideas is in no way a bad thing, we had a different ideal in mind when the wiki project was started.

As a business tool, online wiki collaboration can be a valuable thing, but make sure to give it a short leash. Otherwise you’ll find yourself in the digital version of the jumbled-meeting phenomenon, with lots of ideas but no goal in sight.

Thanks George, the Harvard Business Review is a good place to start. The HBR receives hundreds of unsolicited article pitches each year from companies who are in the business of giving advice --- consulting firms. Perhaps in no other industry has the move to an information economy changed the style and volume of business writing.

In the consulting industry, clear business writing can effect the bottom line and good marketers are out to prove it.

In a recent study by the Bloom Group, 109 consulting firms rated strong intellectual capital as the highest ranking success factor for marketing effectiveness. As as a term, intellectual capital basically means "the superior ideas we have that others don't." Marketers identify real intellectual capital and turn some of these ideas into marketing communications or thought leadership. (For more about the study, see "Consulting Magazine", Consultants on Consulting -- It's-The-Thought-That-Counts)

Despite the importance of intellectual capital, most companies participating in the study rated themselves as only average at producing thought leadership pieces (in any form) that actually help to sell business. Part of the trouble is that in such a mass-customized market, finding new and relevant messages for each audience is much more difficult than it has been in the past. Another factor is that many of these firms are structured as partnerships where the oversimplification of complex issues may put the firm at risk for litigation, or worse, make the consultants seem like they do not understand the complexity of their clients.

Among consultancies, the strongest companies track the performance of their thought leadership pieces such as leads generated, win/loss contributions and revenue contributions. Accountability, however, is likely to mature even among the weak as it becomes easier to track the flow of information out to clients and back again.

For consultancies who have both strong ideas and can communicate them effectively, the success rate is notable. According to the study, up to 58 percent of those who have strong intellectual capital feel they are very effective at using thought leadership to generate awareness and business leads. (See chart for comparison)

A few questions for the class to consider: Where is the real source of the problem with business communications? Is it that the business writing itself is so bad? Or, that companies do not have anything good to say, but hire writers to make them look like they do?

Also, if you check out the wikipedia references, note how vague many of these terms really are.

Hi, hello and how do you do

gharmon — Thu, 31 May 2007 14:20:39 CDT

Today in the fiercely competitive business arena, etiquette is quite simply another communications tool you need. Elements of etiquette such as how you greet someone, using the correct title, honoring space issues, observing the hierarchy in a group, valuing time, your manner of dress and taking the time to build relationships, all communicate to someone how you feel about them as a potential business partner.

The way you greet someone is literally their first impression of you, and the way you take leave of them, could very well be their last. You are going to make an impression, so why not make it a good one? While etiquette alone won't get you anywhere, it will give you that extra edge that could make all the difference. Knowing the proper way to greet as well as take leave of people from other cultures shows respect, interest and kindness and is an essential part of business protocol.

As Americans, we tend to be more informal than other cultures in their greetings, leading with a firm handshake and/or a cheek kiss or hug for those who have known each other for a long time. Americans also tend to use first names — except for more formal settings and business cards are usually only exchanged in a business setting.

In other cultures, the rules can differ significantly and it does not pay to be caught off guard and send the wrong message to a potential business partner. A few things to make note of when making your first impression follow below.

When being introduced, one should use titles and last names until you have been invited to use the person's first name. In some cases, this may never occur as the use of first names is often reserved for family and close friends in some cultures — so use Mr., Mrs. Miss. Also, in many cultures, titles are highly valued, especially professional titles such as professor or doctor.

You will have to do your homework on whether or not a handshake is an appropriate form of greeting. In some countries, shaking hands is seen as far too intimate a contact to initiate with a stranger. However, the handshake is becoming much more wide-spread because of other culture’s adaptation to western ways. While the typical American style handshake with a firm grip, two quick pumps, eye contact and a smile is typical, it is by no means universal.

The variations in handshakes are based on cultural differences, not individual personalities and based upon one’s culture; you will see a variety of handshakes. For example; the Japanese give a light handshake but Germans offer a firm handshake with one pump, and the French grip is light with a quick pump. Middle Eastern people will continue shaking your hand throughout the greeting and often come with kisses and hugs - among same sex only. In India, men will offer to shake hands but only the most westernized will shake hands with the opposite sex. Women should not initiate handshakes with men! This news while shocking in America is common practice in their culture.

The examples included above are but a few. It is crucial for business people to recognize that there are “rules” of etiquette in different cultures — with the vast amount of information available, ignorance is no excuse. Not knowing these rules could mean the loss of a good business contact. Learning the protocol, particularly the elements that initiate business contacts, is essential to communicating effectively.

Employee Communications

nicholasziegler — Tue, 29 May 2007 00:05:32 CDT

Businesses appreciate public relations and the valuable external promotions that result in New York Times headlines. However, internal communications and/or employee communications are a harder corporate sell. In fact, companies only recently recognized that an informed and motivated workforce can be paramount to a healthy and successful organization. Perhaps driving the value of employee communications are the results from companies that do it successfully like Google, Whole Foods Market and Starbucks. These top businesses are proving that just like everything else, success starts from within. While most of the same principles of any business communication apply to internal communications, some common communication pitfalls of employee communication often observed in today’s business environment follow:

Face-to-face: In today’s technology-driven business environment, internal communicators have access to e-mail, voicemail, newsletters, Intranets, audio and video podcasts and many other cutting-edge communication vehicles. As soon as the newest tactic arrives, companies are convinced that this new, innovative method is the best avenue to drive home today’s corporate message. But the truth is
much less exciting. Even in Silicon Valley, the most effective form of employee communication is still a face-to-face meeting.

Cascading communication: While a face-to-face meeting between a CEO and the company’s 20 to 200 employees is optimal, it is not as easy for the global corporations with 2,000 employees. The answer to this dilemma has become cascading communication. Executives communicate to their managers who then communicate the same messages to their team of front-line employees. Just like any game of telephone taken to an audience of 2,000 participants, this type of communication is rife with potential problems. Not only is there potential for the messages to substantially change, but some companies forget that not all managers are skilled in the art of communication. Therefore, cascading communication leaves the internal communication at the mercy of every manager’s communication skills. This type of scenario can motivate one team while its neighboring team becomes agitated with confusion.

Strategic communications: One way that companies can combat the pitfalls of cascading communication is by treating internal clients as you would external clients. Instead of employing tactic after tactic without focus or measure, consider creating a strategy that will reinforce the information through various methods and measure employee engagement in the company initiative throughout and after the program ends. Instead of strategic communications, companies often plan an exciting kick-off event in the corporate lunch area with colorful marketing collateral and a speech from the director of Marketing about the company’s “most important corporate initiative to date.” In the subsequent weeks, employees will hear nothing about the initiative. Until one month later, when the same employees are bombarded with new communication about the newest program deemed “the most important corporate initiative to date.” The lack of strategy creates employee distractions rather than effective employee communication.

Proximity: While any strategic communication will include appropriate measurement, avoid over-measuring. Surveys are excellent methods of tracking employees’ engagement in current corporate programming but sometimes measurement does not require a formal survey. After all, internal audiences are just that—internal. To gauge the moral after your monthly departmental meeting, simply walk outside your office or pick up your phone and ask.

The cardinal rule: As in any form of communication, stay relevant for your audience. Your employees will not respond to the verbiage from an executive memo or a press release. Cater your communication to your audience and remember to make it relevant. Start by addressing the “WIIFM,” or what’s in it for me, aspect of the program.

Resources:
http://themediapod.net/2006/09/03/employee-communication-from-a-canadian-perspective/
http://leehopkins.net/2006/09/14/a-heads-up-on-interviews-about-employee-comms/

Communication and the workplace: Wikis might not cut it

nicholasziegler — Mon, 28 May 2007 09:38:08 CDT

With the rise of what is collectively called “Web 2.0” sites came an unprecedented level of Internet collaboration. Today's savvy user holds RSS feeds for favorite news sites, uploads photos to communities such as Flickr and comments on blogs and message boards – all as part a ever-growing repertoire of digital tricks.

And the great part? Most of it doesn’t cost a dime.

But with great power comes great responsibility. Since many of these open-source solutions cost so little – requiring only routine upkeep, not an upfront investment – many companies have rushed to embrace them. Sites are created, message boards set up, social-networking communities begun. But do any of those approaches make sense in the business world? Their implementations are not problem-free.

One of the most popular and widespread of these tools is the wiki. As repositories for information that can be tailored to nearly any need, these powerful platforms allow visitors to add, remove and edit content. They’re the metaphorical level playing field, the true “power to the People” (note the capital P) movement. Look no further than the global reach of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that, as of May 2007, had 75,000 active contributors creating 5,300,000 articles in more than 100 languages.

Ben Franklin once envisioned a government of true “republicanism” (note the lowercase r), wherein all are subject to the same laws and hold the same authority. With the rise of 21st Century collaborative digital technologies, the Internet has become that stronghold of Franklin’s republicanism. All can contribute; all can edit and delete. All users are superusers, and no one person’s contribution is greater or less than anyone else’s. In this sense, technology has become the great equalizer.

But while a wiki with a large reach – such as Wikipedia – has the luxury of a large range of minds and a cross-sampling of opinions, its direction is slow, almost glacial. Think of your average wiki as a board meeting without an agenda: one opinion is raised, discussion ensues, another opinion is voiced, debate shifts in another direction, so on. Without a defined endpoint, the meeting dissolves into deliberation and dispute. Nothing is accomplished – and we’ve all sat through those meetings.

So is the idea of using a wiki as a business tool completely debunked? Not entirely. As a way to test the collaborative powers of a wiki – and with the goal of describing “The State of Business Communications Today” – this class began a quarter-long project to discuss not only the topic at hand but also to investigate the medium’s limitations.

What emerged was not so much a integrated, collaborative effort, but moreso disparate chapters written on different aspects of the same general topic. While all articles merit their own discussion, that lack of a unifying theme may have ill-served the project’s aim. A sampling of topics available in the Bizcomm wiki:

Sports talk in the workplace can keep you in the game
Departmental jargon: Fodder for silos
Acronyms clutter corporate communication
Postcards pack the perfect punch
Communication via text messaging

Social Media in the Workplace

samirs1360 — Sat, 26 May 2007 07:45:36 CDT

Love them or hate them, social media has become an indisputable part of the fabric of how we communicate - both on a personal level and in business communication. Blogs, RSS feeds, instant messaging, podcasts and social networks have exploded to become some of the most time-consuming parts of our day.

For instance, companies are starting to gravitate towards acceptance of instant messenger as a form of communication between employees. AOL actually offers an enterprise-based IM platform that includes increased security to prevent privacy information from being intercepted.

My employer, Starcom Worldwide, is a proponent of using social media in the workplace. Not only does IM provide immediacy with communication, it allows multi-tasking and increased productivity. Internal podcasts and RSS feeds can also provide employees with internal communication - all without the need of holding face-to-face meetings.

Blogging has also become a hot trend, as Sam mentioned in his post. I encourage you to visit Wieden + Kennedy's London office blog. This site is a good example of a company that embraces social media to express the firm's creativity and innovation. The blog was started in 1998 and is still going strong.

One last point: Open up a Yahoo!, MSN or AOL messenging account. It takes no more than two minutes, and you'll love how it will streamline your internal communication.

The accent factor

airawan — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:26:58 CDT

Cross-cultural communication is a formidable challenge. We’ve all been in situations where we’ve had a hard time understanding a person because of his or her accent. We’ve also been in situations where we didn’t want to ask for clarification because of his or her accent. While a misunderstanding outside of work might only cost you a wrong take-out order or a bad haircut, a misunderstanding at work could cost you a lot more.

Cultural diversity in the workplace demands patience and understanding. More importantly, a functional work environment demands that all employees - including those who speak English with a different regional accent or as a second language - communicate effectively. Globalization has added a challenging dimension to this basic skill. However, we simply can’t afford to make mistakes in business because of communication misunderstandings.

Keep in mind though that communication is a two-way street. You, the listener, could also be the problem. Unfortunately you can’t always control how well you can decipher an accent. You can control how you try to understand the message. Ask questions. You might cringe as you ask “what?” or “can you repeat that?” for the umpteenth time; but the reality is that you need to get the work done right. Do you run the risk of appearing rude or culturally insensitive? Sure. The last thing you want to do is draw more attention to a cultural barrier. However, simply asking a person to repeat or clarify is part of communicating effectively with other people, whether or not they have accents.

Ultimately the trade-off is yours to consider. Do you risk doing your work incorrectly only to avoid asking for clarification? In the bigger scheme of things, do you actually promote cultural understanding by letting communication misunderstandings go unresolved?

Plain English

gharmon — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:24:08 CDT

Has Plain English Improved Public Companies' Disclosure Statements?

In the late ‘90s, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted a rule that required all securities registrants to use plain English in their prospectuses. Specifically, this rule said that companies should write the cover page, summary and risk factors sections in plain English. The move to plain English was expected to be “a profound cultural change” according to Isaac C. Hunt, Jr., Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. From the SEC’s viewpoint, writing in plain English means:

Short and concise sentences and paragraphs
Active voice
Every day language
Descriptive headings
Bullets
Define words in the text and avoid using glossaries
Limit the legal and technical writing
Eliminate repetition

While the concept of plain English is not new, the main purpose of plain English in SEC filings was to help the average investor understand the company so they could make informed investment decisions. Almost ten years later, the question remains: Has the advent of plain English helped investors better understand the companies they are investing in? Decide for yourself. Read the following excerpts from a few of the companies that compose the Dow Jones Industrial Average and look for plain English violations.

Honeywell International Inc. Business Overview
"Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process technology for refining and petrochemicals. Honeywell was incorporated in Delaware in 1985.”
Plain English Violations:

Honeywell’s business overview has a fog index of 23.6.
The paragraph contains two sentences, one of which contains 45 words.

Merck & Co. Inc. Business Overview
“During 2006, Merck continued to execute its strategy to reclaim its leadership position in the pharmaceutical industry. This was made evident through the successful launches of five novel medicines and vaccines in areas such as cancer prevention and diabetes, the advancement of drug candidates through every phase of the Company’s pipeline and the continued success of its newer and in-line products.”
Plain English Violations:

Merck’s business overview has a fog index of 18.3.
More than 50 percent of this paragraph is written in the passive voice.
On average there are 30.5 words per sentence.

Alcoa Inc. Risk Factor
“The aluminum industry is highly cyclical, with prices subject to worldwide market forces of supply and demand and other influences. Prices can be volatile. Although Alcoa uses contractual arrangements with customers, as well as forward, futures and options contracts, to manage its exposure to the volatility of LME-based prices, and is product and segment diversified, Alcoa’s results of operations could be affected by material adverse changes in economic or aluminum industry conditions generally or in the markets served by Alcoa, including the transportation, building and construction, distribution, packaging, industrial gas turbine and other markets.”
Plain English Violations

This risk factor has a fog index of 19.7.
"LME-based prices" is neither an average day phrase nor is it defined in the text.
On average there are 31.1 words per sentence.

While companies’ filings may be clearer than before plain English came along, there is still plenty of room for improvement.

References:
1Hunt, Isaac C. (Speaker). (1997). Transcript. Plain English and the U.S. Securities Markets. Rare Book, The Plain English Campaign's 5th International Conference. London, England.
2Plain English Disclosure: Securities and Commissions Exchange. Release Nos. 33-7497; 34-39593; IC-23011 (1998).

GLOBAL COMMUNICATION: BEWARE OF ASSUMPTIONS!

airawan — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:23:05 CDT

– Gina “Giulia” Merola
If you assumed that English was going to become the main language of the globalization era, you might be surprised…
Yes, the idea of using one language for the myriad of cultures existing on our planet is not a new concept. Individuals have been trying to find a unified tool of communication for centuries. For instance, around 1300, Dante Alighieri, with its revolutionary work, De Vulgari Eloquentia (Djité [2], 2006) tried to unify Italy's hundreds of dialects into one simple language for the masses compared to the more complex and élitarian Latin. Dialects in Italy, though, exist to this day.

Nowadays the globalization phenomena foster language diversity. Fluxes of people are constantly moving around the globe following unpredictable currents of migrations. This evolution in a multicultural demography is the source of a continuous language shift. For the above reasons, companies eager to ride the wave of free trade should consider that "global reach or the ability to cross both geographical and cultural borders is something that should presumably include knowledge of and sensitivity to linguistic diversity." (Kelly-Holmes[1], 2006)

Companies seeking international development cannot lack this sensitivity, which might cause ambiguity, incomprehension and consequent obstacles to the company's potential growth. Corporate communication, both on an internal level (within the company's offices located in different countries) and an external one (towards its consumers) has to embrace language diversity. Internal communication, in this contest, defines any sort of language interaction a given company has with branch offices located in a different country. English native speakers should not assume or expect that the business jargon they commonly use can be understood and correctly interpreted by non-native English speakers. As an Italian-born citizen living in an English speaking country and working for an Italian company, I experience instances of communication loss due to misuse of the English language. A simple example is the use of common acronyms that do not translate into the message-receiver mother tongue. Although it might seem shocking, the expression "FYI" is not universally and automatically recognized. Additionally while references to American sports is utilized in corporate America, they might have a negative impact on translations for international companies. Here is a good example:

Original statement made by an American speaker based in Chicago	Meaning perceived by an Italian-born English speaker (English spoken as second language)
"Ok Stefano, I am not going to bring the client the paper every day, because I can get sales from him thanks to the fact that he is a Bear's fan. I will be turning the double play because with one call I will get him and his other partner hooked up with our product -got that?"	OK Stefano, I am not going to bring the client a piece of paper every day, because I can receive sales from him thanks to the fact that he likes bears. I will play twice with him because with one call I will catch him and his other partner hanged up with our product-do you have that?

The assumption that paper can universally mean newspaper is incorrect. It is unlikely that people living abroad, unless particularly interested in American football, would know the Chicago football team, the Bears. Idiomatic expressions such as "turning the double play" cannot be part of corporate business communication, and as seen in the above example, complex phrasal verbs can easily be misunderstood.

Given that English is the language of conversational business, one might assume that English is also the lingua franca on the internet. However, a study conducted by Professor Holmes at the University of Limerick shows that "while English performs a limited hyper-central function on commercial websites, its prevalence is outweighed by other languages (…). The main challenge to the hyper-centrality of English appears to come from smaller languages, which are showing up more frequently in the profile of websites offered by global brands. It is the central languages, particularly of Europe, that are being noticed everyday on the commercial internet website." Holmes noted: "when I began looking at these [global brands'] websites, McDonald's had no website in Arabic at all, however, within a few months, that situation had changed, and the McDonald's Arabia site had appeared (www.mcdonaldsarabia.com). While global brands see the internet as the key to 'conquer' different cultures and markets, they should also realize that one of the effect and condition sine equa non of globalization is language diversity.

In conclusion, "language choice and use in multilingual contexts show individuals and communities to be very active agents, whose language practices reveal an incredible capacity to empower themselves where and when it matters most." And most of all "primitive man or speech community, monolingual and monocultural at the core, with ordinary and predictable language and social behaviours is a dying species" (Djité[2], 2006)

[1] Multilingualism and commercial language practices on the internet by Helen Kelly-Holmes, department of Languages and Cultural Studies, University of Limerick, Ireland, 2006.

[2] Shifts in linguistic identities in a global world by Paulin G. Djité, chair of the division of Languages and Linguistics of the University of Western Sidney, 2006.

Postcards Pack the Perfect Punch

gharmon — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:20:39 CDT

In the world of direct mail, the postcard is the business equivalent of the office memo. Like the memo, the postcard has a specific audience and sends a single idea to its readers. The mantra in direct mail has always been, the bigger the package the better the response rate. But with companies looking for more cost effective ways to market to consumers, the postcard proves cheaper and, some would say, more effective.

Think about it. When you come home from a long day of work and have to sort through the daily mail, what appeals to you more: opening up the traditional envelope package, unfolding the letter as a buckslip falls out and clutters your floors, and then reading through a brochure that virtually repeats everything you just read in the letter-or- reading a simple postcard. No paper cuts opening the envelope. No pesky buckslips you have to pick up off the floor. No heavy verbiage to have to read and reread to understand. And no pressure. Because the job of a postcard is to drive consumers to the next step, not to close the deal.

With regard to the actual writing, there are a couple of rules. Any marketer should have a basic understanding of psychology. Not just because of the unreal deadlines or pushy clients that drive us to insanity; but also because it is psychology that helps us to understand why so many people skip to the "P.S." line first. Or how merely personalizing the salutation makes a person feel more connected to the brand.

Furthermore, some experts recommend keeping words down to 1 or 2 syllables. That's a hard skill to master. My last sentence followed the rule. So did that. Ok, this is the last one, I promise. But my point is that if a return to brevity is desperately needed in business communication, the postcard, due to its space constraints, absolutely mandates brevity and conciseness. The challenge is in doing it on a 4x6 piece of paper. Under a 48 hour deadline. With your boss hanging over you. And your client wanting it yesterday. Happy writing. (Under 2 syllables again).

Message to Politicians: Keep Communications Simple

nicholasziegler — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:17:32 CDT

The 2004 presidential campaign was thought to revolutionize modern political campaigns in many ways.

Analysts point time and again to Democratic hopeful and 21st Century election pioneer Howard Dean, whose embarrassment (remember the "I have a Scream" speech?) later vaulted him into a position as a master strategist in the Democrats' 2006 Congressional takeover.

The attention paid to Internet-based communications can already be seen as the 2008 presidential campaign begins to take shape. Media reports focus on whether Obama or Giuliani has more friends on MySpace.com (Obama by a landslide!).

But elections are not decided on who has more virtual friends or even who has better YouTube video clips. Elections are won the old-fashioned way: through personal relationships.

A Washington Post-Stanford University poll found that most voters already have their mind made up long before going to the polls. So how much will record-breaking fundraising and spending affect voters' choices in the '08 elections? The data suggests these digital tools will be a big waste.

But, just like any successful brand, politicians need evangelists (pun intended) - who have already decided on the candidate they're voting for - to bring those carefully crafted Internet-based messages into peoples' homes and into their conversations.

That's one area where Republicans and Democrats agree.

Mike Krempasky, co-founder of the conservative blog RedState.org, has a simple message. "Get off the computer," he says. "Any long-term political movement demands personal relationships."

Similarly, Joe Trippi, Dean's online campaign manager, has even said the goal of Internet-based communications is to move offline.

But that lesson doesn't seem to be getting through to the candidates. In this case, it's the means of the online communications, rather than the ends of voter-politician relationships that matters.

If nothing else, we're still at least two presidential campaigns away from deciding the next president on MySpace.

Home

k-kortenkamp — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:15:37 CDT

The Harvard Business Review receives hundreds of unsolicited pitches each for articles year from companies that are in the business of giving advice --- consulting firms. Perhaps in no other industry has the move to an information economy changed the style and volume of business writing.

In the consulting industry, clear business writing can affect the bottom line and good marketers are out to prove it.

In a recent study by the Bloom Group, 109 consulting firms rated strong intellectual capital as the highest ranking success factor for marketing effectiveness. As as a term, intellectual capital basically means "the superior ideas we have that others don't." Marketers identify real intellectual capital and turn some of these ideas into marketing communications or thought leadership. (For more about the study, see "Consulting Magazine", Consultants on Consulting -- It's-The-Thought-That-Counts)

Despite the importance of intellectual capital, most companies participating in the study rated themselves as only average at producing thought leadership pieces (in any form) that actually help to sell business. Part of the trouble is that in such a mass-customized market, finding new and relevant messages for each audience is much more difficult than it has been in the past. Another factor is that many of these firms are structured as partnerships where the oversimplification of complex issues may put the firm at risk for litigation, or worse, make the consultants seem like they do not understand the complexity of their clients.

Among consultancies, the strongest companies track the performance of their thought leadership pieces such as leads generated, win/loss contributions and revenue contributions. Accountability, however, is likely to mature even among the weak as it becomes easier to track the flow of information out to clients and back again.

For consultancies who have both strong ideas and can communicate them effectively, the success rate is notable. According to the study, up to 58 percent of those who have strong intellectual capital feel they are very effective at using thought leadership to generate awareness and business leads. (See chart for comparison)

A few questions for the class to consider: Where is the real source of the problem with business communications? Is it that the business writing itself is so bad? Or, that companies do not have anything good to say, but hire writers to make them look like they do?

Also, if you check out the wikipedia references, note how vague many of these terms really are.

Assumptions about language and globalism

If you assumed that English was going to become the main language of the globalization era, you might be surprised… Yes, the idea of using one language for the myriad of cultures existing on our planet is not a new concept. Individuals have been trying to find a unified tool of communication for centuries. For instance, in 1200, Dante Alighieri, with its revolutionary ouvre, De Vulgari Eloquentia, tried to unify Italy's hundreds of dialects into one simple language for the masses, versus the more difficult and élitarian Latin. Dialects in Italy, though, exist to this day. Nowadays language diversity is fostered by the globalization phenomena. Fluxes of people are constantly moving around the globe following unpredictable currents of migrations. This evolution in a multicultural demography is the source of a continuous language shift. For the above reasons, companies eager to ride the wave of free trade should consider that "global reach or the ability to cross both geographical and cultural borders is something that should presumably include knowledge of and sensitivity to linguistic diversity." (Kelly-Holmes[1], 2006) Companies seeking international development cannot demonstrate a lack of this sensitivity, which might cause ambiguity, incomprehension and consequent obstacles to the company's potential growth. Corporate communication, both on an internal level (within the company's offices located in different countries) and an external one (towards the consumers with instruments such as the internet) has to embrace language diversity. Internal communication, in this contest, defines any sort of language interaction a given company has with branch offices located in a different country. English native speakers cannot assume or expect that the business jargon they commonly use can be completely understood and correctly interpreted by non-native English speakers. As an Italian-born citizen living in an English speaking country and working for an Italian company, I experience instances of communication loss due to misuse of the English language. A simple example is the use of common acronyms that do not translate into the message-receiver mother tongue. Although it might seem shocking, the expression "FYI" is not universally and automatically recognized. Additionally while references to American sports are well accepted in corporate America, they might have a negative impact on translations for international companies. Here is a good example:

Original statement made by an American speaker based in Chicago	Actual meaning perceived by Italian counterpart based in Venice.
"Ok Stefano, I am not going to bring the client the paper every day, because I can get sales from him thanks to the fact that he is a Bear's fan. I will be turning the double play because with one call I will get him and his other partner hooked up with our product -got that?"	OK Stefano, I am not going to bring the client a piece of paper every day, because I can receive sales from him thanks to the fact that he likes bears. I will play twice with him because with one call I will catch him and his other partner hanged up with our product-do you have that?

The assumption that paper can universally mean newspaper is incorrect. It is unlikely that people living abroad, unless particularly interested in American football, would know the Bears. Idiomatic expressions such as "turning the double play" should not be used in business English, just as complex phrasal verbs can easily be misunderstood. Given that English is the language of conversational business, one might assume that English is also the lingua franca on the internet. However, a study conducted by Professor Holmes at the University of Limerick shows that "while English performs a limited hyper-central function on commercial websites, its prevalence is outweighed by other languages (…). The main challenge to the hyper-centrality of English appears to come from smaller languages which are showing up more frequently in the profile of websites offered by global brands. It is the central languages, particularly of Europe, that are being noticed everyday on the commercial internet website." Holmes noted that "when I began looking at these [global brands'] websites, McDonald's had no website in Arabic at all, however, within a few months, that situation had changed, and the McDonald's Arabia site had appeared (www.mcdonaldsarabia.com). While global brands see the internet as the key to 'conquer' different cultures and markets, they should also realize that one of the effect and condition sine equa non of globalization is language diversity. In conclusion, "language choice and use in multilingual contexts show individuals and communities to be very active agents, whose language practices reveal an incredible capacity to empower themselves where and when it matters most." And most of all "primitive man or speech community, monolingual and monocultural at the core, with ordinary and predictable language and social behaviours is a dying species " (Djité[2], 2006)

[1] Multilingualism and commercial language practices on the internet by Helen Kelly-Holmes, department of Languages and Cultural Studies, University of Limerick, Ireland, 2006.

[2] Shifts in linguistic identities in a global world by Paulin g. Djité, chair of the division of Languages and Linguistics of the University of Western Sidney, 2006.

You can contribute to this site.

Just click EasyEdit and type!

EasyEdit

(what's this?)

Sports talk in the workplace can keep you in the game

While sports may be confusing for cross-cultural communications, knowing your sports lingo can be a competitive advantage in communicating in the regional workplace. Everyone wants to hit a home run for the company. However, one must first keep their eye on the ball and pay close attention to sports analogies in the workplace. Like anything else in life, practice makes perfect. Don't worry if you you sometimes drop the ball. Effectively learning sports analogies is like running a marathon. You need patience because its a long journey to be a master of sports lingo. Also, you may experience a few curve balls and hurdles. Just remember to roll with the punches and keep fighting to effectively communicate your sport metaphor.

Sports metaphors can work as long as both parties understand the context.

Departmental Jargon: Fodder for Silos

Other metaphors are rampant in business. Among the most popular is the silo.Silos are everywhere in business today and many a book and management class exist about how to break them down. Our own beloved IMC program rests on the principle of integration. We have high hopes of breaching the walls that create these silos and prevent departments from working together effectively. Are we succeeding? Upon driving to work on a recent morning, I didn’t see a single tall cylinder popping up amongst the skyscrapers against Chicago’s city landscape.

Silo is defined as the following.[1]:
1. a. A tall cylindrical structure, usually beside a barn, in which fodder is stored. b. A pit dug for the same purpose.
2. An underground shelter for a missile, usually equipped to launch the missile or to raise it into a launching position

The second definition might be a realistic representation of the animosity felt between organizational departments. However, it is the first definition that is actually the most adaptable to our modern-day workplace that rarely sees livestock or real weapons on the premises. The silo is one of modern businesses’ beloved metaphors. It is the conceptual tall cylindrical space to which a particular department’s work is confined. But perhaps the definition is more accurate than it seems. While the barn may be missing, the fodder is not.

Departmental lingo stays particularly fresh within the confines of the silo. As the graduates of IMC champion their way through organizations, breaking down barriers, infiltrating silos, it would behoove us to consider the language we are using to do so. While we are certain to pick up some impressive marketing jargon during our tenure at Northwestern, trendy terminology is the quickest way to reinforce those silo structures and ensure lack of cooperation. The more we talk to the IT department about relationship management, the less likely they are to leave us with any bread crumbs on the web site, no wonder HR is appealing to a headhunter, and the research department is looking for a new logic model altogether.

The primary reason silos exist is poor internal communication. Departments are like miniature countries with their own foreign languages in an organization. As marketing communication professionals, we have a responsibility to promote clear communication, not flaunt our newly acquired words. Integration of marketing across the organization will never truly happen unless we destroy the silos by removing the need for a departmental jargon storage place.

[1] silo. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/silo (accessed: May 21, 2007).

Acronyms clutter corporate communication

Companies do have a lot of interesting things to say. The problem is that they are making their communications hard to understand. The use of technical jargon and acronyms clutters the communications to the point that it is too difficult for the reader to fully understand.

In the prescription drug industry, consumers look to companies to obtain disease-related information on various illnesses and disorders. In this quest for knowledge, consumers hope that they will find something that will help resolve their specific issue.

This process takes consumers through a variety of touch points with companies. Interactions can occur via websites, product brochures and press releases. One can see that the informational sites, such as Web MD, use language that is easily understandable by the majority of the public. Problems arise once we look at the company developed communications.

In an industry where it is assumed that the acronym FDA is understood (it is rarely spelled out in any text), companies have peppered enough acronyms throughout their copy to make an illegible mess out of important information. A visit to one site, www.prevacid.com, shows us the extent of this communication breakdown. Prevacid is a prescription drug to treat heartburn and on its homepage for patients one can find the following acronyms: GERD, NapraPAC, NSAIDs and PREVPAC. Do these acronyms help communicate the benefits and risks of Prevacid? I think not.N Amazon.com offers an intriguing sidelight to its books for sale. You can find out how difficult a book is to read.

Although corporate copywriters may think that they are saving readers’ time by condensing certain phrases, they may actually be turning patients away. A 2001 study that was published in JAMA (yes, I will spell it out – The Journal of the American Medical Association) concluded that high reading levels are required to comprehend web-based health information.1 Spelling out acronyms may not completely solve this problem, but it is definitely a start.

By the way, the Flesch-Kincaid readability scores for the overview of GERD on WebMD and www.prevacid.com are 9.9 and 11.5 respectively.

References: 1. Berland GK, Elliott MN, et al. Health Information on the Internet: Accessibility, Quality, and Readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001; 285: 2612-2621.

Dense sentences prevail

Let’s try a book on communications, a fancy name for what we used to call writing. Here’s the “Harvard Business Review on Effective Communications,” a pertinent title and a great university. Amazon’s statistics show that it has a so-called "fog index" of 14.5, meaning that its reading level is at the middle of college, with 12 being the level of a high school senior. Of Amazon’s books 63 percent promise easier reading than Harvard's. Eighteen percent of its words are complex, and its sentences average 18.5 words. That sounds OK, especially for a book on communications.

Now let’s look at something more difficult, such as “Ulysses.” It’s an 800-page novel published in 1922 by the Irish author James Joyce. Many educated people, perhaps even a few Harvard graduates, have declared “Ulysses” too difficult to read. So what do Amazon’s readership statistics show?

Joyce (who didn’t go to Harvard) gives us a fog index of 9, meaning that his book reads at the ninth-grade level. Among Amazon’s books only 20 percent are easier to read. Complex words for Joyce: just 10 percent. Sentence length: a puny 12.2.

The two examples provide an ironic commentary on the state of business writing today. James Joyce's prose, said to be too dense, is easier to read than a Harvard book that tells us how to communicate.

A key to the paradox may be that complex material requires simple writing. Joyce is difficult not because of his writing—"Mr Bloom walked unheeded along his grove by saddened angels, crosses, broken pillars, family vaults, stone hopes praying with upcast eyes, old Ireland's hearts and hands. More sensible to spend the money on some charity for the living. Pray for the repose of the soul of. Does anybody really?"—but because of his layers of complexity.

To enjoy Joyce one needs to be able to read at a ninth-grade level, to be sure. But to enjoy it one needs to arrive with background in Homer’s Odysseus, mythology, Irish history, Catholicism, Judaism, modern Celtic culture, etc. To enjoy reading about business one needs to know . . . well, never mind.

Fog index of the last seven paragraphs? 8.7.

Too Dense or Too Much? Before You Hit Send

The fog index may help businesspeople to write more clearly and concisely, but does it matter if no one reads the message?

Advances in technology have given businesspeople more communication options than were previously imaginable. While many of these advances have helped us to stay connected, in other ways, they have caused us to drift further apart. Electronic communication has become the medium of choice. But spam, carbon-copies and forwards have created e-mail and voicemail “in-boxes” so cluttered that messages are often lost in the shuffle. Even e-mail subject lines marked ominously with “IMPORTANT,” “URGENT” and “RESPONSE REQUIRED” and adorned with red exclamation points, ticking clocks and other icons of urgency often go unread.

What is a businessperson to do to manage and make sense of all of these communications floating in cyberspace? The telecommunications industry would argue that “unified communications” will provide a solution.[1] Communication technology vendors like Alcatel, Cisco Systems, Ericsson, IBM and Microsoft are peddling technology that will convert voicemail, e-mail, faxes and other electronic messages to one unified format and one central “inbox.” They have effectively created technologies to manage the very technologies that were designed to help us communicate more efficiently. While IT managers may rejoice at the associated job stability, will “unifying” our communication tools really help us to convey messages more efficiently?

Most likely, the answer is no. The real problem may lie not in our lack of technology or in our ability to write clearly, but in our misjudgments on how and when to send messages. Sometimes, a one-minute phone conversation can accomplish the same goal that 10 emails drawn out over two days will accomplish. As companies increasingly spend time and money developing systems to handle the large volume of electronic communication, and training employees about professional communications practices, perhaps they should encourage them to ask two questions each time they prepare to press “send.” Does the reader need to know this? And, is there a more efficient way to communicate this?

[1] “Will 2007 be the year of unified communications? Four leading experts offer their view of where the UC market and technologies are headed in the coming year,” Business CommunicationsReview, March 1, 2007.

Postcards Pack the Perfect Punch

In the world of direct mail, the postcard is the business equivalent of the office memo. Like the memo, the postcard has a specific audience and sends a single idea to its readers. The mantra in direct mail has always been, the bigger the package the better the response rate. But with companies looking for more cost effective ways to market to consumers, the postcard proves cheaper and, some would say, more effective.

Think about it. When you come home from a long day of work and have to sort through the daily mail, what appeals to you more: opening up the traditional envelope package, unfolding the letter as a buckslip falls out and clutters your floors, and then reading through a brochure that virtually repeats everythign you just read in the letter-OR- reading a simple postcard. No paper cuts opening the envelope. No pesky buckslips you have to pick up off the floor. No heavy verbiage to have to read and reread to understand. And no pressure. Because the job of a postcard is to drive consumers to the next step, not to close the deal.

With regard to the actual writing, there are a couple of rules. Any marketer should have a basic understanding of psychology. Not just because of the unreal deadlines or pushy clients that drive us to insanity; but also because it is pschology that helps us to understand why so many people skip to the "P.S." line first. Or how merely personalizing the salutation makes a person feel more connected to the brand.

Furthermore, some experts recommend keeping words down to 1 or 2 syllables. That's a hard skill to master. My last sentence followed the rule. So did that. Ok, this is the last one, I promise. But my point is that if a return to brevity is desperately needed in business communication, the postcard, due to its space constraints, absolutely mandates brevity and conciseness. The challenge is in doing it on a 4x6 piece of paper. Under a 48 hour deadline. With your boss hanging over you. And your client wanting it yesterday. Happy writing. (Under 2 syllables again).

You can contribute to this site.

Just click EasyEdit and type!

EasyEdit

(what's this?)

Communication via text messaging

Text messaging is destroying our ability to communicate. Every minute of every day young people across the U.S. are finding new ways to abbreviate common expressions and words. Text messaging is slowly eating away at the beauty of the English language. Gone are the days of letter writing or even long emails. In the interest of speed, text messaging is encoraging people to transmit their thoughts with strange combinations of letters strung together with no punctuation, grammar or even separation. Below is a sample of how text messaging is creating its own vocabulary, one that ignores all the rules your 5th grade English teacher pounded into your head.

Common text messaging shortcuts:
Anything - NTHING
Are you OK - RUOK?
Are - R
Ate - 8
Be - B
Before - B4
Be seeing you - BCNU
Cutie - QT
Date - D8
Dinner - DNR
Easy - EZ
Eh? - A?
Excellent - XLNT
Fate - F8
For - 4
For your information - FYI
Great - GR8
Late - L8
Later - L8R
Lots of love/laughs - Lol
Love - LUV
Mate - M8
Please - PLS
Please call me - PCM
Queue/cue - Q
Rate - R8
See/sea - C
See you later - CU L8R
Speak - SPK
Tea - T
Thanks - THX
Thank you - THNQ
To/too - 2
To be - 2B
Today - 2DAY
Tomorrow - 2MORO
Want to - WAN2
What - WOT
Work - WRK
Why - Y
You - U

There are now entire Web sites dedicated to helping people decipher text messaging lingo. With the proliferation of text messaging and endless abbreviations, how can we expect our young people to converse professionally. We are encouraging an entire population of poor communicators with limited vocabularies. With no end in sight, our only hope is to remind those we can of the beauty of the written word and the power of the English language.

Communication via text messaging

ccushman — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:07:54 CDT

Text messaging is destroying our ability to communicate. Every minute of every day young people across the U.S. are finding new ways to abbreviate common expressions and words. Text messaging is slowly eating away at the beauty of the English language. Gone are the days of letter writing or even long emails. In the interest of speed, text messaging is encouraging people to transmit their thoughts with strange combinations of letters strung together with no punctuation, grammar or even separation. Below is a sample of how text messaging is creating its own vocabulary, one that ignores all the rules your 5th grade English teacher pounded into your head.

Common text messaging shortcuts:
Anything - NTHING
Are you OK - RUOK?
Are - R
Ate - 8
Be - B
Before - B4
Be seeing you - BCNU
Cutie - QT
Date - D8
Dinner - DNR
Easy - EZ
Eh? - A?
Excellent - XLNT
Fate - F8
For - 4
For your information - FYI
Great - GR8
Late - L8
Later - L8R
Lots of love/laughs - Lol
Love - LUV
Mate - M8
Please - PLS
Please call me - PCM
Queue/cue - Q
Rate - R8
See/sea - C
See you later - CU L8R
Speak - SPK
Tea - T
Thanks - THX
Thank you - THNQ
To/too - 2
To be - 2B
Today - 2DAY
Tomorrow - 2MORO
Want to - WAN2
What - WOT
Work - WRK
Why - Y
You - U

There are now entire websites dedicated to helping people decipher text messaging lingo. With the proliferation of text messaging and endless abbreviations, how can we expect our young people to converse professionally. We are encouraging an entire population of poor communicators with limited vocabularies. With no end in sight, our only hope is to remind those we can of the beauty of the written word and the power of the English language.

Sports talk in the workplace - Get in the game

Giulia_Merola — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:05:00 CDT

Knowing your sports lingo can be a competitive advantage with communication in the workplace. Everyone wants to hit a home run for their company. However, one must first keep their eye on the ball and pay close attention to sports analogies in the workplace. Like anything else in life, practice makes perfect. Don't worry if you sometimes drop the ball. Effectively learning sports analogies is like running a marathon. You need patience because its a long journey to be a master of sports lingo. Also, you may experience a few curve balls and hurdles. Just remember to roll with the punches and keep fighting to effectively communicate your sport metaphors.

Acronym Use in the Drug Industry May Hurt Patients in the Long Run – Chris Cushman

samirs1360 — Thu, 17 May 2007 10:09:53 CDT

Companies do have a lot of interesting things to say. The problem is that they are making their communications hard to understand. The use of technical jargon and acronyms clutter the communications to the point that it is too difficult for the reader to fully understand.

In the prescription drug industry, consumers look to companies to obtain disease-related information on various illnesses and disorders. In this quest for knowledge, consumers hope that they will find something that will help resolve their specific issue.
This process takes consumers through a variety of touch points with companies. Interactions can occur via websites, product brochures and press releases. One can see that the informational websites, such as WebMD, use language that is easily understandable by the majority of the public. Problems arise once we look at the company developed communications.

In an industry where it is assumed that the acronym FDA is understood (it is rarely spelled out in any text), companies have peppered enough acronyms throughout their copy to make an illegible mess out of important information. A visit to one website, www.prevacid.com, shows us the extent of this communication breakdown. Prevacid is a prescription drug to treat heartburn and on its homepage for patients one can find the following acronyms: GERD, NapraPAC, NSAIDs and PREVPAC. Do these acronyms help communicate the benefits and risks of Prevacid? I think not.

Although corporate copywriters may think that they are saving readers’ time by condensing certain phrases, they may actually be turning patients away. A 2001 study that was published in JAMA (yes, I will spell it out – The Journal of the American Medical Association) concluded that high reading levels are required to comprehend web-based health information.1 Spelling out acronyms may not completely solve this problem, but it is definitely a start.

By the way, the Flesch-Kincaid readability scores for an overview of GERD on WebMD and www.prevacid.com are 9.9 and 11.5 respectively.

References: 1. Berland GK, Elliott MN, et al. Health Information on the Internet: Accessibility, Quality, and Readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001; 285: 2612-2621.

A Blog for Blogs

samkarow — Thu, 17 May 2007 01:20:54 CDT

The Blog Benefit is Integrated Marketing Communications

Is it hot in here or is it just this blog? Just like Cabbage Patch Kids and iPods, web logs or blogs for short have caught on like wildfire. It feels good to be one of the cool kids. Companies are jumping on the trend. According to Building Trust with Corporate Blogs by Paul Dwyer, they are motivated by three outcomes.

Why Blog?
First, companies want to better understand consumer needs. Second, they wish to build consumer trust. Third, companies hope to encourage consumer involvement in their products. All are noble causes worthy of incurring the risk and the resources needed to pull off a successful corporate blog. But there seems to be a bigger benefit than a few hundred nice exchanges a year between consumers and the chief executive officer. The hidden benefit is how a blog can unify and inspire the company’s workforce towards adopting an integrated marketing communications (IMC) approach.

Needs
The benefit of an open forum for consumer complaints and compliments is a “no-brainer” for a company looking to strengthen consumer relationships. But a company could quickly shift gears from listening to graciously responding and never look back. Or they could cherish the consumer data gathered as a foundation for IMC. This new stream of input is un-spun by market research. It is fast, free and easy to access. Employees who follow the themes can gain clarity on the real consumer challenge the company faces. They can no longer use the excuse of not being able to afford consumer research, even if they do so in a blog.

Trust
When a chief executive officer reaches out to consumers to build trust, he or she simultaneously builds employee trust. Laymen’s terms answers to consumers on a regular basis builds trust in the executive’s ability to lead. The stripped down conversations, free of jargon inspire workforce confidence in the company’s ability to build consumer trust. The executive’s message, when clear and consistent, helps the workforce know how they can contribute to the company goal of consumer trust. Again, this a bigger implication than a handful of warm and fuzzy email exchanges captured on a website.

Involvement
A by-product of a company’s effort to build consumer involvement is workforce involvement. Consumers touched by the corporate blog can be influenced to change behaviors. But the bigger benefit is a workforce inspired by seeing dedicated management involvement in consumer-centric activities. Employees can more easily march to the beat of management’s drum when it beats regularly and loudly, far from the quarterly newsletter or annual meeting.

Employee contribution to external blogs could increase workforce involvement, force integration and lighten the role of the executive responses. Like in the paper On the Structure, Properties and Utility of Internal Corporate Blogs by Kolari et al, internal blogs allow companies to identify emerging expertise and allow workforce integration across previous boundaries of geography and job title. Providing a forum for new ideas from diverse perspectives is obviously critical in truly delivering upon IMC principles.

Will this Blog bring IMC to IMCers?
There are 20 authors contributing to this effort and we are diverse in all ways imaginable. Yet this blog will facilitate involvement, allow us track our individual paths and help us to crystallize our collective view on the state of business communications. It will integrate our marketing communications. Or point out the lack thereof.

Postcards Pack a Powerful Punch

Geeta444 — Wed, 16 May 2007 21:40:47 CDT

Please see my other page "Poscards Pack a Perfect Punch" I accidentally deleted this entire thing and then had to rewrite it. I don't know how to get rid of this page. More than you needed to know I am sure.