I’ve written dozens of Corporate Messaging Platforms for chemical, life sciences and biopharmaceutical companies. But I’m no scientist. I’ve created corporate messaging for electrical engineering firms. But I’m no engineer. And I’ve written about complex financial instruments for the world’s largest financial institutions. And I’m certainly not a mathematician or finance expert.
I’m not a scientist, engineer or math whiz. But it didn’t prevent me from winning this B2B copywriting work.
The point is: Deep knowledge of a particular industry is no substitute for being a strong messaging strategist. In fact, relying too heavily on industry experience can actually do more harm than good:
- Experience dilutes objectivity. You can know an industry so well that it shortcuts thoughtful decision making—not to mention creativity. (I’ve been guilty of this myself.)
- Objectivity yields right-angle thinking. It’s far easier for a third-party, outside observer to uncover an original, relevant and differentiated idea. Insiders are handicapped before they ever start to think, because their possibilities are clouded by baked-in assumptions.
- Strategy trumps knowledge. Industry experts know features and benefits inside and out. All important stuff. But, you can know too much—to the point where you can’t organize all that knowledge swirling inside your head into the most effective message.
You can learn the lingo of any industry. It’s far harder to learn (and follow) the discipline of messaging strategy. And then, the effective translation of messaging into copy that sells.
Clients don’t always understand this. Far too often, they believe that “having intimate knowledge” of their industry on a “granular level” means that the corporate writer can “hit the ground running.” Enough corporate speak, already. I think what a client really wants is the most effective corporate writing possible.
That means hiring a corporate writer who understands how to build a Corporate Messaging Platform first. And then, how to write effective copy based on it.
Beware, though. Once inside an organization, it’s easy for a corporate writer to become institutionalized. You’ll start to lose objectivity. That’s when it’s more important than ever to rely on the process and discipline of starting every effort with a messaging strategy. Doing so will help you resist the urge to work too fast, make too many assumptions—and not work a problem all the way through to the end. Where the simple answer always is.
There is no related post.
15 Comments for this entry
-
I totally agree. Being an outsider to a company also helps seeing the issues from the recipient’s point of view, which is what corporate communications should be concerned with.
Jean-Claude Surprenant
-
Andy:
I couldn’t agree more.
A lot of folks outside of the writing/communications discipline don’t understand that messaging is a science/art unto itself.
I am constantly educating myself about, testing out new approaches and practicing the art of business writing across multiple media.
Learning the lingo of a new industry is a cake walk compared to how much ongoing time and energy I devote to learning about human behavior and sharpening my skills as a writer and content marketing strategist.
-
Very well put Andy. I’ve used these same arguments many times when pitching to new clients. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard a prospect say they want a writer who has tons of experience writing about their particular industry or product niche. I patiently explain the very points you make here in an attempt to position my relative inexperience as a PLUS. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. While these arguments make a lot of sense, particularly to us writers, it takes time to educate the copy buyers. As the CA commenter stated, they have to be open to new ideas.
-
Valerie Navarro
August 3rd, 2010 on 1:40 pmIsn’t it a paradox when writers (corporate or otherwise) use phrases like “Objectivity yields right-angle thinking” and then criticize others for, well, corporate speak?
Isn’t it our job to write something interesting, or at the vary least to communicate ideas with clarity?
I get your point. But being an outsider doesn’t provide immunity from the spread of corporate waffling.
-
Yes, lingo can be learned, but passion can’t be learned as easily.
As copywriters, we’re expressing a solution to a problem that we’re either empathizing or sympathizing with. Big difference.
For example, in my niche, which is agriculture, I can easily see a lack of passion in copy written by someone in a cubicle vs. a copywriter who’s intimately familiar with the subject matter. The former had used the correct lingo, but was unable to successfully relate the solution to me.
I once saw two product descriptions for OB equipment and lube from two different companies. To me, it was clear that the writer never pulled a calf in the freezing rain at 2:00 AM, which, for some strange reason, is when most cows need assistance. The best description was written by someone who just may have pulled a calf, but too bad it was an inferior product.
How is it possible that a copywriter from NYC could write copy for a bovine artificial insemination product company? Can you imagine how long it would take to explain why the left arm is gloved up to the shoulder and what it does?
I’ve seen the same problem with graphic design that accompanied my copy. Gender of livestock can be ascertained by looking at the head. Yet graphic designers will insert a mare’s head when the product is a collection tube.
Pete
-
The older I get, the more I believe in being passionate. You do have to be knowledgeable about your subject, but don’t let the details dint the fire. Go deep, but bring back the really hot embers. People really can tell the difference, as Pete’s bovine example shows. Can we presume Pete has been there. It certainly sounds like it, and that’s what we need: credibility. It’s hard to fake that one!
Jean-Claude Surprenant
August 3rd, 2010 on 8:46 am