Hill+Knowlton Strategies

So… with the spectre of a Christmas election looming ever closer, Hill & Knowlton Canada has just unveiled its Election Predictor to give policy wonks and political junkies their Seasonal fix.

Many thanks to Niall and his crew — creators of the now famous UK Election Predictor – for providing critical insight and logic that allowed us to port this tool to Canada. We think – though are not absolutely certain – that this is a first for Canada in giving people the means to test their own predictions in as near a real-life setting as possible.

Have at…

So I am currently working with a client, one of Canada’s largest technology companies, to re-design the “company” or “about us” section of their corporate website. This activity is happening as part of an overall reputation and brand-building effort to position this company as a market, business and community leader. It is an interesting exercise, as it is challenging us to re-think how content and messaging should be structured and presented in order to achieve the desired objectives.

Most importantly, what I’ve learned through the discovery phase of this exercise is that few companies are taking full advantage of this vital section of the corporate web site to communicate their corporate messaging (vs product messaging) to stakeholders. Some are on their way — BP being an excellent example. Few are the companies, however, that go beyond putting in place the typical menu of links that collectively do little to reinforce the key drivers of that company’s reputation.

The challenge, as we see it, is not insignificant. The audiences for this section are not only existing and prospective customers. They include employees and prospective employees, media, shareholders, analysts, students, communities in which this company operates, government regulators, and others. And each of these audiences have different information needs. As a result, the focus of what you are trying to communicate can easily become more obtuse.

In addition, your typical “company” section of a corporate web site is often merely a series of links to sections of the corporate site owned by other departments — HR, IR, Legal, Marketing or others. Consequently, one faces a number of limitations in how audiences are channeled through to these various sections: internal politics and a rigid corporate style-guide being only two of the more obvious.

At the same time, however, it is important to note that this exercise was not intended to be a complete overhaul of their existing content — which was for the most part sound and “on message.” On the other hand, what was not yet considered was the implications of how these messages — if presented differently yet more cohesively, in essence as “proof points” to better substantiate and provide context to the overall positioning — might be more effectively articulated. This is where the design and navigation of the site becomes as important as the content itself. And it was in this vein that we focused our efforts.

The result of our thinking was simple, yet profound. In identifying the attributes that contributed positively to the reputation of this company, we then structured the corporate content as “proof points” supporting these over-arching attributes — be they people-driven, business-driven, or values-driven. When I look at the result now — which is still in development – I’m surprised at how obvious this outcome now appears.

Do me a favour, send along any examples you might have of “company” or “about” sections of corporate sites that you think effectively articulate the company’s vision and messages. I’d be interested in knowing what you think. And I’ll keep you posted on how the next phase of this exercise — actual deployment — unfolds.

So out of the blue my boss appears at my office door and says, “Brendan, tell me what H&K Canada will look like 25 years from now.” Then adds, “I’ll need that by tomorrow.”

Clearly I’m being punished, though am still unsure for what exactly. But it’s an interesting question nonetheless, and one that has literally kept me awake at night, as here I am at 5:00 am-ish EST plugging away at this… Quite frankly, I could use your help to finish and/or vet this list I’ve started…

Here’s some thought-starters, from one person’s perspective, in no particular priority of importance. What’s interesting is that without getting into the weird stuff such as moon-based H&K offices, a lot of this is happening now, in Canada and around the H&K network… However, I think it will only be refined and further entrenched in 2030.

So here goes… In 2030:

1. We will offer clients a “Consumer-Generated” media relations offering in addition to, and in conjunction with, our traditional “Mainstream” media relations services. Will they ever be completely integrated?

2. As is already happening in other parts of the network, our service lines will become increasingly specialized on niche audiences and industries — broadcasting to narrowcasting — GLBT, Seniors, Youth, Ethnic, Obese, Aboriginal, etc.

3. Whereas the Economist recently identified employees as “unintended guardians of the brand”, in 2030 employees — and increasingly customers — will be the brand, and will need to be cultivated as such.

4. We will be able to accurately measure the impact of our activities on the bottom line

5. Non-financial drivers (reputation and brand, management experience, governance policies etc.) will overtake financial drivers as determinants of a corporation’s “value”

6. We will consult regularly into the c-suite as that is where our clients will sit — as chief reputation officers, chief marketing officers and chief communications officers.

7. “Change Communications” will simply become “Communications” because change, to abuse an over-used euphemism, will be the only constant (yeah, kick me).

8. We will always be “on” — increasingly having to react and respond to events happening at any time, anywhere in the world — whether in Toronto, Saskatoon, or Mumbai. Traditional press cycles and time-lags will be a thing of the past.

9. We will be cultivating conversations and two-way dialogs, not simply one-way interactions.

Let’s keep this list going… as I’m sure this is only the thin edge of the wedge…