I have previously tried to write posts as comprehensive
reactions to the chapters. For this post, I will be more focused because
Cornelissen touches on some aspects of corporate communication in which I
actually have a preexisting interest: corporate taglines and slogans.
Before that discussion, though, I do need to mention how
helpful I found section 5.3 on Strategic Messaging. I am growing to appreciate
Cornelissen’s use of models and diagrams for making fine distinctions within a
broad topic. His breakdown of strategic message styles is a useful model for
evaluating corporate communications, but, as I read through the different
styles, I was able to draw connections to my own work in teaching the rudiments
of rhetoric and argumentative writing to my adult learners. I know that this is
a section that I will revisit to inform my own work outside of a corporate
environment.
My wife works in advertising, so we have many dinner table
conversations about writing choices in advertisements. Generally, she cites the steps outlined in
section 6.2 as essential to the process of creating an excellent tagline or
slogan (or even a complete campaign). She emphasizes the importance of step 1,
strategic intent. In the parlance of her industry, she refers to this intent as
an “insight,” a concept or idea that drives the communicative choices of the
agency or corporation.
To the detriment of my own marriage, I do not accept this.
I am certain (even though I have never worked in a corporate
environment, an advertising agency, or for any sort of communications firm)
that effective slogans and taglines are born of the proper execution of any of
the three tactics discussed by Cornelissen on p. 117: wordplay, figurative
language, and iconic words. From my admittedly limited perspective, shaping
corporate communication/advertising based on market research and insights is
akin to the same impulse that leads to the creation of bad art: trying to
please the audience rather than communicating a sincere message.
Also, even as a grammar nerd and language instructor, I love
witnessing departures from standard grammar and usage that effectively
communicate the intended message. My favorite example of this tension between
adhering to the rules of edited English and communicating a message is this email exchange published by Harper's in 2003.
I share your enthusiasm and interest in for corporate taglines and slogans. and agree with your argument regarding effective use through proper strategic execution as outlined by Cornelissen. However, my husband, who is in real estate not advertising, is a master at wordplay and figurative language and he is able to constantly surprise me in how he is able to twist and frame language from random facts -- for entertainment value than to move a message forward for a corporation-- but my point is masters of the language can achieve a strategic communication outcome and art. Cornelissen's examples in the book support this idea in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Harper's link, it is entertaining.
I find it hard to sympathize with people who focus so rigidly on the rules of grammar that they can't go outside the box. Yesterday, I was reading a post from Robert Reich, who was President Clinton's Secretary of Labor. He said that he receives emails everyday about a mistake that was made in his previous posts. I read his posts everyday and have not noticed any egregious errors, not enough that someone feels compelled to write to a well known author about a misspelling. The respondent in the email exchange that Kevin points to says that "Advertising slogans aren’t always constrained by the traditional conventions of formal writing; compromises are quite often made to develop a more effective message." Advertising can, just as anyone can, include turns of phrases. Did the original poster really think that a huge corporation like Coca Cola didn't have someone responsible for proofreading? The Coke representative even said that they had discussed the issue and favored the Everyday construction. I also wonder who has time to make these kinds of distinctions in a letter to Coca Cola.
ReplyDelete