Campaigning - a passion for effectiveness

Posts 11-19 of 19

Back
Next

Peter Metzinger Premium Member Group moderator
The company name is only visible to registered members.

Re^10: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.
Andreas, I don't understand your first question. Yesterday you wrote that you worked "as a journalist, as a press officer for an environmental pressure group, as a conceptioner for a marketing agency an as a manager of communications". Now your first question implies that you worked as a campaigner for ten years? I would of course never want to imply that you don't understand business you worked in, especially if it was ten years, and I'd like to apologize for the misunderstanding message. But if you never worked as a campaigner, I would say yes, you don't really understand the campaigning business.

"So, a definition is set by those, who are the first in the field?" - Yes, who else? In every domain, every new business it is the pioneers who define the standards. And those who continue to further develop the methodology are the ones who define future standards. Who else? With campaigning it was not Greenpeace alone, there were also campaigning teams in US elections and pressure groups who set the standards. And there are consultancies like SVWP Kommunikationsmanagement GmbH (http://www.svwp.at) in Vienna, who developed the same methodology but never knew how to call it until the heard about the expression campaigning back in 2002. And of course, there are also commucation specialists who developed a similar approach, and now they call it corporate communication or branding etc. But that only creates a huge confusion around these terms.

Of course you can say a Harley-Davidson is a bicycle because it has two wheels, you can ride it and it takes you from A to B. But does that make sense?

Especially as communication specialists we should be very careful with definitions. Because it is our job to communicate in a very structured way in order to avoid misunderstandings and get the right messages through. Maybe it is my background as physicist which makes me so sensitive to that. If corporate communication in your view is more than just communication then you should not call it corporate communication. (You should also not call a bicycle anymore a bicycle as soon as you add a motor to it.) At least you should make a difference between old style corporate communication and new style corporate communication. That would help to clarify misunderstandings.

This is not only talking about two expressions for the same kind of work but also about the difference between two expressions for the same kind of work and two expressions for two different kinds of work. It is not done with the statement that we have different opinions. ;-)

Have a nice weekend
- 10 Nov 2007, 5:50 pm
Peter Metzinger wrote: > Andreas, I don't understand your first question. Yesterday you wrote > that you worked "as a journalist, as a press officer for an > environmental pressure group, as a conceptioner for a marketing > agency an as a manager of communications". Now your first question > implies that you worked as a campaigner for ten years? I would of > course never want to imply that you don't understand business you > worked in, especially if it was ten years, and I'd like to apologize > for the misunderstanding message. But if you never worked as a > campaigner, I would say yes, you don't really understand the > campaigning business. > > "So, a definition is set by those, who are the first in the field?" - > Yes, who else? In every domain, every new business it is the pioneers > who define the standards. And those who continue to further develop > the methodology are the ones who define future standards. Who else? > With campaigning it was not Greenpeace alone, there were also > campaigning teams in US elections and pressure groups who set the > standards. And there are consultancies like SVWP > Kommunikationsmanagement GmbH (http://www.svwp.at) in Vienna, who > developed the same methodology but never knew how to call it until > the heard about the expression campaigning back in 2002. And of > course, there are also commucation specialists who developed a > similar approach, and now they call it corporate communication or > branding etc. But that only creates a huge confusion around these > terms. > > Of course you can say a Harley-Davidson is a bicycle because it has > two wheels, you can ride it and it takes you from A to B. But does > that make sense? > > Especially as communication specialists we should be very careful > with definitions. Because it is our job to communicate in a very > structured way in order to avoid misunderstandings and get the right > messages through. Maybe it is my background as physicist which makes > me so sensitive to that. If corporate communication in your view is > more than just communication then you should not call it corporate > communication. (You should also not call a bicycle anymore a bicycle > as soon as you add a motor to it.) At least you should make a > difference between old style corporate communication and new style > corporate communication. That would help to clarify misunderstandings. > > This is not only talking about two expressions for the same kind of > work but also about the difference between two expressions for the > same kind of work and two expressions for two different kinds of > work. It is not done with the statement that we have different > opinions. ;-) > > Have a nice weekend
Post visible to registered members
Post visible to registered members
Peter Metzinger Premium Member Group moderator
The company name is only visible to registered members.

Re^2: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.
Hi Jelena,

just a quick response as I'm busy with preparing a workshop. A campaigner can be a full-time employee (especially in my agency). But it is difficult to find an organisation with a culture that supports a result-oriented attitude (as opposed to tool-oriented) and comprehensive, strategic thinking. In fact, it has been very difficult for years for my agency to find enough clients who are willing and self-critical enough to apply campaigning as an approach for achievening their goals. Internal walls need to be torn down for this and some people will have to allow others to assess the success of their work in a 360-degree evaluation process. You can imagine the shock-waves this can send around inside of a company. But there is hope. The number of clients who approach us with enough openness has been growing constantly and today we can say more and more often that the work we do is real campaigning, while in the past we often had to say "it's not campaigning, what we are doing for them, it's (e.g.) more like PR with some campaigning influence". Some assignments we even had to turn down and tell those clients they'd be better served by a conventional PR or advertising agency, because what they wanted was so obviously a waste of money that we didn't want to be associated with it, given our reputation, ethical and quality standards.

We did you ask?

have a nice sunday
ptr
- 11 Nov 2007, 5:47 pm
Peter Metzinger wrote: > Hi Jelena, > > just a quick response as I'm busy with preparing a workshop. A > campaigner can be a full-time employee (especially in my agency). But > it is difficult to find an organisation with a culture that supports > a result-oriented attitude (as opposed to tool-oriented) and > comprehensive, strategic thinking. In fact, it has been very > difficult for years for my agency to find enough clients who are > willing and self-critical enough to apply campaigning as an approach > for achievening their goals. Internal walls need to be torn down for > this and some people will have to allow others to assess the success > of their work in a 360-degree evaluation process. You can imagine the > shock-waves this can send around inside of a company. But there is > hope. The number of clients who approach us with enough openness has > been growing constantly and today we can say more and more often that > the work we do is real campaigning, while in the past we often had to > say "it's not campaigning, what we are doing for them, it's (e.g.) > more like PR with some campaigning influence". Some assignments we > even had to turn down and tell those clients they'd be better served > by a conventional PR or advertising agency, because what they wanted > was so obviously a waste of money that we didn't want to be > associated with it, given our reputation, ethical and quality > standards. > > We did you ask? > > have a nice sunday > ptr
Peter Metzinger Premium Member Group moderator
The company name is only visible to registered members.

Re^12: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.
Hi Andreas,

Sorry, I was too busy to respond earlier.

"I haven't said that I have worked as a campaigner for ten years. I have said that I worked in the field - which by you is defined as campaigning and by me is defined as corporate communication."

I think this is very important and seems to be the reason for my confusion. So, if I understand you correctly, you don't say that campaigning is corporate communication but that corporate communication is the same thing as what I call campaigning? Then, of course, I can see that you have 10 years of experience. Very often I say that "out there" are more individuals and companies which have developed their own campaigning model but they don't call it "campaigning". So far so well, and I start to understand what you mean.

At that point I only question how much sense it makes to use an expression that has been around for so long for a different kind of work. That's why I refered to old style and new style corp com. Because corporate communication as it has been practiced for many years - and also as it is still being practiced in the majority of companies - has definitely not been what we call campaigning. Instead, it was rather one-way information without impact measurement and limited to a few communication tools. Tool-oriented instead of result-oriented.

If it's not this way anymore, then we could say there is a new style of corp com, which is identical with what we call campaigning.

"Well, to my experience this is not the case in a lot of fields, but I don't want to open up this discussion with such a difference in our understanding of some of the basic words. It would lead to even more confusion."

Really? I'd be very interested to learn more about this.

"Hm, now you use the word communication for yourself." Sorry, this is because people often call me a communication specialist - and maybe also, because as a campaigner you have to be experienced in communication. You need to understand and successfully work with your most important tools. It's like a carpenter who is a hammer specialist in some way.
- 14 Nov 2007, 7:15 pm
Peter Metzinger wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > Sorry, I was too busy to respond earlier. > > "I haven't said that I have worked as a campaigner for ten years. I > have said that I worked in the field - which by you is defined as > campaigning and by me is defined as corporate communication." > > I think this is very important and seems to be the reason for my > confusion. So, if I understand you correctly, you don't say that > campaigning is corporate communication but that corporate > communication is the same thing as what I call campaigning? Then, of > course, I can see that you have 10 years of experience. Very often I > say that "out there" are more individuals and companies which have > developed their own campaigning model but they don't call it > "campaigning". So far so well, and I start to understand what you > mean. > > At that point I only question how much sense it makes to use an > expression that has been around for so long for a different kind of > work. That's why I refered to old style and new style corp com. > Because corporate communication as it has been practiced for many > years - and also as it is still being practiced in the majority of > companies - has definitely not been what we call campaigning. > Instead, it was rather one-way information without impact measurement > and limited to a few communication tools. Tool-oriented instead of > result-oriented. > > If it's not this way anymore, then we could say there is a new style > of corp com, which is identical with what we call campaigning. > > "Well, to my experience this is not the case in a lot of fields, but > I don't want to open up this discussion with such a difference in our > understanding of some of the basic words. It would lead to even more > confusion." > > Really? I'd be very interested to learn more about this. > > "Hm, now you use the word communication for yourself." Sorry, this is > because people often call me a communication specialist - and maybe > also, because as a campaigner you have to be experienced in > communication. You need to understand and successfully work with your > most important tools. It's like a carpenter who is a hammer > specialist in some way.
Post visible to registered members
Peter Metzinger Premium Member Group moderator
The company name is only visible to registered members.

Re^14: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.
Oh wow. I have to apologize. I didn't realize you studied corporate communication in the UK, although you mentioned that you learned about it in the UK. Yes, in the UK it has a different, more comprehensive meaning. More like campaigning ;-)

At this point we are back to the culture issue that we discussed with Sheli. Same word, same profession, different meanings in different countries or cultures...

In this international forum we probably need to be a lot more sensitive to those issues. It's a learning for me.

have a nice weekend
- 16 Nov 2007, 10:03 pm
Peter Metzinger wrote: > Oh wow. I have to apologize. I didn't realize you studied corporate > communication in the UK, although you mentioned that you learned > about it in the UK. Yes, in the UK it has a different, more > comprehensive meaning. More like campaigning ;-) > > At this point we are back to the culture issue that we discussed with > Sheli. Same word, same profession, different meanings in different > countries or cultures... > > In this international forum we probably need to be a lot more > sensitive to those issues. It's a learning for me. > > have a nice weekend
Post visible to registered members
Peter Metzinger Premium Member Group moderator
The company name is only visible to registered members.

Re^16: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.
We should link this discussion to the one we had with Sheli on campaigning in different cultures...
- 21 Nov 2007, 3:00 pm
Peter Metzinger wrote: > We should link this discussion to the one we had with Sheli on > campaigning in different cultures...

Back
Next

Campaigning - a passion for effectiveness

Re^10: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.

Re^2: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.

Re^12: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.

Re^14: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.

Re^16: The difference between campaigning and conventional marketing, PR etc.