by James Clive-Matthews | 21 Nov, 2022 | Narratives & Meanings
“Telling stories should be a tool we use to understand ourselves better rather than a goal in and of itself.”
– from Beware the Storification of the Internet, in The Atlantic
This, for me, has always been the real value of trying to produce “Thought Leadership” in a business context: The process of thinking and constructing a coherent explanation of that thinking can have far more lasting impact on an organisation than the one-off piece of content that appears to be the end result.
Every stakeholder involved in the creation of the thought leadership content should, during its course, have at least a few moments where they really stop and question what they think and believe, why, and how they can better articulate it. This can then positively impact how they operate day to day, how they interact with clients and customers, and how they articulate the benefits of their products and services.
It’s not about the piece of content – it’s about the *thinking*.
*That* is the value of putting an emphasis on “Storytelling” – because the narrative form insists on forcing us into shaping our thoughts in ways others can follow. Ideally in a relatively entertaining, relatively memorable way.
The risk, though, is that we start buying into the myths of our own stories – and forget that they are just one way of looking at the world, created to simplify.
This is why, as we try to produce a piece of content, we need to do a Rashomon on our own thinking.
There’s never only one story, one narrative, one way of looking at the world. Look at things from only one perspective, and you risk ending up like the blind men and the elephant. If you’re serious about producing real thought leadership, you should challenge yourself to look for alternative approaches every time.
This is why Critical Thinking is probably the most important skill when writing and editing: Question your assumptions and preconceptions, consider all the objections and alternative interpretations, and – as long as you can avoid the twin traps of analysis paralysis and editing by committee – the end result *will* be stronger.
Stylistic flair can disguise sloppy thinking – but only so much. And how much better is it to have both style *and* substance?
by James Clive-Matthews | 12 Mar, 2021 | Systems & Technology
As the FT points out, big tech has so much data on us, surely ad targeting should be good by now?
The real solution to increasing your chances of reaching the right people isn’t marketing automation, it’s user experience. One’s a tactic, the other’s a strategy.
After all, if even Facebook struggles to identify audience interests with any degree of accuracy, what hope do more limited platforms have?
The risk isn’t just that you’re wasting your paid media spend on micro-targeting, it’s that you’re wasting your production budget producing multiple variants of marketing content for audiences that may never see your material. It’s lose-lose.
The magic bullet isn’t audience segmentation in promotion plans – it’s focusing on your audiences’ interests in the content and messaging development phase. This helps ensure what you’re saying (and how you’re saying it) can appeal to multiple target groups at the same time – from niche to broad. Then you can let your audiences self-select the next step on their customer journey via clear signposting of where to go to find what they want.
One size may not fit all perfectly, but with a skilled tailor one size can be given the *illusion* of fitting all. People will pay attention to the things they’re interested in, not the things they aren’t. Which makes people far more capable of deciding what’s relevant to them than any algorithm.
by James Clive-Matthews | 25 Nov, 2020 | Structures & Models
What’s your preferred approach for coming up with good ideas? This podcast from The Accidental Creative suggests there are four steps to true creativity:
1) Preparation
2) Incubation
3) Illumination
4) Verification
While everyone seems to focus on that Eureka moment of illumination / inspiration (I tend to get them in the middle of long walks, or while reading a totally unrelated book), and agencies often focus on the first (the mythical perfect brief), the second and fourth of these are actually the most vital.
The best creative ideas need deliberation, interrogation, to be stepped away from and ignored for a while, then returned to with fresh eyes. They need to be poked, questioned, critiqued, bounced off other people, sense-checked, confirmed as not having been done before – all that good due diligence of verification. But creativity can’t be rushed.
At least, that’s the theory.
Sometimes, a ridiculous deadline is *exactly* what we need – even if it’s one of our own making, caused by dawdling on stage two until the last possible moment, or prevaricating with other, less important tasks. I tend to do that more often than I’d care to admit.
But then, we’re all different. The truth is creativity doesn’t follow a set formula or. If it did, it wouldn’t be creative. What it needs is the right mindset.
by James Clive-Matthews | 25 Oct, 2020 | Systems & Technology
As I scroll through feeds filled with poor auto-cropping and shoddy machine-generated summaries, it’s hard to disagree with this:
“it is a myth that new innovations don’t need editorial oversight. If you’re going to build automated content curation without a sub-editor, you’re taking a needless risk. Just as editors need better algorithms, algorithms need better editors.”
Will AI eventually get good enough at contextual understanding and sense-checking to truly compete with humans’ ability to parse nuance, sarcasm, irony, and humour, as well as verify facts in a world where disinformation comes in a deluge? Possibly. But it’s still a long way off.
Makes it even more of a shame to see my old employer Microsoft / MSN recently ditch even more of its remaining human editors in favour of algorithms.
by James Clive-Matthews | 16 Sep, 2020 | Narratives & Meanings
Seeing this graphic doing the rounds. Pretty. Still, call me a cynic, but:
1) [citation needed] – the full graphic lists multiple top-level sources, but without details – what were the exact sources? What was the methodology for identifying this data used by each of those sources? How credible is this information?
2) So what? What useful insight do these lump sums tell us without context? Most of the numbers are random, unrelated big figures, so how does this help us understand the world? What are the trends? What’s the insight?
This is superficially a great bit of marketing, as it’s getting shared a lot and is designed to promote a company flogging a data analytics platform. But there’s no further detail on their site, which is a masterclass in promising a lot (e.g. “Solve back-end integration of any data, at cloud scale, without moving data”) without actually saying or revealing anything about how their tools actually work. To find out more, you need to give them your contact details.
For true data geeks, as for ex-journalists like me, alarm bells start going off at this point:
– Data without context is meaningless
– Single data points don’t equal insight
– Data needs to be well sourced to warrant trust
– Don’t give away your data if you don’t know what you’re getting
by James Clive-Matthews | 15 Sep, 2020 | Systems & Technology
This long piece neatly sums up the paradox of the age of algorithmic analytics:
“Algorithms that tell us which topics are trending don’t merely reflect trends; they can also help create them…
“The internet has shown us that the oddest of subcultures and smallest of niches can develop followings… I don’t think readers weren’t interested. It’s that they were told not to be interested. The algorithms had already decided my subjects were not breaking news. Those algorithms then ensured that they would never be.”
This approach of following your analytics is a *terrible* content strategy. By pursuing a mass audience and popularity above all, same as everyone else, you’re doomed to lose your distinctiveness – and relevance to your true target audiences. Even though the algorithms supposedly love relevance above all, they’re still (usually) not sophisticated enough to identify your priority audiences among all those visits.
This is why we’re seeing so many traditional publications fail, and ad revenues collapse: They’ve all become alike, because the algorithms have told them all the same things. That’s made them less valuable, in terms of both price and utility.
Don’t get me wrong: audience analytics are essential. But you need to know how to read them – and their limitations.
by James Clive-Matthews | 5 Sep, 2020 | Structures & Models
I’m not a stickler for “correct” punctuation, as a rule – except when it comes to apostrophes and the Oxford Comma. This is because punctuation, mostly, is about flow and rhythm, not meaning. Misplaced apostrophes and missing commas in lists can substantially change meaning rather than flow, so their correct placement becomes vital.
This fascinating essay on the evolution of punctuation makes clear that improving flow and clarifying meaning has long been the goal – while also exploring the long history of resistance to punctuation that over-clarifies meaning.
It’s a useful reminder that words are about interpretation as much as intention. Sometimes ambiguity lets greater meaning emerge, building stronger connections with your audience by encouraging them to think more deeply about your words. Sometimes it creates confusion.
The challenge, as ever, is getting the balance right – so focus on the needs of your audience. What will most help them understand your meaning (or meanings)? What will confuse? No one wants to have to try and parse a complex run-on sentence with multiple sub-clauses and dozens of punctuation marks. Even if they do make it through to the end without giving up, your meaning is likely to be lost.
In other words, as ever, when in doubt: Keep it simple.
by James Clive-Matthews | 22 Aug, 2020 | Structures & Models
I’ve been getting increasingly sucked into the systems thinking wormhole in recent months, and this piece brings together a lot of the reasons why in a wonderfully readable bit of weekend lean-back longform food for thought – on the pandemic, society, science, economics, politics, and everything in between.
The concepts of information flux, robustness mechanisms, Sauron’s bias and monkey fights are definitely ones I can see myself obsessing over and trying to work into future strategy decks…
(Also, one of the co-authors of which has the truly awesome job title “Professor of Complexity”, giving me a whole new career aspiration.)
A teaser:
As the mathematician John Allen Paulos remarked about complex systems: ‘Uncertainty is the only certainty there is. And knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.’ Instead of prioritising outcomes based on the last bad thing that happened – applying laser focus to terrorism or inequality, or putting vast resources into healthcare – we might take inspiration from complex systems in nature and design processes that foster adaptability and robustness for a range of scenarios that could come to pass.
This approach has been called emergent engineering. It’s profoundly different from traditional engineering, which is dominated by forecasting, trying to control the behaviour of a system and designing it to achieve specific outcomes. By contrast, emergent engineering embraces uncertainty as a fact of life that’s potentially constructive.
When applied to society-wide challenges, emergent engineering yields a different kind of problem-solving.
by James Clive-Matthews | 21 Aug, 2020 | Systems & Technology
Being a words person it’s unsurprising this piece spoke to me, as it advocates using words as an accessible tool – Google Docs – to improve creative collaboration.
Yes, at its heart, this place is basically saying that a collaborative design/multimedia/dev briefing doc is a good idea – and it’s hard to argue against that.
But it also speaks to a core challenge in the digital creative industries – especially now we’re all working from home and can no longer scribble on whiteboards and move post-it notes around on walls:
What’s the best way to collaborate when developing visual concepts? How can we lower barriers to entry for those with less confidence in their visual thinking skills? How can we encourage more diverse thinking, more originality, while still staying focused on the core objectives?
I’d be fascinated to hear your suggestions / recommendations.
by James Clive-Matthews | 12 Aug, 2020 | Systems & Technology
PDF: Still Unfit for Human Consumption, 20 Years Later
Punchy title and many good points made. But PDFs are an easy target.
It’s also ironic that in attacking PDFs as clunky, hard to read in a browser, and bad for mobile, the authors have created a 2,400-word monster without a single engaging image or design element to break up the wall of text. And they’re so keen to make their point as robustly as possible that a few too many arguments are piled on top of each other – some rather weaker than others.
The point they miss is format needs to be led by function – the medium isn’t the message, but it does shape it. For some functions, a PDF is a better option than HTML, for others a simple email may be best. Your format should depend on your objective, target audience, and what impression you want to leave them with.
Most importantly, *presentation* also needs to be shaped by format, audience, and objective. Sometimes, better a PDF where the design is fixed than responsive HTML that messes up your careful layout when your key client views it on their ancient IE6-running machine. (Bitter experience…)
If you want to persuade, your thinking and presentation always need to be good, no matter the format. Sloppy content structure, sloppy design and sloppy thinking will undermine your objectives far faster than a PDF ever will.
