I've had my share of car buying experiences, most of which have been mental beatdowns. On one occasion, I was talking with a salesman who was really pushing me to buy.
​
At one point, I asked his team to run some numbers on what a particular vehicle would cost me every month. 

"Am I going to get your business today?" he asked.

"Not quite sure yet."

"Well, I'd hate to have my guys run these numbers and do all of this work if you're not even sure about buying today."

"But...isn't that your job?"

(Silence)

"Well, yeah."

It was clear this was much more about what he would get out of it than me, it and would be totally reasonable for me to have left right then. 

This is one of the many reasons people hate the car-buying experience. They've had so many experiences like this that they practically expect the sales team to do what they can to benefit themselves over the consumer.

The same is true online.

People are used to misleading clickbait, disappointing content and corporate marketing that they've become cynical. Brands must find ways to break that cynicism by writing and producing content that clearly conveys a genuine interest in their audience - no strings attached.

If you've already sat in a car dealership for 2-3 hours, you may tolerate a little more selfishness because you've invested time in it. However, it's much easier to form a negative opinion and disconnect yourself from selfish content.
​
Getting to know everything about your audience and customer takes some time, planning and strategy. However, there are some things you should already know just by living the human experience:

• People don't want to feel like someone is trying to trick them
• People don't like the idea someone is taking advantage of them
• People don't like to take extra steps when their needs are simple

Finally, when it comes to human behavior online - if you give them a wrong impression, they will instantly go elsewhere.

​Here is a quick video sharing three examples of content that will look selfish to your audience.

When I was a single guy, I remember hearing that women would often judge men based on their relationship with their mothers. This approach included considerations on how they talk about and communicate with their moms. The idea is that they could potentially get a good feel for how someone would treat another woman in a relationship.

Can a similar principle apply to how a company communicates with (or even treats) its audience?

Similarly, how you talk about customers within your own company could impact how that same organization communicates with them publicly.

If someone asked you how people within your company talk about customers or prospects, what would be a fair assessment?

• We believe our audience is gullible
• We believe our audience needs to have everything explained to them
• We believe we know what the audience wants, but we want to learn more
  

​​Do you see a correlation between internal and external communications?

​Several years ago, a company hired me to help them develop some new copywriting ideas. When I was hired, I was invited to the office to learn more about the business and its messaging challenges.

When they were showing me around, they pointed out the copywriting team.

That threw me off a bit.

“If you have a team of copywriters, what made your hire someone like me?” I asked.

The response was, “We just need some fresh ideas.”
​
The company offered free online access to a service and wanted customers to pay for additional services via a monthly subscription. They sought to increase paid opt-ins and keep customers on their subscription plans.

Recently, many people would get what they wanted and opt out.

Then I found out what needed “fresh” ideas.

After people filled out the form for the free service, they were asked for credit card information.

I sat in on a meeting where an entire creative team discussed how a new website with photos of friendly-looking people would make users more comfortable with the last-minute credit card request.

Why?

Because the website looked nice and the photos looked like credible people - duh!

I was stunned by this.

It reminded me of My Cousin Vinny when Vinny asked his fiancé what pants he should wear to go deer hunting. She asked him if he was a deer, and some guy showed up and blew him away – would he care about what kind of pants the shooter was wearing?

​I asked a similar question in the meeting.

“If any of you were told you’re getting something free, and you filled out a form to get the free service…but you were then asked for credit card information…would you really care how nice people looked on the website?”

As Ralphie Parker once said – They looked at me as if I had lobsters crawling out of my ears.
​
This company viewed its audience as gullible people, and their external communications proved it.

I’ve attended trade shows and seen vendors with backdrops that are so loaded with information that the text extends from top to bottom. Many people wouldn’t stop to read it all, and those who did would stop and confusingly ask, “What do you all do?”

Having the internal belief that your customers and prospects need everything explained can put strains on your business. These days, customers know their problems and understand what they want out of a solution.

​Too much explaining on a website, email or other materials can:

1. Give an impression you’re trying too hard to make a sale vs. provide a solution
2. Waste time by explaining a problem they know they have
3. Leave little room for a message to resonate and inspire someone to contact you

Dr. James E. Grunig (public relations theorist and Professor Emeritus, Communication at the University of Maryland) developed the "excellence theory" in public relations. The development of this concept was pretty wide-ranging, to say the least:
​

• The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management called it the “most comprehensive research project done in the field of public relations.”
• In Public Relations Scales: Advancing Excellence Theory, Alexander Laskin said he thought this theory had identified weaknesses in the original constructs of public relations.

Excellence theory takes what’s known as a symmetrical two-way communication approach. Now, what does that mean, and how can it apply to culture, communication and audience?

Let’s first look at other examples of communication and see how they could be applied to examples already discussed.

One-way communication – Think of this as an approach that an agent or publicist might take. The communication is focused on one side. Messaging will always be constructed or spun in ways that make the best possible impression on the audience for the subject's benefit.
​
Two-way communication – This is about considering the audience in the messaging. However, if it's asymmetrical, the benefit is still focused on the messenger because there is a layer of “scientific persuasion” used in communicating with the audience. In other words, they may listen to what the audience has to say about something, but the result will still be to persuade them for the sender’s benefit.
​
A two-way symmetrical approach like excellence theory is focused more on mutual benefits for the sender and the audience.

One of the big mistakes marketers make in their strategies is they think like marketers (and not consumers). Grunig believes public relations has to be more than just external marketing and PR communications by:
​

• Enabling PR to communicate internally with executives and decision-makers
• Creating a consistent approach to communication with equal recognition of value among all employees of different races, cultures and genders

A key takeaway: If organizations already have a genuine interest in communicating in a mutually beneficial way, that can translate well into how that same company communicates and views its audience.

This approach can work for everything from businesses to academic institutions.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), a 1,200-employee industry-funded company, wanted to convey not only environmental responsibility, but also a high standard of ethics and integrity in their public reputation.

In a 2016 evaluation of the effectiveness of excellence theory within the organization, AER achieved one of its highest scores in ethics and integrity. Public Affairs contributed to the organization's success (and public opinion) through communication and professionalism messaging and response.

A 2019 study focused on web, social and internal communications of universities around the world. It concluded that "Research on public relations activities at public universities in the era of public information disclosure has found that public relations activities have well supported public services in accordance with the principles of good governance."

Excellent communication doesn’t have to be academic. While excellence theory provides a good example of the advantages of a consistent internal and external communication approach, do we need to study to understand why that makes sense?

If a company culture has internal communication challenges, is it tough to see how that could impact how the organization communicates externally?

If a company culture is primarily focused on how great they are and how the world needs to listen to them, do you think that could create challenges in how it creates external communications?

If marketing strategies are rooted in ways to overexplain, trick or lecture their audience, what does that say about a culture’s view of their most valuable assets?
​
Finally, if a company culture believes there is mutual benefit to be gained with the public (gaining insights, providing value, building relationships, being transparent, etc.), how can that hurt the organization?

If my mom asked me what type of communication I believe in, I wouldn't want to throw out terms like two-way symmetrical communication, but I'm sure she would be pleased to hear "mutually beneficial."

My wife (who is also in marketing) would be pleased as well.

Imagine you attend an event covering a topic that is very important to you.  Let's also imagine you chose to attend because you were seeking to get something meaningful from it.

Maybe you went because you want to learn something new.
Maybe you went because you want to learn how to take action.
Or maybe you went to get energized about something that means a lot to you

Perhaps you attended the event for all of these reasons.

Yet, while you're there, you have to sit through someone who is there to promote themselves and thinks everyone should be excited about him. 

• Would you pretend to be engaged?
• Would you zone out?
• Would you leave?

After all, this doesn't represent what you want or what you're seeking to find.

In the 1988 film Coming to America, there was a big crowd at a local Black Awareness Event, and you have to think they all wanted something of value from it (including some of the "good stuff" from McDowell's). 

Yet, they had to sit through a musical performance from a local actor who played Joe the Policeman in an episode of That's My Momma. Despite everyone's (minus one big fan) lack of interest, Randy Watson thought everyone should be excited to hear him and his band perform.

Randy is an iconic character from the film, but he also presents us with a great analogy about a common mistake people make in their content strategy.

When Reverend Brown said he had a "special treat" for the audience, they probably expected better.  When users are looking for value online, one of the most frustrating things they experience is clickbait.

In other words, they see a headline that makes them think they found something of interest.

So, they click on the link.

​Then, they're disappointed to find that the content features a company talking about (or frequently linking) to itself or a brand promoting their product.

Randy didn't get the reception he likely thought he would get. So, he thought he could boost the reaction by telling the audience that they looked lovely.

However, it generated the same response.

That didn't stop him from promoting his band and telling people how great they sound:

"They play so fine. Don't you agree?"

While in front of his audience, all Randy managed to do was:

• Use a half-baked compliment to boost response
• Ask if they agreed that his band was great
• Provide them with unoriginal content - singing someone else's song

Then, despite lack of engagement, he stomped his feet and yelled out the name of his band:

"SEXUAL CHOCOLATE!"

At the beginning of his act, the lack of response should've sent a signal that his plan wasn't going to work with his audience.  He could've adjusted and spoke to the them about something they care about or tried something different. Yet, he persisted in making it about him and his band.

A lot of brands will do something like this in their content, and you'll see it on everything from their websites and social media to their emails and blogs.

It's all about them, and they might as well be stomping their feet and screaming the name of their company at you.

Additionally, despite a lack of meaningful amount of clicks, shares and responses, they don't change their strategy.

If that's your strategy, you'll need all the prayers Reverend Brown can give you.

Also check out:

Forbes:  Want To Be Successful With Content Marketing? Teach, Don't Sell

​Forbes: Four Reasons Why Content Marketing Is Hard