My mother wouldn’t buy us Kraft cheese singles, because, she told us, “It has all the nutritional value of a roll of toilet paper.”
Similarly, I warned Writing Boots readers earlier this year about the Axios Communicators newsletter, and why it is “worse than nothing.” Now I feel I went too easy.
An issue last week focused on my corner of the communication business, executive communication.
The main story leaned like a drunk to a lampost on a brainless study of trends in executive speaking by a company that produces “event management software.” What would they know about executive communication? Things like this: “Half of planners also say that attendee engagement is one of the three most important gauges for success.”
The next story quoted inexplicably unnamed “executive communication experts Axios spoke with,” demonstrating their magnificent grasp of the obvious: “Establish expectations for every speaking engagement, conference or event before making a commitment.” On second thought, no wonder they don’t want attribution.
And finally, the piece quoted Leigh Gallager, a senior manager at the management consultancy Teneo, as saying: “Yes, [events] present an opportunity for executives to share a corporate narrative or any critical messaging, but there’s also a benefit in showing that a CEO is accessible, relatable and capable of answering questions in a live setting. Audiences want to witness authentic moments, so it can be an effective way for leaders to raise their profile by being seen, heard and getting their message across in what is often perceived as a more off-the-cuff way.”
Gallager is implying that rather than hear a long, boring speech, audiences would prefer “authentic moments,” like “off-the-cuff” conversation.
And since Axios would never, could never, contradict one of its sources or even push them to defend their pink-slime bromides, it’s down to me to ask Gallager, rhetorically: Is it that audiences don’t prefer leaders who can share fresh points of view powerfully through sustained oratory? Or is it that they’ve been trained by experience to expect that CEOs’ speeches will be tedious parades of platitudes. In which case, yeah, they’d rather see the executive shamble verbally without a net, than with one.
I like a fireside chat as much as the next conference organizer and conference speaker. They’re easy.
But the only ideas I remember after 30 years of organizing and attending conferences, came from great speeches. And I remember plenty.
“Do you remember that brilliant panel discussion, back in 2003?” said no one ever—adding, “Do you remember that meaningful article, from Axios?”
Well you told them! And I definitely will remember your reference to “slimes pink bromides” and the “drunk leaning against the lamp post” imagery!
I don’t remember what was said in fireside chats, but I do remember zingers that I’ve read from David Murray’s wicked pen, sometimes years later.
I made clear that I’m no fan of Axios at last year’s PSA World Conference. Their “Smart Brevity” process is built on a disingenuous analysis of a research paper from the University of Maryland (which is obscure and hard to find, but I tracked down and read).
Axios’s Communicators newsletter operates on the same principles that Politico used to build its readership, but worse. Axios offers, as David puts it so eloquently, “pink-slime bromides” and then name-checks as many communications people as it can in a People on the Move-style section. They’re appealing to the vanity of communications professionals just to build awareness to its overpriced Smart Brevity software.
Esquire columnist Charles Pierce labeled Politico “Tiger Beat on the Potomac” for its fawning treatment of D.C. powerbrokers, and Axiom is similarly emulating Tiger Beat’s business model.
Thanks, Kathleen.
And well said, Dean. One thing that makes me so mad about this is that the damned thing has an opportunity to replace what used to be a robust trade press in the comms world, back when Ragan, O’Dwyers, PR News and others actually reported on this business in a smart, critical-minded way that actually yielded insights.
But no. Just TP content, to add to the vapidity that fills LinkedIn. We are DYING for ideas and DYING for collegial debate. And most of us don’t even seem to realize those things are missing.