The Spokesperson’s Voice v. Reviewing Quotes

I saw two articles last week that underscore the value of consistent, ongoing practice for spokespersons.

The first was a piece on social media in the Atlantic that emphasizes the importance of finding and expressing a brand’s “voice” on Facebook, Twitter and other sites.  Author Alexis Madrigal  points out that “voice is hard” and that the company he highlights has found it “by hiring a young person who is living the brand.”  (That person, by the way, is my son, which is how the article came to my attention.)

The concept of “voice” is also critical in training and coaching.  I often say our job is to help develop the communicator’s voice — and by that I mean a combination of tone and content — to be clear, forceful, credible, attractive, constantly on message and consistently representative of the brand.  This is a tall order, particularly in the complicated, fragmented communications world today.  That’s why training and coaching are actually an imperative.

The second was Washington Post ombudsman Patrick B. Pexton’s piece on 7/29 decrying the willingness of some journalists to share stories and quotes with sources and organizations being covered for their approval.  This is a much-prized ability for those of us in PR, but we know that for the most part journalists and their news organizations simply do not (and according to Pexton, should not) accept efforts to shape or change story content after the interview.  I call that fixing on the back end rather than on the front end.

And that’s my point.  When the spokesperson’s voice is clear and true, it significantly lowers the need for back end repair — at least where quotes are concerned.  Clearly, whole stories are more complex, with interplay among facts, comments and point of view.  But communicator voice will always have a big impact.