John suggests that the difference between his and Todd’s view may be one of semantics — a difference of opinion as to what I mean by ‘nuanced’.
Courtesy of Dictionary.com:
n : a subtle difference in meaning or opinion or attitude; “without understanding the finer nuances you can’t enjoy the humor”; “don’t argue about shades of meaning” [syn: nicety, shade, subtlety, refinement]
Both John and Todd are right and both are wrong.
There IS no difference, as I see it, between having a communication piece that appeals to or creates unconscious recognition (pereferably positive) in a recipient and having a comms piece that is subtle — AS LONG AS the comms piece achieves its strategically-directed aim.
Todd refers specifically to John’s consideration of my idea regarding his own special area of interest, PR, and highlights the risk of the message being tossed out with the bathwater if it is not focused enough.
I totally agree, Todd — that can happen not just in PR-led initiatives but in ANY communication. The same applies with a communicator — a personable, agreeable and just plain ‘nice’ communicator might be a joy to watch on stage, but unless they focus on the message the message will be lost in the ‘noise’.
My view is more holistic than just PR — whether we are sending out comms pieces, whether we are standing in front of a microphone, camera or audience of thousands, whether we are designing a shop-front sign — we should be very much aware of the environment that surrounds us AND the type of recipient we want our message to appeal to.
By offering the target recipient more unconscious ‘hooks’ to persuade them to act in a way you want them to act, you are creating a slightly better nuanced communication.
Thanks, guys, for making this conversation such a joy to be part of!