The failure or communications to think and act long term

I was having drinks with a friend the other night and she mentioned something at work that made her both angry as heck and sick to her stomach. "The names have been changed to protect the wishy washy." She was faced with a looming problem where a product was due to be issued and no one on the product team would commit to having the product ready but still insisted that the product be ready to go public by a certain date to meet quarterly goals. Well the date came closer and closer and it still wasn't ready.

At some point, the point of no return was reached and analysts had to be briefed as did long lead publications. My friend made the recommendation to her bosses that they hold off briefing anyone until the product was ready. The answer was no and that they will be ready there was no need to wait. So as instructed there were some initial briefings and they all went rather coolly since it was obvious that the product was not quite ready. This lead to a strong back lash and discord with in the organization since the product people felt that they were not told there would be such negative backlash and they wished to know why they were lead down the wrong road.

Now I am sure everyone who has worked in communications for more than a day can feel the anger and dissatisfaction of being blamed for doing what you're told. We all know this happens all the time. But I told my friend that a lot of the blame really belonged to her, and the rest of her team involved in this. I did not intend for this to be as harsh as it may sound but it is something that I truly believe.

The greatest error committed here was that the product team was given control over the timetable of communications. There is a need for communications people to maintain control over the communications process in order for the product to properly be delivered to the market. Granted, this is not something that needs to be arbitrary or exclusionary, but it does need to be driven and ultimately controlled by the communications team.

The fundamental problem here as I saw it was that the communications team did not seek to develop a program which benefited the organization and brand above all else. Nor did it think about the aforementioned brand in anything but the short term. Rather, only the immediate and short term was given any thought and any long term vision was subverted. Needless to say the result was chaos. Also, the communications team did not make their expertise a deciding factor in the debate. They allowed external parties to control the entire situation and their unwillingness to stand up for what they believed to be right caused the problem in question.

So what should communications people do? It seems quite simple, they need to do what they are getting paid to do. That is not to make people happy per se, it is to see that the brand is being supported by a clear and consistent communications program. The path of least resistance is one which will always lead to headache and misfortune. There will be times when we communications people will have to assume a strong position and say what we think. We may not come out on top in each discussion, but the point is that we make our best effort and help those who do not know or understand communications properly make the most properly informed decision.