A couple of years ago I went to a conference by the teacher Norberto Chaves that forever changed my vision of the communicator's work. Norberto said: “ the communicator does not have to have style. If you want to have style, become artists ”. Hard-hitting and brilliant phrase that I made mine as soon as I heard it and that I want to take as a trigger for this text.
Every year I go to the “El Ojo de Iberoamérica” advertising festival and I love to spend hours and hours watching the short list. Sometimes it happens to me that, after seeing several pieces, I can discover which agency made it. I notice the hand, the line, the repetition of a formula, a "cliché detail". And at that moment I feel that they made a mistake, because if I see the advertiser I don't see the brand, which is ultimately the true issuer and the only one that should be talking.
The profession of the communicator is a difficult activity because our objective is to go unnoticed. After all, we make messages that are not ours, we do not say them, nor are they for us. However, many times the communicator (and I include all those who carry out a projective activity) make themselves openly noticed through styles, formulas, theories, laws, fashions… egos.
For example, in advertising there are many laws or fads: you have to make people laugh (then the activity of the advertiser is to tell jokes); or there is filming in black and white and in slow-motion; or you have to use models that are nosy and a little freaks; or you have to do kitchs, “babasónicas” or eighties aesthetics; Or you have to come up with 3D dolls that are super cool and ironic because now all brands have to have their "Mama Luchetti", etc.
The same happens when a graphic designer falls in love with a typeface, color, stroke, and wants to fit all his clients regardless of whether they are oil or geriatric; or when a Dircom “marries” the 2.0 universe and wants all the companies in the world to open their Facebook page and chat with their customers.
My dear Krishnamurti, great sage, affirms that " men of good will should not have formulas." And I think this applies to the communicator, because as the other teacher, Norberto Chaves, says, " communication is a practice without laws."
In my communication seminars I usually ask attendees to tell me what they think are the keys to effective communication. They almost always point out that it must be "clear" and "empathetic". These "dogmatic a prioris" seem wrong to me because they overlook the fact that the communicator's goals are infinite and therefore action cannot be limited to a handful of rules. For example, if I am hired by a Minister of the Economy to prepare a speech so that his audience does not understand anything and believes that what he is saying is super complex, I will have to design a communication that is ambiguous, full of technicalities and hideously confusing. Or if a leader hires me to mark territory in strong negotiation with an aggressive person,effective communication will be one that manages to emotionally break the other by force of insults or arrogance.
In other words, effective communication is not always achieved by being clear, empathetic and pleasant. Sometimes you have to be the opposite. Therefore I consider that it is positive to approach the practice devoid of prejudices and styles. I quote Krishnamurti again: “ A cup is only useful when it is empty. A mind full of beliefs, dogmas and affirmations is not really a creative mind, all it does is repeat. You have to develop the ability to face things in a new way, from moment to moment. ”
It is a difficult challenge because in our office of communicators the custom of promulgating creeds and imposing faith in dogmas persists. But collective solutions are usually inadequate because our activity consists of making artisanal, personal messages, tailored to each issuer, which is always unique and with specific codes.
Effective communication is achieved when we detach ourselves, minimize the ego, empty ourselves of style, go unnoticed and let ourselves see only the issuer's codes. It is like the profession of an actor: his work becomes really wonderful when the person disappears behind the character on stage, when we do not see a 35-year-old Argentine actor but an 80-year-old military man who lives in the time of the tsars.
At university I always do an exercise to illustrate this point: I ask students to tell me which companies they would like to run an advertising campaign for. They usually choose the same ones: Nike, Apple or Pepsi. Then I ask them why they chose them and the answer is usually "because we like them."
What determines that taste? I think you generally like what suits you, even masochists. And in this case, convenience is given by ease. My students, who are of a certain age and cultural consumption, like to think of an advertisement for Nike because there is a very high degree of correspondence between them and the brand. They are, to a certain extent, that brand, they have their codes incorporated, and to make them speak it is enough that they themselves speak. There is no effort, you do not have to put yourself in the other's place, you do not have to acquire new codes.
Emptying is difficult. It is easier to take over a style and repeat it. But let's think that an actor acting as himself very quickly runs out of work: he can only play one type of character: himself. And this is dangerous if you want to earn a living by acting or communicating, which is almost the same.
