Why "start with why" isn't enough for strategists anymore
Before we start, I've just uploaded all past Salmon Crew events over on YouTube, except one we did on burnout which was quite personal for people. This is part of a broader shift to make the events I do more public, and so the recordings are now available publicly too.
Some of my favourites include:
We'll do more Crew-specific formats soon, more news to come on that on our Slack (if you want to join the collective, go here). But for now, let's talk about something else... the why/what/how trinity.
Sinek-cism
For quite some time it's been a bit of a meme among the strategy scene to make fun of Simon Sinek's golden circle. In part, I get it. It was arguably the beginning of purpose being the be-all, end-all, which probably led to a bunch of money being spent by guilty marketers who were trying to convince themselves they weren't just selling toothpaste. Remember those more innocent times?
Anyway, this isn't another hate piece on good ol' Sinek. It's more of a complement to it, to say that yes, we ought to start with why, but the problem is when we obsess with questioning the role of everything and under-obsess with how we actually help make that thing tangible.
In practical terms, it is our role to question things for as long as you possibly can, but sometimes the brief already comes relatively well packaged on a variety of fronts. For example, you already have a brand positioning to work with, a brand platform, identified CEPs, and all you need to do is work out what to do with those things.
Tactical yuckies
I find that a lot of strategists are naturally averse to this, because surely our job isn't to work out the how, that is the creatives' job or – gasp! – someone who's more of a tactician to work out. And look, I get it too. But as clients expect less fully baked master plans and more collaborative exercises between why/what/how, the way we show up ought to change as well. It's commercially necessary.
As a consultant, I now spend far more time thinking about the question of "what is the role of strategy here?", and how the answer keeps changing at different stages of a project. Let me give you an example from a client I've been working with to develop a social strategy, all anonymised ofc otherwise I will get sued to smithereens.
Strats in multiple hats
The role of strategy for the first couple of weeks has been to understand stakeholder realities and vested interests, how different disciplines lock into each other (or don't), and what are the existing fundamental building blocks for the brand and its communications.
Now that we're getting to the final stages of that process, it's quite clear why this project exists and is necessary, and it's even clear what it is we're trying to build for this brand (CEPs, messaging, etc). The question then becomes how that translates into a range of domains that aren't just branding or broadcast advertising communications.
In other words, sure, start with why, move on to what, but make sure you have enough domain expertise to advise clients on the how too. I'm not saying as part of the work I need to develop ideas myself, but making for example core brand messages translatable into the world of social content, GEO, PR storylines etc is super important. And you could argue that it isn't the strategist's job, except in this case it is.
Messiness plus mastery
Knowing about editorial formats, and what works on social, and which codes are on the way out and which codes are on the way in, is how we get more literate at the how of our jobs. How a brand shows up, not just what it is about. And since the consulting market has been so obsessed with brand definition, the reality is there's a huge commercial opportunity to help clients show up in the market in distinct, effective and relatively efficient ways whenever possible.
To do this, we need more oddly shaped strategists who are not afraid to leave frameworks and play in the messy world of culture and even attempt to create stuff themselves as proof of concept for their work. This doesn't mean we all need to become writers or makers in our own right, but in this economy it sure as hell doesn't hurt.
Your mileage will vary (it always does), but this is what I see working for me right now. Clients respond positively to the smooshing of comms and content and social strategy, because let's be real they are all born out of the same question: how do we show up in the market? And those who can offer practical advice, not just nice-sounding, expensive words, are probably the ones who make it out in the end.
Want more like this? Subscribe here:
