Originally posted on Cut Out and Keep.

We spend a lot of time talking about “conversations” in our industry. But what is a conversation exactly?

At it’s simplest it’s a dialogue between two or more people; but of course, there’s more to it than that. What makes the dialogue possible are two things: first, a shared interest and second, a willingness amongst the participants to accept that they don’t have all the answers.

It’s the acceptance we don’t – and can’t – know it all that’s the crucial bit. Without it, the conversation becomes a lecture, or, even worse, a quarrel.

Brands need to be willing to take part in conversations to tell their stories. A broadcast approach alone simply doesn’t cut it anymore. But doing this successfully means being prepared to admit your limitations and fallibility. Or, to put it another way, to show your humanity.

For brands used to controlling every aspect of their reputation (or at least believing they’re in control) this represents a major change and the stakes are high. There are implications for the brand profile and the culture of the organisation behind it. The change required shouldn’t be underestimated.

So the decision to change the way a brand tells its story and engage with people directly and personally shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Nevertheless, I’d still argue that the risks of not making the change are far greater, not least due to the opportunities that will be missed.

Over the past five years at Edelman we’ve seen “transparency”, “honesty” and “trustworthy behaviour” rise up the rankings to become the most important factors for the public in determining a brand’s reputation.

I still argue that taking part in conversation is a choice rather than an imperative. But to not do so, and to not be prepared to reveal some humanity, surely means more than missing out.

Image credit: Matt Hamm