Shoot the messenger anywhere except in the head

I never understood fully what was meant by the term 'chase' until I started working on a recent big project taken on by Total Exposure. My first impression of the term was that - as a content producer - a certain amount of copy, image and video chasing had to be done in order to retrieve it from the various sources. Once that is done, the content is packaged and sent off to media channels who agree to use it.

A pretty simple process, no? More or less like the copy flow on any newsdesk (i.e. from the reporter/wire into copytasting, then into subs, then revise, then ready for page). But this is the mechanical gatekeeping process in which content is basically shoveled from one filter to the next, with certain selection policies in mind.

From a publicity perspective, content production largely forms part of the first step of that overall gatekeeping routine, and within that first step there is a portion constituting an expanse of messy human interaction involving curt or otherwise vague responses, corrupted video files, inbox-jamming images and whack unedited writing from listless freelancers.

'Chasing', in this sense, could mean sourcing and executing delivery from those sources in time to meet the deadlines of the other media representatives that you, in turn, are the source of. If you aren't seeing how messy this is, stick around.

About a month-and-a-half ago I began this big project by acquainting myself with the various people I needed to get content from to supply to the other parties involved in the communication merry-go-round. The first step (as always) was to establish telephone and email contact. Step two was sorting the email addresses into mailing lists/groups to ensure the correct people receive information that is relevant to them- to keep them in the loop, so to speak.

Step three was to adopt a tone for these emails that reflected not only the directness necessary for the back-and-forth slog but also one that affirmed the acceptance of email as the primary means of communication, hence a response time of no more than 45 minutes. Step four, I think, entailed devising a process of retrieval from these sources, i.e. creating deadlines on which content is taken from the source and stored appropriately for simple re-sourcing. Step five would then be to re-source accordingly- supply only that which is asked for to the people who asked for it.

Now the cause for concern - dealing-with-people wise - arises somewhere between the beginning of step two and the end of step four. My first criticism of this procedure is that within the creation of mailing lists/email groups lies the risk of inadvertently excluding relevant people or including irrelevant people in particular instances, which leads to post-send regret. Should I have cc'd the client's marketing manager on what - at second glance - seems to be a snotty email to the programming coordinator?

This leads to the bottomless hole of questions surrounding tone. What I see as a direct, professional tone others might read as just plain rude or, even worse, arrogant, especially when considering the stuffiness created by the 'no-more-than-45-minute' response policy. Content retrieval (step 4) then becomes increasingly difficult where people, because of this 'directness', retract into a state of rejection. Why should I give him what he wants if he's being so outwardly demanding?

The integration or at least smooth transition between steps three and four determine whether the content will ultimately reach its desired destination in its intended form. One solution may be to adopt a tone that primes the recipient for delivery, that is, letting him/her know what process you have in mind for retrieval and if that's not agreeable work out a process that would suit all parties involved through discussion.

However, this discussion in itself requires a certain tone and the ability to initiate an agenda as emotionally neutral as possible. This said, is a good communicator one that is able to set an agreeable agenda from the outset, or one who adopts a flexible agenda-setting policy where the intentions and emotions of all involved parties are taken into consideration and dealt with accordingly?

Not too long ago I read a piece on how email is a dying form of communication. (Would have linked it but can't remember where it appeared and didn't bookmark it). As you might guess, it was written or at least endorsed by a Web 2.0 guru of some sorts so it was heavily skewed in that direction. Basically, what it argued was that social media takes the tone and back-and-forth agony out of communication by firstly enabling those involved in the communication to know each other better and secondly create a platform for 'softer' interaction that accounts for human emotion.

This may be true to a certain degree but, as discussed a few posts ago, email may still be the tool to use for agenda-setting agency speak. Besides, where would the elusive chasing game be without good old email?

Kind regards,
Ahmed Patel