A university president once talked with me about leading his marketing and communications team. When I asked if he would consider shortening the title for simplicity, he emphatically declined. For that and other reasons, neither of us seriously considered forming a working partnership.

Later, when I taught marketing at another university, I spent considerable time talking about the relationship between marketing and communications. I never believed the two terms were synonymous or interchangeable, and I drilled into my students the concept that communications comes at the end of the marketing process.

Five years ago I left my position as Vice President of Marketing at United Way. Although communications was part of my portfolio, it always grated on me when my CEO referred to my department as “marketing and communications.” Although I appreciated his thorough description of my team’s role, I also thought he was being unnecessarily redundant.

Half a decade ago, as I began working at the American Red Cross, my new CEO and I had in-depth conversations about expectations, responsibilities and titles. The department I inherited was labeled “community relations,” but to me that sounded too soft and even expendable. I wanted to lead a team focused on bottom line results.

My boss concurred and gave me the freedom to select my own title and choose a new name for my department. To avoid the redundancy of the clunky label “marketing and communications” I opted for the truncated term “marketing.”

That worked well until I became ingrained in the Red Cross culture and slowly realized that within our system marketing and communications are two separate functions. I vividly remember being on disaster assignment and telling an out-of-state co-worker I was responsible for marketing. She asked,”So who does your communications?” I thought she asked a stupid question, but as we talked she helped me to understand how the semantics within the organization might lead to confusion about my role and responsibilities.

In March of this year I attending a training session with Red Cross colleagues whom I hold in highest regard. Part of our conversation touched on the separate Red Cross roles of marketing and communications. Upon returning to the office, I talked with my boss about clarifying my role. Without hesitation, he said, “If you want to change your title and rename your department, you have my complete support.”

So I held my nose and elongated my “marketing” title to “marketing and communications.” Although my responsibilities never changed, I thought of the the new label as a tool to help me better function in dual roles.

Well, that lasted for four months. Then a national reorganization reshaped the existing structure. Across the nation, my counterparts and I were told we’d have to choose between marketing or communications. We were instructed that, in the new scheme, no one would be allowed to do both.

I chose communications.

Now, my official title is Regional Director of Communications | Public Information Officer. In my revised role I continue to be responsible for public relations, media relations, social media and disaster public affairs. The tasks labeled “marketing” are now handled in one of four marketing hubs strategically located throughout the country. The marketers in those hubs have assumed responsibility for advertising, PSAs, direct mail, telemarketing, sales support and the related production of collateral materials.

I do not begrudge the title change. To me, it is more of a change in semantics than in functional responsibilities. I am pleased, though, to be given more freedom to focus on and expand in areas where I feel most passionate while also sloughing off the less enjoyable marketing tasks that I once did (and did well, I might add).

Although the reorganization eliminated marketing from my title, it will never dislodge from me my professional identity as a marketing practitioner. In my book, a marketing mindset will always be required to function effectively as a communicator.

Within the past month, the word “marketing” has been expunged from my business card. Yet I feel a sense of satisfaction as I have held onto that label in my revised my LinkedIn summary. In the professional label just below my name, I no longer list my current job title. Instead, I more accurately describe myself as a “marketing strategist and corporate communicator connecting people with causes bigger than themselves.“

Nationally, the Red Cross has been undergoing a massive, top-to-bottom reorganization that will affect every person affiliated with the organization. The restructuring will reduce expenses and increase revenues, all with a focus on keeping the mission relevant in a rapidly-changing environment. To their credit, our national leaders have openly shared the unfolding changes via e-mails, online videos and frequent conference calls.

Anticipating that my position would be among those eliminated by the end of the summer, I shared the discomforting news with my wife and family. Then, with the clock ticking towards the start of a new fiscal year, I launched an under-the-radar job search. I first revised my resume and LinkedIn profile. With the full understanding and support of my boss, I shifted my networking into a higher gear and sent e-mails to a couple dozen strategically-placed contacts. I was encouraged by their immediate offers to help.

Prior to launching the public phase of my job search, I developed personal business cards, a career-highlights brochure and an assortment of collateral materials to use when the appropriate time came.

My Contingency Blog Posts

Finally, to explain the circumstances of my transition, I wrote a series of three contingency blog posts.

Sometimes I will write a contingency blog post to express ideas I may want to share at a later time. I will then delay publishing my thoughts until circumstances or events trigger my need to publicly share those ideas.

I wrote three such blog posts to describe 1) what happened, 2) the impact of what happened and 3) what I was doing about it. Nothing I wrote was done to vent anger or to seek revenge. Those who know me best understand that I will never burn bridges because I’m usually more focused on the road ahead than on the path I’ve already traveled.

Disappointed that I would likely not be part of the streamlined organization, I concluded my blog posts this way:

Setting aside the personal and painful impact, I can honestly say:

1. I trust the people making these decisions. Led by Gail McGovern, the leadership team is ethical and motivated by a passion to the mission of the Red Cross. Change is never easy, but I admire the transparent way in which Gail and her team have communicated and sought input at every step of the transition. This reorganization was not designed in some dark, smoke-filled room.
2. The Red Cross will ultimately be stronger. Overall, it makes good business sense to do what is being done. At times in the past, the culture of the organization focused too much on process and efficiency and not enough on results and impact.
3. Respect for the Red Cross brand will grow. Years from now I will still love the organization and will always hold my head high as I tell my grandkids that I used to work there, and in my own special way I helped to make the Red Cross what it is today.

I delayed sharing those thoughts until I knew for certain how the reorganization would affect me. I did not want to publish my blog posts until I was ready to launch the public phase of my job search.

The Reorganization Plan

As the impending reorganization continued to take shape, plans were announced to consolidate the staff functions of finance, human resources, information technology, marketing and communications.

Our national president and CEO, Gail McGovern, convened a two-day session of Red Cross leaders from across the country. My boss was among those selected to travel to Washington, D.C. The group’s mission was not to save jobs nor to protect the status quo, but rather to do what was right for the organization.

To oversimplify their discussions, the group recommended that the communications function not be consolidated. Gail listened to this feedback, wrestled with the implications and ultimately modified her plans. That was good news for me and most of my communications colleagues across the country.

The Good News

When the dust settles from the shakeup, we communicators will remain, albeit with job descriptions that have been revised for the better. Needless to say, I was pleased with the unexpected turn of events.

I recently had the opportunity share my thoughts with our national president and CEO. Gail was visiting the disaster relief headquarters in Joplin, Missouri less than a week after the EF-5 tornado destroyed much of that town. That was the first time I’d seen her in person, though I have always been inspired by her charisma, compassion and vision.

I did not seek her out, but Gail walked up to me as I was standing near our public affairs desk. As she and I were standing there face-to face, I briefly expressed my ideas about the reorganization and told her how much I appreciated her leadership and transparency.

A warm smile spread across her tired face. She thanked me, and then reached out with both arms and gave me a big hug.

I’m proud to work in an organization led by someone like her! I am also grateful that I will continue to be a part of the American Red Cross.

In my work, I am most productive when I am surrounded by people who are:

1. Grateful. They are glad to be alive and they find things to be thankful for. With an abundance mindset, they focus on what they have rather than obsessing on their deficits.
2. Strategic. They think before they act. Before succumbing to the gravitational pull of tactics, they think things through in a purposeful way. They wrestle with questions that begin with the word why?
3. Competent. Once they see the big picture and understand why something is important, they know what to do and how to do it.
4. Curious. Curiosity never killed anyone. I love interacting with those who think with a beginner’s mind. They are the antithesis of so-called experts who already know the right (and only) way to do something.
5. Creative. With a curious mind, creative people look at things differently. They see patterns that others miss. They are able to juxtapose existing ideas in a way that creates something new.
6. Innovative. The Harvard professor Theodore Levitt put it this way:  ”Creativity thinks up new things.  Innovation does new things. There is really no shortage of creativity or of creative people in business.  The shortage is of innovators.  The major problem is that so called “creative” people often pass on to others the responsibility for getting down to brass tacks.  They have plenty of ideas but little business-like follow-through.  They themselves are the bottleneck.  They make none of the right kind of effort to help their ideas get a hearing and a try.”

On the other hand…

Occasionally I encounter individuals who drain my energy and erode my effectiveness. They are:

In my 20-plus years of marketing experience, I’ve come to realize that good marketing is based more upon common sense than upon creativity. Though marketing can work wonders, it is not a panacea that will transform failure into success.

As much as I value good marketing, I believe there are times not to launch a marketing campaign. My advice is to delay any marketing activities when:

1. We are unclear what success will actually look like. Without clearly defined goals, we are merely groping in the dark, hoping to grasp something—anything—of value.
2. We feel compelled to act before we think. In our fast-paced world, we will always experience the strong gravitational pull of urgency. Focusing on what is urgent, though, will often entice us to overlook strategy and jump prematurely into tactics.
3. We want to begin with communications. A good marketing process ends with communications but that’s never a good place to begin.
4. We focus on obstacles rather than opportunities. Though we must always understand reality, we will never leave the starting blocks if we focus on the hurdles between us and the finish line.
5. We have no champion for the product or service. We may all agree that a particular program is important, but unless someone with passion assumes ownership of the program’s success, it will flounder. Of course, marketers will be the easy targets of those who need to blame someone for a product’s failure.
6. We believe everything will be okay if only we can “get the word out.” I cannot be more emphatic in stating this: raising awareness is not a marketing goal.
7. We talk more than we listen. Marketing success on a 2.0 world is all about having conversations, not trying to speak louder.
8. We are unable to profile a target audience. Only the naive believe there really is such a thing as the “general public.” We are headed towards marketing failure if we neglect to define a primary audience. After all, to target everyone is to hit no one.
9. We ignore the concept of marketing exchanges. Marketing is based upon the premise that we must build win-win relationships where we exchange value for value. Marketing is never a one-way transaction.
10. We cannot differentiate our product or service. If we don’t know who our competitors are, and if we cannot articulate how we are different and better, then my advice is simple:  Turn off the lights, lock the door and go home. The party is over.

Our national headquarters in Washington D.C. is staffed by a solid team of marketing and communications leaders who “know their stuff.”

Though I’ve only exchanged e-mails with our national president and CEO, Gail McGovern, I have great confidence in her leadership. I’m also proud of the fact that she left her position as a marketing professor at Harvard University to become our national leader. How cool is that!

Gail is surrounded by professionals who have a lot to share. I mostly interact with those who work in marketing, communications, public affairs and financial development.

Nationally, the Red Cross is becoming one seamless organization, much more so than any other major nonprofit I’m familiar with. I am pleased that our process of becoming “one Red Cross” does not feel like a top-down, dictatorial directive. Rather, it’s a highly-interactive process led by our national leaders. We connect using frequent conference calls, webinars and training sessions. Project leaders solicit considerable input from the field.

As we move forward, I’m eager to continue interacting with people I like and respect.

Conversations require interaction where people talk and listen. Maybe I’m missing something, but I observe a lot more talking than listening. It seems everyone has something to say and everyone is clamoring to be heard. To me, it looks like the talkers far outnumber the listeners.

Was I mistaken to assume that things would be different with the arrival of the social media revolution? Am I naive in thinking that people would connect with each other because 1) they were genuinely interested in what others had to say and 2) they actually had something of value to share?

As we interact, as we share information, we connect with each other. Social media give us the tools to connect and converse. Sometimes during our conversations we’ll encounter negative or inaccurate information. Does that mean we should immediately end the conversation? Should we refuse to talk because the conversation may be a little awkward or uncomfortable? Absolutely not!

Using social media, we can correct inaccurate information real time. We can connect with those who may have had a negative experience with our company’s service or product. We can deliberately choose to join conversations to gain understanding (listening) and to offer understanding (talking).

Wrong information conveyed through social media can be self-correcting. For example, I’ve actually watched as people on Twitter debunked a wild, salacious rumor of a celebrity’s death—all in less than 10 minutes. That’s powerful! The power came as people were not only willing to listen, but also to join the conversation.

Not everyone understands the new world we live in. Whether you like it or not, there really aren’t many places to hide. In our new 2.0 world we’ll never win by ignoring negative comments or by hiding in the shadows. No longer can we keep people from saying less-than-flattering things about us, especially if they’re true. (In reality, we never could.) Previously, though, we often didn’t know what people were saying behind our back. Today, we have an advantage because social media empower us to join conversations—real time.

Conversations are going to happen, with or without you. The real winners are those who recognize that the social media revolution has ushered in a new era of transparency, accountability and authenticity.

Recently the CEO of a major nonprofit expressed anxiety about a blog post that shined a flashlight in the direction of his organization. Some major decisions made by that organization affected a lot of people, yet the nonprofit was reluctant to be transparent in how those decisions were made. And why.

Rather than joining the conversation, the CEO hoped to exert political muscle and silence any communications that might reflect negatively on his organization. That might have worked 10 years ago. Today, such a tactic is naive and will ultimately backfire.

Any nonprofit must be open and transparent in all of its operations. Donors will appreciate having interactive conversations about how their contributions are being invested. Anything short of an authentic conversation will give an appearance of arrogance or perhaps even leave the impression that the organization is out of touch with reality.

A friend recently gave me the book Marketing in the Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff. The book is quick read, yet full of practical wisdom, tips for success and real-life examples. I hope you buy the book, but to whet your appetite I’ll share here the three steps to marketing success as outlined by the authors:

1. Listening. It goes without saying that any good conversationalist is first a good listener. Listening deeply produces insights that cannot be gained by market research or other traditional forms of gathering information.
2. Talking. In the past, marketers have used traditional media to shout at mass audiences. Today, we marketers are most effective when we don’t try to control the conversations, but rather join them and realize that we are having an ongoing dialogue with a real, live human being.
3. Engaging. People feel engaged when they feel ownership of something, when they know that they play a vital role in influencing the outcome of something. Volunteers and donors give of their time and money when they’ve been heard and when they feel like someone is talking with them in their language.

It’s all about conversations. Let’s talk.

But what does “2.0” mean? How are things different now than they were before? What has changed?

For starters, let’s agree that the social media revolution has created an entirely new landscape—a 2.0 world. The changes are so profound that those who do not understand it will soon find themselves on the sidelines, confused and perhaps even angry that the world has passed them by.

The social media revolution is really not that confusing. The more we understand and embrace the changes, the more powerful social media will become. Here is my brief comparison of the differences I see between a 1.0 and a 2.0 world:

Let’s look at the nuances between the two.

1. Audience vs. Community. What’s the difference between an audience and a community? The direction the chairs are facing. A community is much more connected and interactive than is an audience.
2. Broadcast vs. Conversation. A broadcast pushes information outward from a centralized communications hub. Conversations, on the other hand, rely on user-generated content. The best conversations are those that are decentralized. They tap into the collective wisdom of all the participants.
3. Traditional vs. Social Media. Traditionally, information was broadcast from a central hub to an attentive audience. In a 1.0 world, the major media were newspapers, radio and television. Today, in the new 2.0 world, communities have decentralized conversations among themselves. They share user-generated content on Facebook, in blogs, through Twitter, on YouTube and via an endless variety of social media.

My favorite illustration contrasting the 1.0 and 2.0 worlds is this:

Fireworks come from a centralized source. A fireworks show is designed to dazzle an adoring audience. The role of the audience is to watch and be impressed.

A campfire, on the other hand, represents a warm, inviting place where people gather to tell stories, sing songs, swap jokes, share family photos and talk about various topics of mutual interest. The content of campfire conversations is user-generated.

Fortunately, there is a place for both fireworks and campfires. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Traditional and social media will coexist and actually complement each other.

Those who prosper and succeed in the 2.0 world will be those who understand that it’s all about having conversations within communities. With that in mind, I’d love to have you join me here around the campfire as we have a cup of hot coffee and reminisce about “the good old days” when we once lived in the less-colorful 1.0 world.

Welcome to our new 2.0 reality.

A critical mass of people has joined the revolution. Their enthusiasm has prompted them to talk about their “social media strategy.”

There is nothing strategic, though, about either movable type or social media. Both are tools—means to an end. They are inventions that help people communicate quicker and better.

At first, I loved the phrase “social media strategy” because my mantra has always been strategy before tactics.

I’ve often criticized people who act before they think. I have little patience for people who try to communicate without first asking themselves some very basic questions.

Non-strategic communicators don’t really communicate. They just make noise. They write news releases without knowing why. They produce brochures without having a target audience in mind. They bore us with PowerPoint presentations because they have not given thought to what they want us to do with the heap of meaningless, irrelevant information they’ve just dumped on us.

Just because we’ve moved into a 2.0 world doesn’t mean things have changed much. The proliferation of noise continues. People tweet without having a clue who they’re talking to. Too many bloggers ramble on without thinking things through.  Nonprofits create Facebook fan pages with no real understanding of why. We live in a world where too many tactics are not tied to a strategy, so the clutter and confusion accumulates.

Here’s a bold statement:  You will never make an impact without first having a strategy. I’m also convinced you will never be an effective communicator until you’ve first engaged in some serious thinking and done some thoughtful planning.

So how does one become strategic? How does one become an effective strategic communicator? I can answer that in three words:

Ask good questions!

To the simple minded, that may appear too simplistic. To the strategic and innovate people who regularly read this blog, you already know what I’m talking about. You instinctively get it. You’re already asking good questions.

Here are some basic questions, though, that will guide any communicator who wants to begin with strategy and before moving to tactics:

1. Why are we doing this? What are we hoping to achieve? What’s our purpose?
2. Who are we trying to communicate with? Who is our primary audience? Secondary audiences?
3. What do we want our primary audience to do with the information we share? Do we have a clearly-defined call to action?
4. What is our core message? Can we say it in one sentence? In 140 characters?
5. What are the most effective vehicles for communication with the target audience? What media are most appropriate? How can we integrate the traditional and social media?

Those questions should be asked in that sequence if you intend to put strategy before tactics. If, for example, you begin with questions #5, then you’re too tactical. You’re doing before you’re thinking.

In a 2.0 world, people often believe they are being strategic just because they are using the latest technology or because they own the coolest gadget. That’s nerdy, not strategic.

Don’t get me wrong. I love technology. I often have gadget envy. And I’m a huge proponent of social media.

I hope we learn to use social media for all its worth, both on a personal and a professional level. But let’s not forget that it’s just technology. It works best if you first have a strategic mindset.

You become strategic by first thinking and then doing. The best way to be thoughtful and purposeful in using social media (or even movable type) is to first ask good questions.

That’s it:  Ask good questions!

What questions are you using to challenge yourself and others?

That’s an impressive title, but what does it mean? What does he really do? What impact does he actually make?

In seven words on LinkedIn, Mark summarizes his job as “helping you find the information you need.”

I really like that “job description” for three reasons:

1. It’s simple. I can understand it without having to translate industry jargon.
2. It’s differentiating. It really describes what he does, not what his company or co-workers do.
3. It’s outwardly focused. He describes what he does for others. He focuses on the benefits he provides, not the process involved.

Recently I stumbled into a LinkedIn discussion that challenged members within a nonprofit group to “describe what you do in seven words or less.” Here are several comments that caught my eye:

•  Help nonprofits tell stories that energize stakeholders. —copywriter
•  Find funding. Write proposals. Manage programs. —consultant
•  Tell Oklahoma’s story through its people. —fundraiser
•  Help kids fight cancer. —marketer
•  Give Nepali children a fair chance. —board chair
•  Help military members adopt adult shelter pets. —executive director
•  Give male survivors of sexual abuse hope. —IT specialist
•  Help mature displaced workers find jobs. —job counselor
•  Bring citizens together to enjoy the arts. —fundraiser
•  Help bereaved children and families manage grief. —marketer
•  Create publications that inspire people to action. —graphic designer

Granted, not all these  comments are 1) simple, 2) differentiating and 3) outwardly focused. Yet they are intriguing and better than most job descriptions. Here are a few, though, that did nothing for me. They were a meaningless mix of mundane words, process-focused phrases or tired clichés:

•  Help others realize their dreams and goals.
•  Beg for money—lots of money.
•  Raise funds to help dreams come true.
•  Raise money and awareness to change lives.
•  Shout out our message to the world.

I challenge you think about the work you do and the impact you have on others. Then, describe your job in seven words or less. That’s a tough assignment. I’m still crafting my seven-word job description.

I’ll close, though, with one that is close to my heart. My son, Greg, is an elementary school teacher who says his work is “helping children discover, learn and grown.”

So what do you?

All relief efforts—regardless of the disaster size—transition through four distinct phases. Anticipating how a relief effort will unfold helps us better serve those affected by the disaster.

Each stage of recovery demands a specific type of public affairs response. (In case you’re unfamiliar with that term, “public affairs” is used by the military, government agencies and the American Red Cross to describe public relations, communications and media relations.)

The American Red Cross recognizes that our disaster relief unfolds in the following stages:

1. Heroic Phase.
2. Honeymoon Phase.
3. Disillusionment Phase.
4. Reconstruction Phase.

What happens in each phase? What should we anticipate as each unfolds? How do public expectations change? How should our communications strategy shift in each phase?

1. Heroic Phase.

This occurs immediately after a disaster strikes. The community is often shell-shocked and in dire need of basic emergency needs such as food and shelter.

The Red Cross is already in place and providing services immediately after the disaster. Therefore, we are seen as being heroes in the community, just as fire and emergency personnel are perceived as being heroes.

In public affairs, we have a twofold message in the heroic phase. First, we want to assure the public that we are there. We want people to know that the Red Cross is on the scene providing immediate relief. Second, we want to inform those affected by the disaster how they can GET help.

2. Honeymoon Phase.

This stage occurs in the first few days after the disaster. Usually it carries with it a great deal of public support and media coverage. This is also the time when we receive the most praise from public officials.

Fundraising and volunteer recruitment are easiest in the honeymoon phase.

In addition to helping people know how to GET help, in this phase the messages expand to help people know how to GIVE help (and also how NOT to help). Individuals want to volunteer, and people are looking for ways to contribute money or donate in-kind items such as clothes, food or water.

While it is useful to capitalize on the goodwill of the public during this phase, we must also be careful not to get carried away. Our public affairs work must help manage public expectations about the kinds and amounts of services that we provide.

3. Disillusionment Phase.

By this time, the community and survivors are getting tired. They are being worn thin by the stress of the ongoing recovery efforts.

People sometimes begin to question Red Cross and its service delivery, fundraising methods or community partnerships. During this phase, media, elected officials, partners or the general public are more apt to vocalize criticism.

It is very important for us to closely monitor the mood of the community and to stay abreast of changes in the operation. We must be fully prepared to explain any changes in service delivery.

Disillusionment will likely be expressed first in the social media. This is the phase when we must listen to what people are blogging or tweeting. We must join their conversations by commenting on blogs, using Facebook to address concerns and tweeting to correct misinformation and disseminate accurate information.

4. Reconstruction Phase.

This is the long-term phase of the disaster where we must manage the expectations of the public regarding the ongoing recovery process. By now, the news media will likely have shifted their focus somewhere else. Likewise, the public’s attention moves from Red Cross services to the work of our partners. At this stage, it is important to help people understand the difference between our services and those of our partners.

In the timeline following a disaster, the relief effort transitions through these four distinct, yet overlapping phases. Our communications changes in each phase, yet we remain anchored to our fundamental Red Cross message—We Are There!