There is nothing worse than mediocrity except, perhaps, hollowmediocrity.
Let me explain. I was reading an archived entry in copyblogger.comon a recent flight. The subject: how to be more interesting.Everybody wants to be more interesting, right? Try producing a newsWeb site and magazine that covers financial services.
So I'm reading this blog at 30,000 feet-hard copy mind you; if it'smore than a few hundred words, I have to go old school-and JonathanMorrow offers 21 ways to be more interesting. At the same time I'mthinking interesting doesn't seem to be something you can readabout and learn, but then, I'm reading this, so am I thatuninteresting to myself, and the self-esteem goes downhill fromthere. But, I digress.
His first advice is to “be wrong.” Grabs your attention, doesn'tit? That's his point.
Morrow said that doing the right thing has become so pass? thatpeople are bored by it. Again, it stirs up a feeling inside youthat he cannot be right and had a deeply depressing childhood to beso cynical. If his view is reality, we're all out ofbusiness-credit unions and journalists. Not to mention thePollyannas among us would assume the window seat on the exit row ofthe plane just to take a flying leap.
Morrow's reasoning is that you have to have courage to be wrong,and then people will pay attention to you. The courage topotentially be wrong-to make a prediction that may not come true orto state an opinion that half your readership thinks ishorsefeathers-takes some guts. However, to intentionally be wrongmerely to draw attention to yourself rings hollow and annihilatesyour credibility. That's like approving every loan that comes inthe door just to draw attention to your credit union. The noveltywould buy you fleeting attention, but is it the attention youwant?
The Internet is a powerful tool. Bloggers have a very seriousresponsibility many do not fully comprehend. The up-and-cominggeneration does not know a world without blogs and treats them asnews sources. I follow some, and they're very useful, but for everytruly informative one, there are hundreds of others spouting offopinion and rumor as fact.
A large chunk of the problem for journalists and credit unions bothis the fickle impulsiveness of modern society and the ubiquitousInternet or bank's ability to deliver information. Consumers justwant to consume. What's here and now rather than what's actuallyworth knowing. How many consumers have followed the creditcrisis?
How many have followed Paris Hilton's latest fling and not missedan episode of “Survivor”?
The parallel for credit unions was the availability of first- andsecond-mortgage combos that got buyers away from making thetraditional 20% down payment or the ARMs that immediately gaveborrowers a much smaller mortgage payment. They weren't worriedabout the significant jump in payments three years down the road;they planned to refinance by then anyway. Three years later, ifyour house is worth 75% of what it originally appraised for, youmay not be able to refinance. Or if you've had a pay cut or jobloss, which is all due to that easy credit available three yearsago.
All credit unions felt the pressure of the competition and some gotaway from their core as directors and management salivated over thegrowth and gains these products of urgency brought.
Oddly enough, No. 2 on Morrow's list was to gain attention by being“more right” than anyone else. This suits Credit Union Times justfine. This ethos works for credit unions, too. Credit unionsoutperform CRA-covered banks every year according to HMDA data inserving minorities and other underserved people. Include all ofcredit unions' efforts benefiting Children's Miracle Network andother charities and another industry could hardly be moreright.
Another highly predictable suggestion of Morrow's for garneringattention: post pictures of half-naked women. This is one of thelast generally accepted discriminations. I'd love to see thecomments from our readership if we tried this tactic. Fortunately,we work in substantive jobs serving a substantive industry, but westill feel the typical competitive pressures. We live in a world ofsearch engine optimization, Google analytics and the firing of awell-known Washington Post columnist after a drop in Webtraffic.
I can scream until I'm hoarse about the intangibles of journalism,like double checking facts and sourcing information to ensure it'sright. I can rant about the bastardization of proper writing in anage of texting and Twitter.
Credit union executives can jump up and down telling their membersto take our auto loan rather than the 0% the dealer is offeringbecause it's better for you in the long run. They can explain to a20-something that he or she needs to save for retirement, but thatwon't sate the need for a flat screen TV now.
Of course by writing about this very blog, I realize I'm fallinginto Jonathan Morrow's passive-aggressive trap. And he made somegood, if generic, points (make people laugh, do something, put yourreader first). His other points I commented on irritate me to noend, but unfortunately he's right. Those tactics work.
We all need to face reality. The trick is a volatile balancing actbetween what your members want and what your members actually need.If you aren't serving your members the way they want to be served,someone else will.
–Comments? E-mail [email protected]