The safest language in the world?

Corporate communications can be pretty dull at the best of times.

The controls that firms put in place around external communications are predicated on the need to stop something terrible happening, rather than on the need to start something wonderful happening. They’re about being safe, and the price of safety is usually the removal of anything remotely interesting. And so we get lots of “we’re focused on delivering the best outcomes to our customers”, and that sort of thing. Safe. Predictable. Laudable, of course. But dull.

It’s a situation that’s bad enough under normal circumstances, but when two firms come together – as they do frequently in today’s rapidly consolidating consulting market – the whole thing moves on to another level. Suddenly you’ve got a situation in which each firm is trying to play it safe from their own perspective, but also from the perspective both of the firm they’re acquiring/being acquired by/partnering with, and of the nascent relationship between the two that needs to be swaddled like a new-born child for fear of being damaged. From a communications perspective it’s less swaddling and more straight jacket.

What we get is an announcement that conforms to a remarkably standard template.

“[Firm A], the [impressive description of firm A] today announces its acquisition of [Firm B], the [impressive description of Firm B]

The deal creates [impressive description of the combined firm’s size, reach and capability].

Speaking about the deal [very important person from Firm A] said “We’re really excited about the deal with [Firm B] which [underlines our commitment to/further enhances our capability in] the [booming market].

[Very important person from Firm B] [essentially agrees, adding something inspiring about delivering the best outcomes for customers].”

Taking everything into account it’s a perfectly understandable that things end up like this, but it strikes me as a bit of a missed opportunity. Provided the deal is big enough it’s going to get some press coverage, and it would be very odd if the CEOs of Firms A and B weren’t asked to say something about it. So they’re pretty much guaranteed a few sentences in a mainstream business publication. Of course the deal makes some sort of statement on its own, because it tells us something about the basket in which Firms A and B are placing their eggs, but surely there’s something more that can be said.

An example of the sort of thing I mean can be found in the statement made by Korn Ferry CEO, Gary D. Burnison, concerning its recent acquisition of Hay Group. “We need a new conversation on people,” he said in the press release that announced the deal. “Never before has there been so much pressure on organisations to succeed. Yet by not applying the same rigor to their people strategy as they do in other areas of their business, organizations largely ignore their greatest lever for success.”

There’s nothing particularly revolutionary in these ideas (and the press release quickly moves onto a more formulaic footing) but there’s a clear attempt to seize the opportunity to say something about what Korn Ferry and Hay Group are all about – what they stand for rather than simply how mighty they will be (that comes later) – and even that makes it stand out.

Of course this isn’t just about what you communicate to the market, it’s also about what you communicate to everyone who’s going to be a part of the combined firm – many of whom will have  long months of hard work ahead of them integrating the two firms  – why you’ve done what you’ve done, and where you’re headed. It’s an opportunity to galvanise. And you can’t galvanise by playing safe.