I just came across a piece written by Evan Zal, titled, How a Quick Trigger Can Kill Campaigns, and I have to say that I like the way Mr. Zall writes. Writing styles aside, I also liked what he had to say. I don’t have much experience with large PR campaigns, but I can see how spontaneous campaign changes may initially seem like a good idea, when in the long-term they cause more harm than good. Natural disasters, large business news and a number of other things may provide you with new ideas for your campaign. But immediately implementing them for a fast return may hurt more.
My favorite line of the article: “Spontaneity is outstanding for love, travel, and food, but please keep it off my strategic playing field.”
Zall then goes on to explain that he isn’t against new spontaneous ideas, but rather wants to see them go through a ringer of questions that will help decide if they will benefit the campaign as a whole. Questions such as; Will this appeal to our target audiences? Will the best-case scenario get us closer to our goals? Will the worst-case scenario derail our entire plan? This way, you have a formula to push each new idea through before implementing them.
I find it kind of curious that “quick trigger” decisions happen often. Does every campaign manager or PR person not weigh the pros and cons of a new idea? It makes sense to me, so I guess that’s one thing I have going for me.