50 Episodes In, Here’s What I Got Wrong

Tara McDonagh: I’ve been wrong. I have been wrong on this show more than once.

Well, that might be a little too harsh on myself, so I’m going to be a little more gentle. What I actually mean is that I have said things into my microphone with total confidence that I would say differently today.

And we’re headed into the 50th episode of this podcast.

So I want to tell you exactly what those things are right now.

You’re listening to the Communications Business Advisor™ Podcast, the podcast for communications professionals in the corporate world who are committed to advancing their work and our field’s reputation as critical business advisors who are not only invited to the decision-making table, but are required there.

I’m your host, Tara McDonagh.

Hi there. It’s Tara. Welcome to the Communications Business Advisor, and welcome to Episode 50.

Fifty episodes in, and we’re at nearly 20,000 downloads. It feels huge when you say it that way, so that got me to do some real reflecting. Fifty episodes in, and I will also be hitting 50 years old next year, so it feels like a good time to look back.

When it comes to the episodes, I figured I’d share a little bit of what I got wrong and what I would change.

When I started this show, I wanted a place to talk with all of you about what it actually takes for Communications to be treated as a business function. Communications Business Advisors, not Communications Waitresses.

As you know, I say that often.

My business mission, and my personal mission when it comes to this profession, is to elevate our field and the people in it to critical business advisor status. To do that, I have to reach all of you. I have to get to the right people with the right message to help elevate the work.

That hasn’t changed.

But some things have.

To get ready for this one, I did something uncomfortable. I went back and listened to my first few episodes.

And let me tell you something: if you have ever heard a recording of yourself, you probably hate it, like most of us. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t, unless you’re maybe a narcissist, which you’re probably not if you’re listening.

Anyway, if you’ve heard a recording of yourself from years ago, you will hate it even more. Kind of like how most of us hate our own writing from years ago, too. Same idea here.

But I listened anyway because I wanted to know what, if anything, had changed in my thinking since then.

Episode One was called “Communications Edits Business Decisions.” Hold onto that because we’re going to come back to it.

Episode Two was about the top problems communications leaders face and how to fix them. To this day, it’s the most-listened-to episode on this show by far.

Which is hilarious because it is also the episode where I very clearly had not yet figured out how to use a podcast microphone.

I had the microphone in front of me while recording, but I didn’t click “Use Microphone” in the audio settings in my podcast software. Whoopsie daisy.

So shout-out to my podcast producer, who fixes these things for me to the degree that she can.

If you’ve heard it, you know. If you haven’t, go listen for the comedy, if nothing else. But honestly, also because there are still some really relevant messages in there today. I’m going to add another layer of thinking to them today, but they’re still relevant.

Across these 50 episodes, you’ve downloaded this show almost 20,000 times, and that feels pretty great. Because if I’m going to be this Communications Business Advisor activist that I say I am, I have to reach you with the message.

And it looks like you’re being reached, so yay.

That most-listened-to episode tells me something about you, too. You don’t come here to hear that everything’s fine, you’re all great, everything’s good. You don’t want to be gaslit anymore.

You come here to name the problems and fix them.

So that’s what I’m doing today, starting with my own.

Listening back, I realized the mission hasn’t changed: elevate our field and the people in it to critical business advisor status.

But how I talk about it has changed a lot.

And I think that’s a good thing, because if my thinking hadn’t changed in 50 episodes and multiple years, you should be worried about me, right?

This field changes too fast for anyone’s thinking to stand still, mine included.

So here’s what we’re doing. I’m walking you through four things I used to say, what I say now instead, why my thinking has changed, and, most importantly, what it means for you and your team.

Some of them are small tweaks in language, but with big impact. Some have changed how I work with every single client. And some have led to new, free tools available to all of you today.

So let’s go.

1. “Protect the Brand” Means Protect the Business

In Episode One, I said this:

“We advance business goals and protect companies from crisis by using the lens of communications to advise.”

I’ve said some version of that ever since: Communications advances business goals and protects the brand.

I still believe that.

But I’ve realized that “protect the brand” doesn’t say nearly enough. The connection to the business is missing from it.

And as I often tell my clients: take it further. Spell it out. Spell out why that matters.

Because when we say “protect the brand,” what most people hear is exactly what I said in Episode One: protect the company from crisis.

And sure, that’s part of it.

The second anyone in PR or Comms hears the word “crisis,” our brains explode with examples. Things we’ve been through. Things we’ve seen other brands go through.

We can see the headline. Our minds reel with challenges, and we get on a merry-go-round of scenario planning that’s hard to get off of.

We can see it all. It’s one of our superpowers.

But the executives we’re talking to about all of this? They’re not seeing what we’re seeing.

So what are we really saying when we say “protect the brand”?

We’re saying:

Protect revenue.

Protect operations.

Protect the business plan.

Let’s talk more about what I mean here.

A while back, I mentioned on LinkedIn one piece of advice that has worked for me when working in-house or with clients to get executives to see the impact a business decision could actually have.

It’s just one small example, but it gives you something practical to hold onto.

I call it a media vision exercise in reverse.

Basically, create fake news.

Mock up the front page of a major publication with a nightmare headline about the business decision you’re worried about. Put the CEO’s grinning photo next to a terrible headline and a fiery lead paragraph killing your company.

Then show how the story spreads and what it sets off.

At the time, I told people: use it sparingly, in times of great need.

Still true today.

It’s one example of how to influence executives and be clear with them using a specific, tangible thing they can see.

Here’s what’s changed about my thinking.

It’s not just about the headline. It’s never been just about the headline.

The mock-up of the story is still a good idea, but it’s too basic on its own.

When I led crisis communications in-house at a major brand that you have all heard of, the most useful thing I could do wasn’t describing the headline.

It was describing what happened to the business after the headline.

That’s what I used to do. That’s what I still do when I’m talking with clients and helping communications leaders advise within their companies.

Here are a few examples of what that sounds like:

“We can expect a huge volume of calls to our call center, so we need to plan staffing for that. That includes staffing over the weekend because we can expect the story to hit then, and that’s when calls will spike.”

Or:

“We can expect some clients to be concerned about this business decision, so we need to arm sales with talking points and be prepared that some of our clients may still leave for competitors. We may lose some prospects. This could very readily affect our revenue.”

Or:

“We should expect this to affect legislative discussions or regulatory decisions. Legislators and regulators are going to get calls. They may be tempted to increase regulation on this issue or make it a platform, so we need to be ready. We’ll have a battle on our hands.”

Notice what I didn’t say.

I didn’t say, “This will hurt our reputation.”

I translated what that means to the business.

I said: here’s what happens to our call center staffing, sales targets, and regulatory agenda.

Financial impact on the quarter or investor impact are also key triggers and often need to be spelled out.

That’s what “protect the brand” actually means.

We help the company stay on target with the business plan.

So let’s say it that way, out loud and explicitly.

We advance business goals and protect the brand, and then we tell them what that actually means for the business.

I’ve done this countless times, and I advise my clients to do it, too. Always link to business impact, not brand protection alone.

Often, the business decision itself will change if you have a suggestion in your back pocket about how to get to the goal without doing it exactly the way that’s being proposed.

Usually, the goal behind the decision you see as a crisis waiting to happen is improving financial results or efficiency, which is also often code for improving financial results.

So think about how you can get to that goal without doing the exact thing in the exact way they’re planning.

Usually, some lever can be impacted, and you can make it better.

When I was at a healthcare insurer, this was especially effective.

Regulated industries are exceptional breeding grounds for companies that understand the impact of a brand crisis. Healthcare, higher education, energy, insurance. These are industries where others can learn.

Industries like manufacturing, consumer packaged goods, and tech are all learning, and they’re learning quickly.

One of my podcast guests said it well when she said that it used to be about whether or not you’d have to deal with a crisis.

Now it’s about when.

Or, I would add, how many and how often.

That leads me to the next thing I would change about how I think or explain things.

2. Communications Should Be Required at the Table, Not Just Invited

This one is a little different because, listening back to Episode One, I realized that I actually said it right.

I just got the headline wrong.

Here’s what I said in Episode One:

“My vision was a corporate world that doesn’t just invite communicators to act as critical advisors. It expects them to.”

And I said:

“It’s the difference between being told, ‘Sure, you can come to the meeting,’ and being told, ‘We require you at this meeting because we can’t move forward without your advice.’”

That’s it.

Day one, I said it.

But what did everyone hear?

Seat at the table.

For years, I kept saying “Communications Business Advisor,” and for years, people kept hearing “seat at the table.”

Those aren’t the same thing.

It’s a little like, in the words of Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

And since I coined the term Communications Business Advisor, I’m pretty confident about this one.

Most Comms leaders will tell me they’re respected. They’re listened to. They have a seat at the table.

I believe them.

But when I ask what that actually looks like day to day, the answer is usually further from what I mean than they think.

They say things like:

“I get invited to the meeting.”

“I get asked what I think.”

“What I say makes a difference. It might change the decision sometimes.”

Those are three different seats.

And there’s a fourth I’d add that most communications leaders aren’t thinking about. It’s about shaping decisions, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

I finally wrote the headline I should have written in the first place:

Not invited to the table. Required there.

Let me say that again.

Not invited to the table. Required there.

Invited means you get consulted. You get looped in. But the meeting can still happen without you.

Your voice is helpful, but it isn’t necessarily necessary.

Required means the decision doesn’t move forward until Communications weighs in.

That gap is exactly why I built the Communications Team Authority Index, so we could all stop talking past each other and figure out which seat your team is actually in.

If you haven’t taken the Communications Team Authority Index yet, that’s fine. It’s new. But you should take it.

Go to taramcdonagh.com. It’s right there at the bottom of the homepage, or you can find the direct link in the show notes.

Now, onto the one I got wrong that stings the most.

3. Communications Should Shape Business Decisions, Not Just Edit Them

Does anyone remember Episode One, “Communications Edits Business Decisions”?

I’ve posted about that phrase enough on LinkedIn that you’ve probably heard the episode or seen me write about it before.

We edit decisions, not only content.

That’s how I positioned it in the past.

And that was really the premise of the show when I started it.

I was trying to get everybody to understand that we’re much more deeply connected to business decisions than people realize. We need to start taking credit for that and start pushing our field more in that direction.

I said that the most critical work we do is the expertise we use to advise leadership, make business decisions more successful, and prevent crises from happening.

I called this “editing a business decision.”

It wasn’t just the podcast, either.

A few years before that, I wrote a post about the work I’m most proud of, the work nobody ever sees.

The very first thing on the list was preventing a crisis by influencing and editing a business decision.

Editing decisions.

I’ve talked about it a ton.

And at the time, I thought saying it that way was the peak.

I built the first episode of this show around it. I said it with my whole chest.

And yes, editing business decisions is a big deal.

It’s huge, actually.

You’re in there before the decision, idea, product, or whatever it is goes out the door. You’re catching problems. You’re trusted enough to get looped in and change things.

That feels like advising.

And it is.

But it is not the top of advising.

I know because I’ve been there. I’ve been to the top. I just didn’t know how to express it.

Editing decisions is what I now call the false summit, Level Three of the Communications Team Authority Index.

You’ve climbed so far that it feels like the finish line, and it’s exactly where so many really good communications leaders stop.

Because here’s the catch with editing:

Someone else still made the decision.

You’re improving it after the fact.

You’re reacting to it.

You’re reacting at a very high level, but you’re still reacting.

What I say now is:

Communications shapes decisions.

One word change. Big outcome difference.

That’s Level Four.

At Level Four of the Communications Team Authority Index, you’re there before the decision gets made. You’re helping decide what it actually is in the first place.

The organization doesn’t move forward without your counsel.

It’s a big difference.

It took me a long time to express it this way because editing decisions feels like such a win to describe to all of you. It’s such a big shift from where many of you are right now.

When I first started my consulting business, I talked about getting out of triage mode, and that’s still true for many.

But now it’s about the journey from that place, constant triage, all the way up to the place where you’re shaping decisions.

If you’re not sure which one your team is doing, editing, shaping, or something else entirely, that’s what the Communications Team Authority Index is for.

Ten questions. Five minutes.

It’ll tell you which seat you’re in and what it takes to move up.

And now the last one is about me and my business.

4. Communications Strategy Is the Vehicle. Behavior Change Is the Outcome.

In Episode Two, I told you about a client who had been trying to make the case for more resources for three years and was shot down every single time.

In fact, her team and resources actually got smaller.

We worked on her communications strategy together, and she got off-cycle budget increases and approval to hire. After a hiring freeze, everything kind of came together. Even with everyone else’s cuts, she was able to increase.

And I said to all of you that it starts with the strategy, with a business case included.

I believed at the time that strategy is what clients want from me.

A great communications strategy.

A long-term plan that ties to business goals.

A team structure that makes sense.

And I’m good at that. I’m exceptional, even. Not going to lie. I’m really, really good.

But that’s not actually what they want.

And that’s only a taste of what I delivered.

What they actually want is changed behavior.

Changed behavior specifically from the people around them: the executives, their boss, the people who ask things of them every day.

Listen to what that same client told me, which I shared in that same episode.

Her boss went from thinking Communications was helpful when there was an assignment to seeing it as essential to driving the business.

That’s not a strategy.

That’s a person changing how they treat her.

That is what clients want. That is what I deliver. And I undersold it in describing it for years.

She wanted her boss to stop treating Comms like it was helpful when there was an assignment and start treating it like it was essential to the business.

Executives who pull them in earlier.

Business partners who stop sending requests and start asking for counsel.

And yes, she wanted the budget, staff, and resources to actually do the work that could make an impact at the company.

I get clients that.

It happens over and over and over.

I just do it through the strategy.

The strategy is the vehicle.

The outcome is the budget increase, the additional staff, the team structure that actually works, the invitation to the meeting instead of the request to attend, and her voice being heard.

And how I approach strategy has become even sharper.

In Episode Two, the advice was: find the business goals, even if you have to dig through the financial targets to get them. Match your work to them. Figure out what you’ll stop doing. Build the business case.

All of that is still true.

But back then, the strategy and the business case were the finish line.

Now they are the vehicle.

Over the years, that approach has grown into a real framework. It has built some really strong communications teams and rebuilt some even stronger ones.

It’s built backward from what you actually need.

Not the plan.

Not the strategic plan, though you get that, too, and it’s really good.

It’s the behavior change.

Respect.

Staff.

Resources.

A promotion.

How I do it is my secret sauce, but honestly, I think I could share it with someone else and still be confident that my involvement is the thing that matters most.

I could share my framework, but no one can really replicate my thinking or my counsel to get you there.

Someone can get you a strategy.

But will it get you the behavior change you want from the people around you?

Every piece of what I create is designed to change how the people around you treat you and your team because of who’s involved, how the executives get engaged, and what they see along the way in the process.

I said a version of this a few episodes ago:

The plan is the tool. What it actually does is change how you’re treated.

And one thing I said in Episode Two that I would say exactly the same way today is this:

“It is not something you can do alone because if it was that easy, you would have done it already. Stop trying to see the label from inside the jar.”

It’s not because you’re not capable.

You are.

But changing how other people behave around you takes someone from outside the system. Someone who can say the thing you’ve been saying for years and have it land differently.

I know. It’s annoying.

I’ve been there. I’ve been in your shoes.

But it’s also how third-party validation works.

That’s basically the whole premise of PR.

It’s what you believe in, so why are you fighting it for yourself?

What 50 Episodes Have Taught Me About Communications Authority

So that is what’s changed for me in 50 episodes.

Protect the brand became protect revenue, operations, and the business plan.

Seat at the table finally got the headline it deserved: required, not invited.

Editing decisions became shaping them.

And delivering a strategy became changing behavior.

Here’s what hasn’t changed:

The mission.

I want this field and the people in it to be treated as the critical business advisors they are.

Not invited to the table.

Required there.

Let’s get to it.

Thank you for 50 episodes. For listening, for sharing, and for sending me messages that say, “I needed this today.”

I read every one.

And on a tough day for me, I have to tell you that they do make all the difference. They help me keep going.

If you want to know where your team really sits, which seat they’re in, take the Communications Team Authority Index at taramcdonagh.com.

And if you want help moving from editing decisions to shaping them, or even further back from triage all the way up to shaping them, find me on LinkedIn and shoot me a DM or send me an email.

Here’s to the next 50 episodes.

And to what I’ll probably be telling you I got wrong by then.

In the meantime, keep advising, my friends.

Always keep advising.