The other day I was asked a question by a person who read my information page. It was a great question. I’d like to share a slightly edited version of my reply.
****************************************
To Bryan D.,
A reply to your question:
Question: If you could only pick one, what would you say is the single-most important property of and/or about a person’s public communication that can help “… reach an audience, and make a difference — the best possible kind of difference”?
You’re holding me accountable here. It’s easy to claim to want to communicate in this way. Harder to describe it. You’ve made me chew on it. And you’ve caught me at an opportune moment, since I’ve just been given some fresh insight.
I’d sum it up like this: Depth of substance, with style.
First and foremost — Depth of substance: It has to evidence a level of understanding (knowledge plus wisdom) that distinguishes it from the average, the normal, the expected, the status quo. Its substantive depth legitimately distinguishes it.
Second — Style: It needs to display a certain savvy in relation to the stylistic conventions deployed by the best of its competitors. It can’t be dull and haggard. It can’t be clunky or obtuse. Has to be at least *almost* as polished and at least as savvy as the competition in order to gain a sizable audience.
If it nails the combination, it’ll be shiny and provocative (style) but with more solidity (substance) and so will have a chance of winning — as it should.
The example I have in mind at the moment is the public discourse of Abraham Lincoln. His brilliant use of language and his ability to be provocative and grab attention enabled him to defeat a tremendously well established incumbent (Douglas). Yet he stayed firmly grounded in the truth. In fact he manifested a depth of substance which stood out from almost any other contributors to Civil War discourse. (I think particularly of his debates with Douglas, his Cooper Union Address, and most significantly his Second Inaugural.)
I’ll wager you can find examples in any field — including software, design, and the blogosphere.
The trouble is that this formula doesn’t always capture the highest numbers. As our mass market proves every day, the best won’t *necessarily* amass a larger audience than the competition. Shiny-and-substanceless is too often good enough for that. But substance-with-style will at least have a chance at getting an audience and making some kind of large-scale dent for the good.
Or at least for the better. For me, in web development, A List Apart stands out with a handful of other blogs as having substance with style. In contemporary Christian political reflection (online), the Trinity Forum is one. Neither is the most popular, but both exert influence, as they should. (Not to say either is perfect. I don’t believe in perfection in this life, and I’m not a great ideologue.)
Of course this is just a beginning. What does depth of substance look like in one field versus another? What does it take to be polished and savvy? How do you balance substance and style? At what point do you lose it by leaning too far one way or the other? And so on. These questions are all begging to be asked and addressed.
But I think “depth of substance, with style” makes for a good beginning. It’s importantly different from the current focus on style alone.
On that note, our campus just hosted a deep and fairly savvy Christian cultural critic, Dr. Os Guinness, who told the story of a group of evangelicals who have come to believe they need to re-brand evangelicalism in order to begin counteracting its bad rep in the public square. Beautifully, he answered no, the problem is our substance. We need a new re-formation.
That’s central to my answer. It’s more than image management. It’s substance, too — in fact, substance first.
powered by performancing firefox
