Talking back
Communications
r O What's NewS Issue 8 Aug/Sept 1999
A readers' survey was inserted in our February issue asking you to teil us how
you rate What's NewS and the Flash as media to keep you informed on what's
new in the organization. The results are out, so we are reporting what your
responses teil us about how well we're doing, but more importantly, how we
can improve the info flow.
Credible issue
More forthcoming
No frills
High expectations
Between the lines
This is the second time
a survey has been
carried out. In 1997 we
did a similar exercise, but
at that time there was no
Flash so we cannot make
comparisons on that
score. The biggest - and
to the editors most
worrying - difference on
What's NewS is that today
you rate the magazine as
'satisfactory' rather than
'good' more often than in
1997. In 1997, 71% of
respondents said we were
'good1, and 13% said
satisfactory. That has
changed to 58% and 26%
respectively. Although the
general appreciation of the
magazine remains very
positive, the conclusion
has to be that this
downward trend must be
tackled head on by
making changes and improvements to the
media in line with the suggestions
offered by respondents.
First we'd like to give you some insight
into how the magazine is made, which
may also answer some of the points
raised by you. It appears that the longer
you have worked for the organization,
the less positively you rate the media.
'Old hands' usually have their own
networks and sources of information. Ir
also appears that the further you are
away - geographically - from head
office, the more you appreciate What's
NewS and the Flash. Sifting through all
the comments made by respondents
(whose number - 375 of 4,500 staff -
was disappointing, although adequate
for analysis purposes), we see that the
main issues are criticism and credibility.
The editorial committee: (fltr)Peter Greenberg, Frans van Bijsterveld, Bram
Kruimel, Vincent Pijpers, Mirjam Diepenbrock and Len Fraser (missing from the
photograph are Cindy Kwong of Fiong Kong, Dick Schultz (Healthcare) and
Berend du Pon (London)
'We actually have a diffieult brief,' says
managing editor Anne Lavelle. 'Every
month we walk a fine line between
providing explicit and useful information
without revealing to the competition, and
especially to the media, the state of our
linnen cupboard. We're often criticized
for our lack of criticism - no one in the
survey feit we were too critical, whereas
too many people (29%) believe we are
too positive. And there was even some
hint that either Marketing RI, which is
ultimately responsible for our media,
and/or the managing board had some
kind of "screening" (read: censorship)
function. 1 write a lot of the articles in
What's NewS and can assure you that
any "screening" tends to be done by the
people who supply us with information
and/or do interviews.'
The info suppliers mentioned here are
key to the production of both the
magazine and the electronic Flash. The
NewS Flash is a rapid response to 'hot'
news as it happens and tends to be brief.
In the Communications strueture, the
Flash is seen as
complementary to
What's NewSwhich
can go into issues in
rather more depth. We
also attempt to spread m
attention so that - news™
permitting - there is
something for everyone
in the magazine.'
The contents of each
issue of What's NewS
are determined by an
editorial committee
which meets at the end
of each month and is
coordinated by
Marketing's Mirjam
Diepenbrock. People
from many disciplines,
including F&A,
operations, research,
corporate finance and s«
on, have a seat on this
committee and the idea is that they bring
in new developments and newsworthy
issues that can be covered by the three-
strong writing and production team:
David Brown, Lisa Petrie and Anne
Lavelle. The contents for the next issue
are produced within 24 hours and the
team, with photo editor and distribution
officer Len Fraser, gets down to work.
'The writing team consists of external
journalists,' Lavelle explains, 'and
because we are external people's
expectations of the factual reporting
tends to be fairly high.'
Sometintes those expectations cannot be
met realistically. 'In cases of, say,
sensitive corporate information on
strategy, policy, and even on the finer
details of deals,' Lavelle says, 'we
ourselves try to apply a certain
