This blog post is in two parts – in the first section I share a situation that internal communicators often face and invite you to reflect on the possible solutions. In the next post I will revisit the perspectives that you share and discuss how we can tackle such requests when they arise.
Here is the scenario.
Recently I encountered a strange ask – ‘can we have a mascot for our campaign?’Â while consulting on an internal promotion for a large scale change management exercise.
Faced such a question before? Does it sound familiar?
 I know many of you will smile knowingly because such questions are often asked to the internal communication team when the roles and responsibilities aren’t clearly defined or the function isn’t viewed as a center of expertise – leave alone a center of excellence . This question takes many forms – ‘let us do a poster’, ‘the intranet doesn’t work’ or ‘why can’t you send that e-mail on my behalf’.
Having recovered from the question I took time to seek clarifications on the objectives of the campaign and the impact the team expected to make with a mascot. It dawned on me that they were hoping to make the campaign memorable and interesting.
Did the campaign need a mascot?
 To me it felt that they needed spokespersons or ambassadors to carry their messages across career levels. To them the association with a Maharaja (the mascot used by Air India, a well- known airline which unfortunately is struggling to keep afloat) seemed as an effective form of driving home the message. A bit of trivia: Air-India adopted the Maharaja as its mascot in 1946.
This is tricky territory. You can alienate your stakeholders if you brush off the idea. It may set off a chain of thought that reads ‘internal communications isn’t supportive’ or you can get embroiled in arguments about which channel or mascot to use.
So here is when the first part ends.
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â How will you go about explaining why a mascot will not work? That is – if you think it will not work.
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Also, what will be your approach to address the objectives of the campaign?
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Finally, how can you draw the line between where your stakeholders suggest what you should do versus telling them politely who calls the shots with internal communications?
Interested in your views. Post them here.
Relevant one, Aniisu. There has been a resurgence of the mascot concept of late. Marg ProperTies rolled out their refreshed branding campaign with a mascot Mr Joy in April this year. They plastered the city of Chennai with massive cutouts and inflated icons of Mr Joy during that period. The media coverage was huge. I am not sure if they have done an evaluation to check on whether it was successful vis-a-vis their business.
A very thoughtful question Aniisu. Being in the same profession, I had faced a similar situation. However I think there is no single answer. If you work in a small to medium enterprise, where the locations and the number of employees arent that much of a concern, the mascot really works. It adds a face to the already existing brand along with adding that much coveted fun element. However in larger organizations, where there is a much sharper people disconnect, mascots dont work the same.
i think the concept of Mascot works mostly. It is easier for the people to relate to a campaign. The recallability is high. Incase of large scale events, we in our organisation always have a mascot. The impact is more than what words can create.
Interesting scenario Aniisu
From my perspective, there’s a a great opportunity to engage your audience and also a risk. The risk being that mascots and ‘casual’ iconography in general stir mixed feelings and can detract for the key communication objectives. Though they may appeal to some members of an audience they can also condescend many others. Remember change programmes can cause significant discomfort for many.
Personally I’d welcome their creativity and point out that they are on the right track, that of developing a strong brand. I’d propose that they work with me to create something relevant to the audience, something that achieves the objectives whilst continuing to arouse their emotional touch points for the duration of the programme.
As with anything in communications, internal or otherwise, the greatest success emanates from relevance of the message to the audiences and their ability to recall the key key facts and deliver as intended. The logo, project name or mascot only serve to underpin this, and therefore an informed decision can only really be made once the full context is considered and audiences/objectives clearly identified.
Hmm…interesting topic.
Personally I feel that Mascots are a risk. Whether the risk is well worth taking depends on many factors
– Relevance of the message, is it a fun or serious one. If serious, then a mascot might convey a more frivolous undertone from the Management.
– Sensitivity of the audience, what works for some may not work for all, especially during periods of change, when emotions tend to run higher than usual
– In internal communications, the audience is targeted, and the response is more tangible. If the mascot hits the wrong note, the negativity that it would emanate might prove detrimental.
– Mascots, in my opinion, might work best as part of a high impact fun exercise, or a low impact, but continued activity which could last over several months.
I’d probably go for more engaging and interactive activities to drive the message home
We should keep in mind the target audience as well. There are times when people don’t prefer paragraphs that they have to read. If we consider Gen Y, they always want their mails to be precise and crisp. The right words and images have a long lasting impact which is the need of the hour.
The mascot has to be designed keeping in mind the activity and it’s impact on the audience. The mascot should be relevant to the event and also have an explaination for it’s existance.