Official change song
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2025 8:30 am
As far as I understand, HOK was a project with a participatory character. Every Dutch citizen could submit texts via the site . Such an initiative is completely up-to-date. And – if I listened carefully – the idea was perfectly in line with the wish of the future monarch to be 'among the people'. Okay, no one was allowed to interfere with the asphalt and only draw some lines. But in principle, HOK was a project in which participation of 'the citizens' was requested and used. But it remained at that principle.
Complimentary act
I see one main reason for the fierce virtual (and not so social) reactions to the final product: HOK had only one status. The final product was a fait accompli. A 'this-is-it-then' product. In all its glory. Set in stone. Officially Ready. Approved by the sender, to be received and accepted by the target group. You can already feel it. When in the process was the participatory approach abandoned? Or how deep did the participatory intention actually go?
This image is no longer available.
The participation of the people in HOK did not go beyond – in retrospect – being able to fill in an online form and leave a few lines of text. The HOK website does not offer any feedback on the creation process. For everyone interested, the message was “please be patient for a moment”.
After the input from the people, the actual co-creation/participation was subsequently invested in a small group of hand-picked Ons Soort Mensen, the usual celebrities. With their – based on media presence – unassailable knowledge of language and music notation. A kind of Live Aid , but for the king. This resulted in a very narrowed form of participation. They do not do justice to the principle of “participating in” – and in that sense it is strongly reminiscent of many conventional communication and change practices.
Because, change 'the people' to 'the target group', and change 'HOK' to 'the change', and the similarities with internal communication in change will glitter at you like coins in a Roman pond. Much change communication has the same fait accompli look as the launch of 'the' end product. This is it. The product is cooked up by a small group that knows what is good for the people . Employees are allowed to give input in sounding boards, but that is usually about it. There is rarely any real participation in the process.
The target group, as employees are often referred to in communication honduras mobile phone number list thinking, is automatically distanced from the process. They only receive the end result of the process, in the form of an 'Official Change Song'.
It often turns out that the support for that song is fragile and that it suddenly buzzes with informal songs. Because everyone gives meaning to their environment in their own way. That is possible and allowed these days. 'The' (only) official way is out, over, no longer of this time.
Communication Harakiri
This image is no longer available.
The fact that mainstream communication media thinking still more or less clings to the old persuasive model is an important reason for the declining relevance of communication media consultants in the professional field. As the “social” voice in interaction is valued more and communication processes are organized more democratically, the importance of the formal orchestration around image formation in the old way naturally decreases. The fact that the persuasive industry is not exactly flourishing has to do with this shift in power in communication processes.
The fact that the entire country has fallen over HOK has not least to do with its fait accompli nature, while before that the appearance of participation had been created. The entire development and production process was an in-house event. Completely non-transparent and not at all participatory in intention.
Complimentary act
I see one main reason for the fierce virtual (and not so social) reactions to the final product: HOK had only one status. The final product was a fait accompli. A 'this-is-it-then' product. In all its glory. Set in stone. Officially Ready. Approved by the sender, to be received and accepted by the target group. You can already feel it. When in the process was the participatory approach abandoned? Or how deep did the participatory intention actually go?
This image is no longer available.
The participation of the people in HOK did not go beyond – in retrospect – being able to fill in an online form and leave a few lines of text. The HOK website does not offer any feedback on the creation process. For everyone interested, the message was “please be patient for a moment”.
After the input from the people, the actual co-creation/participation was subsequently invested in a small group of hand-picked Ons Soort Mensen, the usual celebrities. With their – based on media presence – unassailable knowledge of language and music notation. A kind of Live Aid , but for the king. This resulted in a very narrowed form of participation. They do not do justice to the principle of “participating in” – and in that sense it is strongly reminiscent of many conventional communication and change practices.
Because, change 'the people' to 'the target group', and change 'HOK' to 'the change', and the similarities with internal communication in change will glitter at you like coins in a Roman pond. Much change communication has the same fait accompli look as the launch of 'the' end product. This is it. The product is cooked up by a small group that knows what is good for the people . Employees are allowed to give input in sounding boards, but that is usually about it. There is rarely any real participation in the process.
The target group, as employees are often referred to in communication honduras mobile phone number list thinking, is automatically distanced from the process. They only receive the end result of the process, in the form of an 'Official Change Song'.
It often turns out that the support for that song is fragile and that it suddenly buzzes with informal songs. Because everyone gives meaning to their environment in their own way. That is possible and allowed these days. 'The' (only) official way is out, over, no longer of this time.
Communication Harakiri
This image is no longer available.
The fact that mainstream communication media thinking still more or less clings to the old persuasive model is an important reason for the declining relevance of communication media consultants in the professional field. As the “social” voice in interaction is valued more and communication processes are organized more democratically, the importance of the formal orchestration around image formation in the old way naturally decreases. The fact that the persuasive industry is not exactly flourishing has to do with this shift in power in communication processes.
The fact that the entire country has fallen over HOK has not least to do with its fait accompli nature, while before that the appearance of participation had been created. The entire development and production process was an in-house event. Completely non-transparent and not at all participatory in intention.