A call to arms against the idea of the ‘corpsumer’ .

by Stuart Lambert

Floating, flotsam-like, atop the linguistic waters of the comms industry are many undesirable terms.

 'Deck' is one (whoever decided that a presentation must be given this label should be incarcerated). 

 'Learnings' is another (what's wrong with 'lessons'?).

 Then there is of course our oldest of friends, 'coverage', a word which literally implies spread rather than depth, perfectly in keeping with an industry that was historically characterised by the securing of as many media hits as possible no matter how irrelevant.  (Those of a certain vintage will no doubt recall the joy as a junior of securing client mentions in all 7,876 Express & Star regionals… And the accompanying anxiety at being asked to justify why this was of any meaningful value to the client).

 Beyond the obvious jargon, however, there is a term used across the industry which is so pernicious that it makes all other offenders seem harmless.

 This word is not even a real word, but a manufactured term. An artifice. A portmanteau that has become so pervasive that I fear killing it will be difficult; the Japanese knotweed of the communication agency world.

 That term is 'corpsumer'.

 And it must be stopped.

 Yes, I know there are bigger problems in the world right now.

 But, as a crime against the English language, this is up there with them. This chimera of a word is the enemy, and it must be defeated. 

 Firstly, because although the English language's capacity to bend and stretch and absorb new influences is part of its strength, when it is forced to accommodate semantic slop like this even it becomes soggy.

 Secondly, because 'corpsumer' is worse than common jargon. It’s meta-jargon! Corporate and consumer, its two constituent parts, are, when used to label audiences, already jargonistic – artificial terms sweepingly applied to human beings with no thought to how hopelessly inadequate they are as descriptors for 8 billion individuals. With no self-awareness as to how illogical it is to pretend people in suits and ties don't also, er, buy stuff.

 Thirdly, it's unforgivably lazy. We wouldn’t accept ‘blellow’ as a signifier for the colour ‘green’ so quite how professional communicators, who should pride themselves on precision and clarity, have ended up with this nonsense is beyond me.

 Most pointedly, though, we all hate it. Literally nobody, client- or agency-side, has ever used the term 'corpsumer' without either doing pitiable air quotes at the same time, or immediately following up their utterance of this abomination with an apologetic, "I hate that word, but..."

 And this is why it must be nipped in the bud. Nobody wants it. Nobody likes it. It's terrible English. And there are so many better ways than this to communicate the point you are trying to make.

 What do people really mean when they use this term?

 Typically, it means that the brief is attempting to do more than one thing, reach more than one audience, probably across a range of different channels.

 Company X wishes to develop a comms strategy and programme of execution that engages, let's say, the c-suite, employees, investors and customers, or the wider public. It might be envisaging a white paper as well as a bold ATL campaign. Maybe Company X wants a CMD for investors, but also some brilliantly written thought leadership and a creative brand experiential to bring the sustainability strategy to life for the public?

 That's really it. 

 These aren't 'corpsumer' briefs. They're briefs that involve...more than one thing. They're, well, blurred briefs, with a small b. They're briefs that require both depth of consulting expertise, and depth of creative thinking and craft. They're the briefs we set Blurred up to do.

 I have a suspicion – a theory? – that this term arose as a consequence of the setup of the big network agencies, at which "consumer" and "corporate" practices are deliberately kept separate. Anyone who's spent any time working within those businesses (one decade served, salute emoji) knows that this separation too often results in disjointed thinking, processes and outcomes, rather than genuine integration.

 There will at this point be cynics among readers who think this is all rather self-serving. Please allow me to squash those accusations by offering something of value to this blog: my top three objective tips for writing a blurred (corpsumer) brief, to get the best response and results from your agency.

 #1. Think more specifically.

Is it really 'corporates' and 'consumers' you're wanting to engage, or is it 'sustainability professionals', 'CFOs' and an 'informed public', about your sustainability and impact programme, and how that programme showcases the business and the brand?

 #2. Specify not only the audiences you want to engage but the comms outcome you want for each.

"We want to reach corporate and consumer stakeholders" is not helpful and will result in you simply being presented with lots of disparate case studies from two separate practices of the agency. These will be written in different styles and have no red thread connecting them. You will be bored.

 Instead, say something like this: "Through a sustainability-themed communication programme, we want to change investor perception of this brand in our portfolio, from X to Y. We also want to excite customers in-store about our investment in environmental impact. At the same time, we think an OpEd for sustainability stakeholders, disclosing what we've achieved and which targets we've missed, is important for transparency." 

 #3. Be very clear who your internal stakeholders are for each work stream or audience in your brief.

You may want a hybrid, blurred agency but my money is on you not being particularly blurred internally. I'd wager your investor relations team is as dislocated from your brand creative team as those teams are in, ahem, too many of the 'big' agencies out there. If you use your briefing process as a forcing function for thinking about internal lines of comms and workstream integration, you will not only write a better brief; you’ll be better set up to buy and deliver great work in partnership with your agency.

 In conclusion, fellow communicators, a call to arms. Let’s stop using this Frankenstein's monster of a word. Next time you feel it beginning to take shape in your mind, pause, take a breath and remember, you don't have to say it.

 Instead, let the more accurate, simpler term 'blurred brief' be born into the world.

 The world will, as a result, be a better place.