STC Vice President Hillary Hart took a closer look at the results of STC's Brand Perception Survey; her thoughts on a few subjects that intrigued her are below. View the survey results here; read STC President Mike Hughes's initial thoughts on the survey here.
Reading between the Lines of STC’s Brand Perception Survey
The results of STC’s recent Brand Identity survey, while not based on a large enough sample to be statistically significant, point to interesting dichotomies and discrepancies in the workplace role of technical communicators and in their perception of STC. The self-reporting questionnaire was given to five groups of technical communicators (not all of them members of STC) in September 2010. About 50 respondents filled out the 33-question web-based form, and lots of them made perceptive and constructive suggestions/comments. The summary report itself is here.
These are the findings I found most revealing in terms of future direction for STC (something I do have to think about).
The job title Technical Writer is still the most popular, but when the same list of titles was offered as a second question, about job functions, there were discrepancies. Only one person reported having the title Information Architect/Usability , but for 5 people that is their main job function (respondents could only pick one). No one reported the title Instructional Designer, but that is in fact three people’s main job function. These discrepancies tell me that even in this group of mainly veteran technical communicators, titles are not keeping pace with what many TCers actually do, which tells me in turn that STC is not doing a good enough job of educating those who hire TCers about all that technical communication is. For sure, the planned TC Body of Knowledge (BOK) web portal better be very attractive and useful to HR managers, product managers, upper management … not just to technical communicators themselves. Fortunately, the STC BOK team is well aware of potential employers as an important audience for information about the value-add of technical communicators and are designing the portal accordingly.
Moving on to the survey’s more qualitative questions, I am fascinated by the polarization around the issue of whether STC is perceived as “an authority in the field of technical communication” (question 22). The choices for response were “Absolutely,” “Yes,” and “ No.” Almost as many respondents felt that STC is not an authority as felt that STC is “Absolutely” an authority (24 vs. 20). Only one person out of the 50 said simply “Yes.” This result tells me that many TCers are passionate about their chosen field and about whether it, and therefore they, are being well served by their main professional association. I would love to slice up this set of data and see whether the dramatic difference in perception breaks across educational, job function, or other categories/lines. In fact, I’ll do that, in between classes this week.
But my favorite finding is that these technical communicators’ favorite non-STC publication is Wired magazine. It’s their favorite by a wide margin, more than 2 to 1 over the next most-read magazine, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. Way to go. This result tells me that TCers value creativity, innovation, and state-of-the-art. All good qualities for surviving and thriving in the information economy of the 21st century.
Are there plans to increase the size of the survey pool before drawing conclusions? 50 people can provide interesting results to talk about, but certainly not results for a many-thousand-member-strong organization to act on.
Bill, the study STC is doing follows a typical research methodology of starting with a smaller qualitative survey and then moving on to larger, more quantitative surveys. As Mike Hughes blogged about last week
(http://notebook.stc.org/open-mike-blogging-with-mike-hughes-2/), we’re
in the midst of a survey of ALL STC members; it went out via email and
closes on Monday, 1 November. Expect a reminder about it this weekend.
As the Project Phoenix timeline shows
(http://notebook.stc.org/project-phoenix-the-road-ahead/), we’re also
conducting brand and website focus groups among multiple audiences. And
we also have tomorrow’s community leaders webinar, which we’re happy to
see you’ve registered for. So, yes, we’re getting input from far more
than just those 50 people — and will continue to solicit input.
How do folks who have opted-out of STC.org email (such as myself) get notified of the survey?
As suggested http://notebook.stc.org/open-mike-blogging-with-mike-hughes-2/comment-page-1/#comment-33480 it would be very nice if notices were placed on the STC.org site, in the RSS feed, on the STC Facebook/LinkedIn site, etc.
Yes, I know what the plan is. I think Ev spoke well to my concerns. Anecdotal info is great, and I think the wider survey is fantastic (albeit long). Keep in mind that the general techcomm public needs to be surveyed as well in order to truly get a better picture of relevancy and demand of services. Membership is around 6,000 people, less than 1/3 of what it was just a few years ago. STC needs to seek direction from outside sources, not inside sources. Polling the members does account for what they want, but unless I’m wrong, that’s not the mission of STC, nor does it help to grow interest in STC from non-members.
Given my predilection for strategic planning, I find most interesting the comments about the mission statement, vision statement, and key messages. People are looking for something that’s passionate and personal. They need to know that STC is helping them in ways that are real and dynamic.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I’d say that the current branding has sought to position STC as the center of the Tech Comm universe. But people want to see real evidence of that, and they want to know that it touches them personally.
As Project Phoenix gets rolling, this is going to be fun.
I agree, Larry. We all have our personal take on what Project Phoenix is aiming at, for me the bull’s eye is “Professional Relevancy.” We need to be a vital part of every technical communicator’s work-a-day world.
There are really three things going on here, with different levels of visibility:
1) Building a platform from which we deliver content and services and within which we connect communities
2) Delivering the right content and services and and building the right communities (the real meat of where we have to end up)
3) The business model
The current surveys and focus groups, along with some efforts at the individual committee levels are addressing point 2. I think that is where the greatest change has to occur to meet our focus of professional relevancy. The other two are enablers.
Hilary Hart jumps right into the botanical diversity of tree species in STC’s Brand Identity pre-survey without first considering the larger forest context. Mike Hughes provides a needed reminder that professional relevancy is the larger bull’s eye on which leadership must focus.
STC’s membership decline from over 20,000 to the current ~6,000 is a convincing indicator of how much relevancy has been lost in the space of only a few years. Doing a detailed slicing and dicing of responses from a 50-person survey is premature, trivial and beside the point. It’s time for substantial organizational change if STC is going to survive at all. And as for the Society being the center of the tech comm universe, the membership numbers tell the story.
It’s going to be a long road back to relevancy, folks.
“… which tells me in turn that STC is not doing a good enough job of educating those who hire TCers about all that technical communication is.”
I found this an interesting statement, and wonder:
* what does STC do now (to “educate those who hire TCers”)?
* how does STC determine who is selected/singled out to receive this
education (as one ” who hire TCers”)?
* what numbers are we talking about here regarding “educating those who
hire TCers?”
“For sure, the planned TC Body of Knowledge (BOK) web portal better be very attractive and useful to HR managers, product managers, upper management … ”
So then is STC’s efforts in “educating those who hire TCers” mean the info provided on the website, and thus, relying on “hiring” individuals to visit the website for the information to become educated on Tech Comm?
“Almost as many respondents felt that STC is not an authority as felt that STC is “Absolutely” an authority (24 vs. 20).
I think that these comments are probably based on the individuals personal connection/passion with STC. For example, the individual with a personal connection, such as friendships/part of their life, will back STC no matter what is said/done. However, can this person/their views be objection in viewing STC and what it offers. My experience is they cannot.
Whereas the person who does not have a personal involvement with STC and is there specifically for the professional/educational involvement, is thus going to have a more practical (I think) reflection of what STC is actually delivering.
“… technical communicators’ favorite non-STC publication is Wired … more than 2 to 1 over the next most-read magazine, Journal of Technical … This result tells me that TCers value creativity, innovation, and state-of-the-art.”
Also, it could reflect that Wired provides both an educational and a leisure read, as opposed to a Journal that tends to be dry and aimed at a narrow/smaller target audience.
Let’s talk more about the meaning of professional relevancy. In addition to Michael’s view, I also see an outward view. Outside the STC, unfortunately in many situations, we’re not perceived as relevant to the businesses that would benefit from leveraging the skills in our industry. Additionally, we’re not perceived as strongly relevant to the professional organizations that share our industry space.
Building up these important relationships has the potential for creating an environment where the STC writing community can grow and thrive.
Another question I have is What’s the magic number for STC now? For the next three to five years? We have to be careful of comparing with the days when we were over 20,000 and stay open to seeing the potential of a new norm for growth.