Hi all,

This is my first post on this forum!

Anyway, I wanted to make some comments about Dianne's approach to her corporate clients.

The first thing is targeting. Is the MALE CEO of a bank going to be particularly interested in organising a workshop for his staff on how to dress?

I can't speak for North America, but from a UK perspective, I would instinctively say "No". I would have thought that the HR department is where this letter should be going - it is usually they who issue edicts regarding dress codes. (Not to mention that CEO's are not usually involved in such mundanities as organising workshops).

Also, I don't see how you can write personally to the CEO about image and dress when it's probably not something that he is particularly concerned with - I should have thought he was more concerned with lending policies, whether his branch is meeting its targets and various other more financially orientated issues.

(This is not to say that all Bank CEOs are men, but that's how the letter was presented in the article).

In reality of course, he will never see the letter because his PA will open it. He/She will then either decide that it's for the round file, or pass it on to HR. That's my theory, anyway. Therefore, it might be better to actually write the letter to the PA or to HR.

I also think that it should be made much more clear whether this is an issue affecting women or men, or both. Maybe it's different in the UK, but most image consultants work 99% of their time with women, and that is the perception of an image consultant - someone who works with women. If you go to Dianne's site and listen to her audio - she specifically says that her target market is women. Therefore I think it should be made clear as to who the workshop is for, and at what level of the organisation - directors, senior managers, middle managers and all staff?

Is the workshop free? Maybe it should be - 45 minutes of Dianne's time to speak with maybe 20 or 30 self-selecting prospects, could be a good investment. At one large company that I worked at we often had lunchtime events put on by people outside of the organisation. Again, I would think it is HR or Building Facilities that you need to contact.

What benefits does the "organisation" want in this instance?. I would imagine that the CEO wants a quiet life and to not be bothered by staff issues - he's too busy going to high profile meetings and worrying about the bottom line, the media etc.

What benefits might HR want? They need to be seen to be managing staff issues without recourse to the CEO. They probably want a fairly quiet life too. In which case, is it really a "hook" to suggest that how people dress directly affects the bottom line? I personally think that that is a stretch too far. Some of the most productive, intelligent and motivated people work in their pyjamas (Bill Gates), plus most of the consultants I know.

Is it a valid organisational goal to have EVERYONE being powerful? I would think not - too many chiefs and not enough indians will create an organisation where no one ever does any actual work, not to mention the potential for ongoing conflict.

I would think that other benefits to highlight might be: each employee feeling confident and comfortable, which somehow leads to them raising their game - taking more pride in their appearance and more pride in their work. Sure, the CEO wants to know "what's going to affect the bottom line", but then is he/she the person you should be writing to?

HR on the other hand might be more concerned by harmony, staff welfare and how they can take proactive steps to impress the CEO - demonstrate how valuable their work is. (Certainly in the UK some companies perceive the HR department as a necessary evil and merely an admin centre). If they can be persuaded that image consulting is going to please the bosses because the staff are suddenly all interpreting the dress code appropriately, and are now working harder, then isn't that enough?

To be perfectly honest, I think equating how people dress with such Performance Indicators as absenteeism, productivity and profitability is totally spurious. I know from my own experience that I am more enthusiastic and more productive when I'm wearing comfortable clothing that reflects my own choices - and I will not work for an organisation that makes me wear a dress or a skirt.

I was therefore pleased to see that Dianne did mention comfort, and if I could find out how to look stylish in jeans, a sweater and comfortable shoes then that is something I would buy into.

And how's this for a marketing idea - JV with a corporate clothing agent - solve the problem in one fell swoop by having a staff "uniform" - no more headaches for HR or the CEO, and harmony in the workplace. Most banks here have uniforms.

Janealogy, great points.

You make a lot of sense to me on many levels. Great ideas, too.

Without being too defensive, let me qualify my critique a little. And you really have to understand that we're sort of speaking the same language, because your points are pointing out some of the things I preemptively tried to cover in my critique.

As I said, my goal was to critique a piece that was given to me without knowing anything else, and regardless of how it is being targeted, mailed and opened once it gets there. It was to critique the piece, as is, by itself.

Let me clarify a few things on what you said...

Good point. But I believe Dianne is targeting small to medium-sized companies. And that's why I also included the assumption that she is targeting "middle managers" in my critique, too.

CEOs of small to medium sized firms are indeed involved in their staff's productivity (not their attire). That's why I told her to think of results -- not vague generalities like "the way you dress opens communications," etc, etc, etc.

I used to be the marketing consultant of an image consulting firm many years ago, and we even consulted large companies (10,000 employees or more) -- and we have done workshops as a result of approaching C-execs. But I agree with you, it may not true in most cases. And hard, too.

Keep in mind, if she was going to target CEOs (regardless if that's good or not), then I told her not to think "image" but "results." It's not about dress codes. It's not about image consulting, either. It's about thinking in terms of what image consulting will do for the bottom line. Do CEOs care about image? Of course, not. Do they care about their bottom lines? Absolutely.

But like I said, I think she was targeting small to medium-sized company CEOs, who are far more approachable than the CEO of a large bank, for example.

That was my point entirely. I told Dianne to focus on end-results rather than image consulting in itself. CEOs don't care about anything else.

Ah, but that's whole different story. And as I said, I critiqued the piece with the assumption that it finally made it to its recipient. Talking about getting past gatekeepers and addressing them first would probably deserve an entire critique on its own.

Absolutely true. That's a GREAT point. I didn't have time to listen to the audio, but if that's the case then you're absolutely right. She did mention in her letter the level of the organization she's trying to cater to. But made some assumptions. It is indeed far better to be as targeted as possible. The more targeted she is, the better off she will be.

That was my point when I said she needs to clarify the seminars/services she offers.

True to an extent. But targeting notwithstanding, I believe Dianne also consults CEOs and middle managers on the way THEY dress. Is it important to them? At a personal level, you betcha. But I think your former point made the most sense... If she was targeting the organization, then she musty think in terms of benefits to the organization.

We're speaking somewhat the same language, here, Janealogy. She consults people on "business casual." My critique has no research involved, no other information and no other time spent on deeply analyzing the best approach. So I mentioned examples off the top of my head... Is it a "hook?" Maybe. But whether my example is the hook or not is not the point. She needs a hook, period. And THAT was my point.

Hence, the problem with the lack of targeting you mentioned several points earlier... Which a very good point. I sincerely hope that you raise these points directly with Dianne. They're fabulous!

Again, you get my point. I wanted her to think of benefits and not vague generalities or claims. Whether my examples were good or not is not the point... And I actually think your examples are far better. But ultimately, I wanted her to understand the importance of thinking in terms of benefits.

Hmmmm, are we speaking the same language, here? She consults companies on how to dress casually and how "business casual" (rather than stuffed 'suits' or dress codes or skirts and dresses, for that matter) can improve morale, productivity, comfort, etc. And if she were targeting CEOs (whether or not that's the case), it's definitely important to focus on benefits... Not features or claims.

You said, "I know from my own experience that I am more enthusiastic and more productive when I'm wearing comfortable clothing that reflects my own choices." I believe that's what Dianne is trying to do... Or trying to convince others to do.

However, if you are more comfortable as you said, are you not going to be more productive? Happier and proud (and therefore less prone to take sick days because you love working at your place of work)?

Personally, I know that, in North America, it's a big issue... And a big concern for many firms (absenteeism rates, productivity levels, output, etc). And to say it was spurious is missing the mark, because I was merely guessing "benefits" to make my point. My point is to focus on benefits and, more important, results, rather than vague, self-serving generalities.

And I don't think that's Dianne's market... Because methinks she's trying to tell people how to be themselves and dress the way they want -- which answers and supports your former point.

But again, I'm being assumptive. If she were a copywriting client, she would have to fill out an extensive questionnaire prior to doing research. And I would take 1, perhaps even 2 weeks, to conduct research on the matter... Not the 3 hours it took me to write the critique.

Nevertheless, these are very powerful points, Janealogy. I really like your thinking. And I sincerely hope you tell Dianne your thoughts. She needs all the help she can get.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the reply.

I think I should clarify a few points here. Firstly I wasn't meaning to put the critique down, as obviously you make some great points.

I think there is some cultural confusion going on here. Firstly, the letter is written to a male CEO and President at a local/regional bank. Our banking system is different here, and we don't tend to have small regional banks, so I held in my mind the visualisation of a bank branch with say, 30-100 people in it.

Also, we don't use the terms CEO and President, unless talking about a pretty large enterprise. I'm also not sure what C-Exec is - Chief Executive?

I therefore had the impression that Dianne was targeting the "boss" of some smallish, office based enterprise (in particular some kind of bank or financial institution).

Now, there may well be male bosses out there who personally concern themselves with staff dress codes, but I would think that they are in the minority. As we all know, marketing via direct mail is a numbers game, so it makes sense to improve those numbers by contacting the people who are more likely to respond to your message. The best message is no use if it's in the bin!! (but I don't need to tell you that!)

I think we also need to make two distinctions here. Firstly, is Dianne marketing the benefits of image consulting to the organisation, or to the individual receiving the letter. Clearly, both male and female CEOs may be interested in creating a more powerful and charismatic presence, but that is quite different to having workshops for the staff. In that case, stuff like "power", "presence", "panache", "polish", "successful", etc. would be the theme.

On the other hand, consulting on "Business Casual" for the organisation as a whole, and maintaining sometimes difficult to interpret dress codes is something completely different.

I'd have to say that I was actually quite confused by those terms both in Dianne's original letter and your critique of it, because I wasn't sure whether everyone was going to end up power dressing, or dressing down, or something in between. In other words, I wasn't clear on what the offer was.

(Oh, and by the way, I liked the play on words "business casualties").

Which makes me think, that another approach to this might have been: point out problem, agitate problem, provide solution. Now don't be too harsh on any of the following because I'm a student of copywriting, not an expert and this is top of the head stuff.

But what if Dianne used the approach that management basically feel uneasy about how some of their staff dress (the "business casualties"), but don't know what to do about it. Dress codes are difficult to implement because of each individual's interpretation of it. (I know from my own experience that one person's interpretation of business casual is quite smart, whilst another will turn up in cheap trousers and creased clothing, but is still strictly speaking within the guidelines. However, they don't really look the part, and the management can't do anything about it).

So we have:

Problem: your staff just aren't looking up to scratch and you suspect that their self-image is poor and all the attendant problems blah blah blah
Agitation: is this causing an image problem when outsiders come into the organisation (especially if it's a bank branch)? How is this affecting your business, staff morale and all the other things you mentioned Michel.

Solution: Dianne Daniels is an expert in helping organisations implement their dress codes in a way that is a win-win for staff and management. She also helps top management win more accounts etc. through better dress sense and feeling more confident etc. etc. etc. She will come in and consult on how to interpret the dress code, or even help you rework your dress code, and then run workshops to help staff interpret the dress code in a way that works for them.

Again, you see, it depends on what problem she is trying to solve. This wasn't clear to me from the article - was it a dress codes issue, or was it senior staff who need to be more effective or was it individuals who will pay out of their own pocket for her help?

The second distinction to make is whether you are writing to a man or a woman. In this type of scenario I think it makes a huge difference which gender you are addressing.

If I was Dianne, and I was going after the SME market and trying to sell organisation wide solutions, I would research the CEOs of those organisations in my area, and then write one letter to the women and a different one to the men. For larger organisations, I would write to HR.

In effect then, she should probably have 5 or 6 different letters depending on whether she is marketing an individual service to an individual, or a consulting service to the whole organisation and so on. You get the picture.

Oh, and about the JV thing. I realise that Dianne's business is about Image Consulting, but if she's wanting to work with the corporates, then this was just a mad idea I had. I was only yesterday talking to someone who does corporate wear - a very small company. She gets the clients and does the design, then gets the manufacturers to make the clothes. If Dianne JV'd with someone like that, then she could help her client create the corporate image, then liaise between the client and the designer in order to interpret the image and provide the finished articles. Just an idea!!

I'll email Dianne and let her know about the hot debate on here!!

No offence taken at all, Janealogy. I love feedback. And yours is awesome! I would be a fool not to listen to advice that could help me, or my clients, make more money. Those are EXCELLENT points, and points I completely missed in my critique. Particuarly on the issue of targeting, which would have probably changed my critique altogether.

Again, you're right on the money on that other point: confusion. I certainly was, and tried to answer as best I could with what I had. Because I, too, think Dianne was trying to hit too many birds with the same stone: cater to those people who work in situations that are too stuffy or dressy, and those who work in situations where "business casual" appears too crude and unprofessional.

Finally, as far as CEOs (or C-Execs, meaning C-level executives, such as CTOs, COOs, CFOs, etc) are concerned, many small to medium-sized businesses use those titles, too. (I'm the CEO of The Success Doctor, Inc. ).

But if she were tackling C-level execs from larger coporations, I think your point is right on: addressing those people who would specifically be her target market (the people who would hire her), which, like you said, would likely be the HR department and so on.

Anyway, well said. Your insights are fabulous! Especially this point:

BINGO!

????????

What are CTOs, COOs, CFOs? I know what a UFO is!!

And I am CEO of my toilet, or queen on the throne - whichever you prefer

(Do people really say "CEO" for like a very small company?).

I'm just the boss - that's all anyone needs to know.

Chief Technology Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, etc. I'm not the CEO of my toilet. My teenage daughter holds that position. Waiting for her to get out of there in the mornings can be pain!

But to answer your question, yes, people do use it in small to medium-sized firms. For example, Rick Raddatz is the CTO of AudioGenerator.com.

By thre way, for forum members who joined through other means, the Copy Doctor refers to my other site, http://theCopyDoctor.com/

Hi Janeology and Michel,
Thank you both for an extremely interesting discussion and some excellent points on how to improve my copy.

To clarify somewhat - my primary target audience is professional and executive women. I have the most experience with them, and I feel I need to gain more knowledge and experience before tackling men! That said, there are still some areas where men dominate the executive ranks (banking, for instance) and the front-line employees are predominantly women (again, banking).

The letter was written in response to an email query from a small bank in my state, where the bank's President referred to his teller line as the "bowling team" because that's how he felt they dressed. He was described as a very 'blue pinstripe' kind of guy. My letter was to target similar sized banks (none of which are terribly large except for the usual - Fleet, Peoples, etc).

I agree that it could be confusing. I understood it perfectly, though, having inserted my thoughts into the letter (unseen, of course) and 'translating' in my head

I will be incorporating a lot of Michel's suggestion in my next incarnation of this letter. I would be writing to a specific bank president, because in smaller to medium sized banks, he / she is where the buck stops. A suggestion from the bank president to follow up on this subject would carry significantly more weight than a suggestion from whichever staff person is handling personnel matters.

I felt that if there was one bank president who felt his tellers could dress more appropriately, there would be others. Business casual has become a kind of unofficial dress code in my area, and I'm constantly surprised by what people wear to work!

Thanks to both of you for some excellent points. There are things I'm going to include for this market, and some I will incorporate when going after larger corporate contracts (which will target the personnel officers).

I'll let you know how it goes!