As someone who's done a lot of corporate communications and has had to ghost write "in the voice" of executives and public figures, I think this is well done.
The way it usually works is, you spend some time with the person, you get a feel for their voice and tone. As a stakeholder group you identify the key points you want to make, and hone in on the specific feelings and takeaways you want your audience to come away with. You ideally get the client to write a draft as they would say it, then you pull out the lines and phrases that capture their character, and then you write your own draft to the agreed upon outline incorporating as much of their authentic voice as you can. Then iterate as much as you can in the allowed timeframe.
Yes, it's artificial in a way, but all writing is artificial. Even if someone is writing on their own, they should be writing multiple drafts based on a plan and working towards a set of communication goals. When you don't do that –when you just bang out a single draft without review or revision and then put it out into the world – is when you have people get in trouble with hitting the wrong tone, being misunderstood. All the stuff that Johnny's been getting hammered for over the last week. So I feel like as a piece of "crisis comms," this is pretty successful.
|