I'm sure that the detail will be covered in a more comprehensive post, but some key points emerged:
- it's easier to identify and convey the end benefits (greater deposit to the repository) than the benefits of the actual process (utilising an existing process to address another);
- that whilst some audiences (e.g. senior managers) want to know about the broader benefits rather than the process per se, others (e.g. those actually submitting full text materials) are more likely to be concerned about the actual process and what it means for them.
We spent some time trying to articulate the essence of the process and the benefits in the form of a strapline, for use in the advocacy materials. Looking for inspiration from the world of advertising, we recalled a certain campaign about a universal shampoo and it triggered some useful 'brainstorming'.
However, thinking further about that particular advertising campaign I think we can learn much from it as it addressed the two key aspects identified above, with the strapline ("Wash & Go") and the commentary (why use two bottles when you need only use one) highlighting both the ultimate benefits and the improved process.
Whether this thinking is on the right lines, or not, we can't deny that the 'Wash & Go' campaign has been a massive success! So, why use two systems to record and deposit your outputs, when you need only use one?!