Regina Miller points (with appropriate disdain) to this event: Chaos in the Public Square offered by Harvard Business School Publishing Conferences. (And I thought it was only advertising agencies that had ridiculously long names; but if I were at HBS I'd be happy to be two additional words away from a direct association with what follows).

The blurb is a great example of really dreary communication. First off what's with this new phrase "corporate speech"? Is that what used to be called PR in less complicated times? I wonder if they really mean "corporate drone", as eloquently fingered by Cathy Moore in her blog. This promo page seems like a pretty good example of it, with such gems as

In this forum we will tackle the contentious issues – not to advocate one side or the other but to define the parameters of the new reality

In short, the rules of corporate speech have changed -- and continue to change – making life turbulent in the executive suite.

How do you craft a strategic approach for navigating the new terrain?

Hmm, interesting theme here of "chaos in the public square" and "turbulence" in the exective suite. Sounds like some folks are terrified by what strikes me as an exciting time for engaged, informed public debate.

I was also intrigued at how they define their target audience:

Director and above management who are directly responsible for the public persona of the company

which strikes me as laughably sycophantic. Basil Fawlty was more direct; he ran an ad that just said "no riff raff". Why don't they just come clean and say "This is an important conference that only important people will understand".

Seriously, if the organisers haven't woken up to the fact that EVERY EMPLOYEE is responsible for the public persona of a company then they need to go to a conference themselves. And not this one.