I wrote about Warren Buffett’s gift for storytelling last year.

If executives would simply take one lesson from Buffett’s communications, be conversational, the world would be a better place (cue the Coke music).

In his most recent letter to shareholders (2008), there’s a paragraph that showcases Mr. Buffett at his best.

All of us have read countless pieces about the economic downturn. They typically consist of rhetoric from politicians and jargon-filled analysis from economists.

Now, look at how Buffett couches the situation:

This debilitating spiral has spurred our government to take massive action. In poker terms, the Treasury and the Fed have gone “all in.” Economic medicine that was previously meted out by the cupful has recently been dispensed by the barrel. These once-unthinkable dosages will almost certainly bring on unwelcome aftereffects. Their precise nature is anyone’s guess, though one likely consequence is an onslaught of inflation. Moreover, major industries have become dependent on Federal assistance, and they will be followed by cities and states bearing mind-boggling requests. Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political challenge. They won’t leave willingly.

Love the poker metaphor which brings both color and a double entendre to the topic at hand.

Great line, “…the Fed have gone all in.” You don’t have to spend time with Norman Chad watching the World Series of Poker on ESPN to get the drift.

The man knows how to turn a phrase and build drama: “Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political challenge. They won’t leave willingly.”

For contrast, turn to the August 25 post from the blog of Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget:

First, let’s consider this year’s deficit. We now expect that the policies put in place to repair the financial system are likely to cost taxpayers less than previously anticipated. In particular, we have decided to remove from the budget a placeholder for further financial stabilization efforts that seemed prudent earlier this year.

Good stage-setting and everyday language (even if the word “prudent” seems like a hangover from the Bush administration).

He goes on to say:

The net result is a $262 billion improvement in the projected 2009 deficit. The 2009 deficit is now projected to be $1.58 trillion – or 11.2 percent of GDP – down from a previously projected $1.84 trillion or 12.9 percent of GDP.

I don’t know about you, but I feel better knowing the deficit has been chiseled down to $1.58 trillion.

OK, so far so good to this point.

But all of the sudden the conversation takes a detour to Narrative Hell:

As a result of a deeper-than-expected recession, certain spending programs (such as unemployment insurance and food stamps) are projected to automatically increase and revenues are projected to automatically decline, compared to our previous projection. Although these effects help to ameliorate the economic downturn by stimulating demand, they also lead to higher medium-term deficits both directly and indirectly (through higher interest costs on a higher level of public debt). Over the next 10 years, the net impact is to add $2 trillion to the projected deficit, compared to our last projection made based on February’s economic assumptions.That brings the projected 10-year deficit for 2010-2019 to $9.05 trillion – in line with CBO’s June projection.

As my high school English teacher would say, “too many moving parts.”

And what’s with “ameliorate?” I don’t think Mr. Orszag got the memo that the administration is striving to appeal to Middle America.

Needless to say, he’s not from the Warren Buffett school of storytelling.

I stumbled across a compelling three-and-a-half-minute video with NPR’s Scott Simon sharing his perspective on how to tell a story (video below).

It’s captivating, as reflected in the 43,000+ views.

Before going further, let’s acknowledge that Scott Simon’s voice by itself is captivating. He could explain a recipe for nouveau meatloaf and I’d listen. Plus, anyone who writes about baseball and Jackie Robinson gets a good-egg vote.

With that said, I like what he had to say about storytelling:

• A story should make a point, which is different from a lesson, moral or punch line.
• The beginning should be crisp.
• Give people vivid detail. This is what enables others to repeat the story.
• Maintain a conversational tone.
• Have fun. Enjoy the sense of discovery that comes from storytelling.

The idea of crafting a story in breathable chunks also makes sense (although I can’t say the metaphor of a swim across the English Channel worked for me).

You can find his storytelling in motion on NPR at “Simon Says.”

PR consultancies are notorious for not applying their craft to building their own brands.

I’d like to think we’re an exception to the rule.

Equally important, we strive to bring the art of storytelling to our own communications as well as our clients.

As a result, we’ve enjoyed attention in publications ranging from the New York Times to CFO Magazine to USA Today and one my favorite passages (related to conducting business in China):

“It took us a good two years to get our WOFE in place in China. The twists and turns to the finish line were Kafkaesque. As part of the application, they ask for three potential names for the WOFE. Of course, the government ends up selecting a completely different name (from what we submitted) that sounds like a dim sum restaurant. Fortunately, with the right connections behind the scenes we were able to secure the right name.”

Thanks to the rise of digital media, the corresponding demand for content opens the door to more opportunities for contributed pieces.

Toward this end, today’s BusinessWeek (of the digital variety) features my op-ed entitled, “Small Biz to Washington: About Those Promises…”.

I discussed the importance of storytelling in an op-ed using AIG’s contribution to the Washington Post as an example. I’m a big believer in keeping the narrative conversational and having fun with language which hopefully comes out in the BusinessWeek op-ed with phrases such as the following:

“President Obama campaigned on an I-Will-Help-Main-Street platform”

“… to borrow from Shakespeare, here’s the rub on the $15 billion package.”

“If we learned anything from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) last year - never a good sign when an acronym rhymes with carp - it’s that pumping large sums of money into the banks by itself is not the answer to the credit crunch.”

“If someone wants to take on the burger chains with yet another beef-between-bun venture I can appreciate taking a pass on funding.”

“… regain the black on the balance sheet.”

I wanted to work in “Brother can you spare a dime” but decided it fell under the category of “cheap parlor tricks” so took a pass.

Watching the volcanic outrage over the AIG bonus money playing out in the media I wondered how the company would respond.

Many companies make the mistake of ducking for cover thinking they can wait out the storm.

While AIG is hardly the poster child for business communications, it made the right move with an op-ed from the CEO Edward Liddy in today’s Washington Post.

He frames the op-ed with classic storytelling; i.e., the disaster, hero to the rescue, corrective actions and finally the promise that everyone in Gotham City will eventually live happily after.

Let’s take a closer look.

The power of empathy championed by Oprah and her ilk is not lost on Mr. Liddy. His piece kicks off:

The government rescue of American International Group (AIG) and other financial firms has produced a palpable wave of anger on the part of Americans and a rising public demand for accountability from corporate and government leaders. The anger is understandable, and I share it.

Is he saying that he shares our anger or he shares an understanding that we’re angry? I’m not sure. Still, right move to jump on the anger bandwagon.

Next comes the mea cupa:

Mistakes were made at AIG, and on a scale that few could have imagined possible. The most egregious of those began in 1987, when the company strayed from its core insurance competencies …

Good word “egregious.” 

With the stage setting in place, our hero arrives on the scene. Here, Liddy makes it very clear that those “egregious” acts did not happen on his watch since “I answered the call for help and joined AIG in September 2008 …”

How has Liddy changed the behavior at AIG?

He makes a case with hard numbers that prudent fiscal management has been established highlighting that the top 47 execs made 56 percent less in 2008 than 2007. The sparseness in his language — “My annual salary is $1. My only stake is my reputation” — closes this section with a bit of drama.

In other words, other execs might have pigged out at the trough, but that’s not me. In fact, my financial stake is a single buck, and again, that bad stuff happened before I took the reins.

Finally, we get to the core issue.

Liddy refuses to use the B word, acknowledging that AIG made a “set of retention payments to employees based on a compensation system that prior management put in place.”

This is the one segment where I take issue with word choice. Everyone knows about the bonuses. Call them bonuses.

As we come down the home stretch, good conversational language follows that unfortunately derails at the critical junction:

Make no mistake, had I been chief executive at the time, I would never have approved the retention contracts that were put in place more than a year ago. It was distasteful to have to make these payments. But we concluded that the risks to the company and therefore the financial system and the economy, were unacceptable.

What does that last sentence mean? He was doing so well up to this point.

The piece closes with the happily-ever-after message.

I give AIG credit for recognizing the value of making its voice heard even in a hostile environment.

The op-ed is well crafted with elements of storytelling.

But the question on everyone’s mind still isn’t answered.

What are you going to do about all that bonus dough paid out?

There’s something about the shadow of business that causes people to actually strive for a rigid and vanilla tone in their communications.

That’s why the following automated note from Twitter (forgot my password) caught my attention:

Hey there.

Can’t remember your password, huh?

It happens to the best of us.

Please open this link in your browser…

The mere act of being conversational actually causes a basic note on resetting my password to stand out.

Because “corporate speak” has become the de fault for this type of communications.

Dick Costolo wrote a wonderful post over a year ago called “Have a Company Voice.” The following words absolutely nail the issue:

People like it when companies have personalities. It makes us feel like there are actual people on the other side of the communication. It’s fun to be the customer of a company with a personality. This seems totally obvious, and yet you too rarely see companies with distinct personalities really grab your attention in the marketplace. Why is this? It’s actually hard to remove personality and character from communications. So, instead of saying that companies don’t take the time to have personalities, it’s probably more accurate to state that companies don’t allow themselves to show their personalities.