Let's discuss!
Analysis of your weekly readings is an important way to get the discussion going between classmates before we meet in class. You will be required to post your analysis of the readings by 8pm on the Sunday prior to class (750 word minimum).
Your responses should reflect points from the reading for that week. Each blog entry from you will be graded for the following criteria:
(1) content from readings
(2) quality of questions and issues raised
(3) writing skills
The first post or comment assignment is due this coming Monday, Jan 15th and will be a response to the readings on theory about risk perception and risk communication. I look forward to reading your comments.
Please email Dr. Robinson your case presentation date preferences if you have not already done so.
Your responses should reflect points from the reading for that week. Each blog entry from you will be graded for the following criteria:
(1) content from readings
(2) quality of questions and issues raised
(3) writing skills
The first post or comment assignment is due this coming Monday, Jan 15th and will be a response to the readings on theory about risk perception and risk communication. I look forward to reading your comments.
Please email Dr. Robinson your case presentation date preferences if you have not already done so.
posted by prteacher at
1/11/2007 12:44:00 PM
9 Comments:
Those engaged in risk communication face many constraints, but the reading indicates the most important way to address and overcome these obstacles is to “Know thy audience.” The following quote summarizes the significance of conducting audience analysis in risk communication: “Only by understanding the audience can we hope to identify matters of importance to them, and then to link the risk communication efforts to those important issues” (p. 63). It seemed that almost every page we read mentioned the audience and the need to understand who the audience is and their opinions. “Risk communication, however, cannot be effective unless it considers the emotions, beliefs, and political leanings of the audience” (p. 57).
This persistent point raises several interesting questions for a researcher: What are the best methods to utilize when conducting audience analysis? Is it better to perform random telephone interviews of a large population or to interview key informants? Of course, the appropriate method depends on the number of people involved, the ease of reaching them, and the level of detail needed. Another question on this topic is how should “the audience” be defined? Is the audience a group of influential people, a group of people geographically bounded, or another set not as well defined? I see this issue as a constant challenge facing risk communicators.
Chapter 4 describes the various roles organizations can play in risk communication. It would be interesting to discuss in class (or in this reaction blog) what organizations assume these different roles. For example, I see the Susan G. Komen Foundation as an Educator because the organization strives to inform people about the risk of breast cancer. The Red Cross could be described as a Partner because it works with other organizations to solve problems. The FBI serves as a Regulator because it enforces laws. What is an example of a Facilitator? A Manager? Can organizations serve in several roles? What happens when organizations are unaware of their role(s)? How can risk communicators use these roles to develop effective communication techniques?
Organizations should prioritize the minimization of organizational constraints facing risk communicators. Not only will this improve the risk communicator’s ability to do his or her job, it could also improve the way the public views the organization in a risk or crisis situation. To best communicate a risk “the audience must find the communicating organization credible and trustworthy…” (p. 95). When an organization has established itself as acting in the best interest, it will be easier to handle other crisis events that may occur. Another mining tragedy this weekend raises more concerns about how the entire mining industry is practicing safety and risk communications. This tunnel collapse occurred in West Virginia, but for me, and probably many others, this just compounds the severity of fatal mining accidents that have occurred recently. It will be interesting to follow how the mining industry reacts to this latest event because these tragic accidents have moved beyond individual companies to face the larger industry. The public is starting to question the safety and mining techniques utilized so these organizations need to utilize risk communication to better inform the public. How should this be done? What information is pertinent?
As an agricultural communications student and researcher, I have particular interest in communicating about food safety issues, particularly food biotechnology. The debate around genetically modified food centers on “Disagreements on the Acceptable Magnitude of Risk” (p. 65). The European Union has said food that contains above a certain percentage of genetically modified ingredients must carry a label stating such. The United States refuses to label these products with the argument that they as safe as conventionally produced food. However, some consumers are demanding labels because they do not think any amount of GM ingredients is acceptable. What should agricultural communicators do to decrease this perception of risk? Is this a concern that should even be addressed?
From the readings, it can be deduced that a number of risks are based on scientific uncertainty. The authors offer advice on presenting information to the audience (p. 100-104). This advice is similar to that I learned in another course, Science & Health Communication. It made me realize that risk communicators do not always carry that title. Journalists are also risk communicators by choosing the content and format of news stories discussing risk situations. A common topic of discussion in the course was how journalists or public information officers should best communicate with the public about matters of uncertainty. How much does the audience need or want to know? How can the message be portrayed in a matter that can be understood? What can be done to improve scientific literacy? These questions must also be answered by risk communicators.
By
Courtney, at 6:44 PM
Risk and Crisis Communication… The basics
Prior to reading the material about risk and crisis communications my thoughts were only of the pure communication component portion of the process, that being a message is created, communicating the message through a channel and the audience receiving it. After reading and analyzing the material I understand that to be only one of many components of this communication.
Some questions that come to mind about the process of effectively applying risk and crisis communication are “how can I turn a crisis into an opportunity for positive outcome for stakeholders / organization?”, “what is necessary to learn from the crisis situation?” These questions are important in understanding the nature of risk and crisis communication into a positive opportunity.
We may think of risk and crisis communication becoming prominent during or after the 9/11 events and the terror fears infused into the mass media following the 9/11 attacks. But after looking deeper into the encompassing realm of R&C communications I see that risk and crisis communications are a facet of everyday live for many people on our society. From the alligator warning signs around the University’s Lake Alice, the cautionary subscript on a seafood menu “eating raw or undercook seafood could cause serious illness or death”, or CNN’s medical correspondent in-depth report that “Vioxx” (Vioxx) has been taking off the market because of its risk of increasing heart attack and stroke, these communications are omnipresent in our everyday lives.
It is important to understand what risks and crisis are, Ulmer and company describe a crisis as “unique moments in the history of organization” (USS pg 5). Lundgren and McMakin define risk as “probability of adverse outcome. Risk is inherent in any action, even in inaction. (LM pg 438)
The three types of risk communication presented by Lundgren and McMakin are intriguing. Care communication, consensus communication and crisis communications are clearly defined and rather easy to conceptualize and apply to situations. (LM pg 4) These communication types give weight to the factors necessary to correctly address the components of risk and crisis communications.
Just as in most aspects of mass communications, theory governs most practical and applicable aspects of risk and crisis communications. Besides the components that I previously discussed, the one that I find central to the risk communication model is that of message creditability to the intended audience. Another component that I find essential to the model is that of the channel or method the message is distributed or received. Creditability of organization communicating or managing the risk, fairness of the risk in the audience eyes and trust among the parties or stakeholders involved are all paramount in determining the success of a communication. (LM pg 9)
There are several approaches that are discussed by Lundgren and McMakin as to the method of risk communications. The aforementioned basic communication approach, which is comprised of message creation, distribution and audience reception, this is the most basic. The National Research Council’s Approach, that offers that those at risk should have early and interactive involvement with the organization that is communicating the risk. The Crisis Communications approach, which hold that the messaging organization knows what is best for the audience. This approach seems to be outdated, and ill conceived because of technological advancements, the audience members can educate themselves on the hazard, the solution and the risk. Thus only giving the audience the message “I know what is best” will not be the best approach in this communication environment.
No matter which communication technique or approach is used to convey risk or crisis, there are some principles that are pivotal to succeeding with a given audience. The communicating agent or agency must understand the purpose, the audience and the situation when preparing and carrying out the communications. Although there is no one, proven method to convey to audience members with consistent creditability, risk fairness, or channel to distribute the message. The factors discussed throughout the material gives a risk communicator great guidance in executing effective risk and crisis communications.
Some questions that come to mind following reading this material are as follows:
What are some ways that an organization can pre plan for a generic risk communication / crisis communication? In preparing a crisis communications plan should the organization have a list of important and potentially detrimental questions that media outlets may ask of the organization? What type of recording medium (surveys, coverage content analysis, ect.) should an organization use to measure the effectiveness of the crisis communication or the risk communication?
These questions are important in determining an effective communication of a risk or crisis, according to the material. Answering these questions is a great way to understating the intended audience, the situation and the purpose.
By
R.Looby, at 7:22 PM
Every day we are confronted with some type of risk and/or crisis communication and how the communication process is handled clearly alleviates or exasperates the crisis or risk. I had not really given much thought to theories and/or models of crisis communication as outlined in our readings until now.
As a journalist, I was always focused on the information that needed to get out; as a public relations practitioner, I thought more about how the message should be delivered.
For example, 20 years ago, while working as a war correspondent in El Salvador, the capital city came under siege during a guerrilla offensive. This was a crisis for the Salvadoran government and a crisis for the administration of President Ronald Reagan, which backed the Salvadoran military. The U.S. evacuated all non-essential U.S. embassy personnel and their families because of the crisis – but they did not want this information made public.
Their party line was that the embassy folk were simply returning to the U.S. for “the holidays.” I reported on the evacuations and was chastised for it by the U.S. ambassador at the time. But as a journalist, I felt obligated (and perhaps a bit righteous) about reporting events in their proper context. The proper context was that the city was under attack and the U.S. wanted to get its people on the ground away from the violence. They just didn’t want the world to see them as running scared.
The prevailing wisdom seemed to be that if you ignored a crisis it would go away. Twenty years later, that may still be the case.
Although it did not have to do with an environmental or health risk (except for the man who was shot), the way the White House handled – or mishandled – Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting accident last year is an example of crisis communications at its worst.
Cheney accidentally shot Harry Whittington, a Texas attorney, during a day of hunting on a ranch in Texas. Whittington was shot with birdshot pellets in the face, neck and chest. The accident occurred on Feb. 11, 2006. It was not made public until Feb. 12 – a day later. Cheney himself made no statement about the incident until four days later – on Feb. 15.
Clearly when the vice president of the United States shoots a man – accidentally or not – it constitutes a crisis. Failure to divulge the information immediately made it more of a crisis – in this case of confidence.
The readings also brought to mind the story of Erin Brockovich and the health crisis that confronted the people of Hinckley, CA after their drinking water had been allegedly contaminated by chemicals used by Pacific Gas & Electric. (I just caught a rerun of the movie a few weeks ago!)
Brockovich’s perseverance – or as she calls it on her website – “stick-to-it-iveness” resulted in a $333 million settlement, the largest ever paid in a direct action lawsuit. Brockovich has some words of wisdom for anyone involved in risk or crisis communication:
“It is through awareness and information that we can protect ourselves, our families and our health. It is the absence of knowing information that we become vulnerable and stand defenseless to protect ourselves.” (www.erinbrockovich.com)
I found that concept, although expressed in different words, to be one of the most relevant points of all that we read.
I was particularly struck by the L & M readings and the breakdowns as to the different types of risk communication and the different approaches. Care communications would seem to be the model to use when we are aware of a potentially hazardous or troublesome situation and want to take steps if not to head off the risk or crisis, at least to be prepared to handle it.
Consensus sounds like a very nice thing – let’s all work together – but in reality, I am not sure how well that can work. Crisis communication in and of itself is probably what we are all most familiar with – certainly it is what grabs the headlines as we witnessed with the recent E-coli outbreaks, the missing children concerns and the still lingering effects of Hurricane Katrina.
One quote that really jumped out at me in the readings is this:
"Where potential personal harm is concerned, the believability of information provided depends greatly on the degree of trust and confidence in the risk communicator. If the communicator is viewed as having a compromised mandate or a lack of competence, credence in information provided tends to be weakened. Or if the risk has been mismanaged or neglected in the past, skepticism and distrust may greet attempts to communicate risks."
This underscores the importance of credibility – how important it is to achieve it and how important it is to maintain it. Or as Brockovich would say – “deceit becomes one of our biggest challenges and our biggest enemy.”
Believe it!
By
Ronnie, at 9:57 AM
Chapter four shed some light on the constraints to communicating risk effectively that can come from all parties involved. Thankfully, many of the constraints, including the ones from within the organization, the communicator, and the audience, can be overcome by simply understanding your audience and your audience’s needs. Perhaps “simply” is an overstatement. The risk communicator needs to understand the audience to be a voice for those people within the organization and then turn around and be a voice for the organization to the audience. To overcome the constraints from the organization “those who are communicating risk must first reach this internal audience before reaching out to an external audience” (p. 49). Businesses pushing a product are eager to conduct marketing research to determine their target audience and their marketing plan. I argue that the same must be done to communicate risk effectively to both the audience and the organization. We need to ask ourselves similar questions, ‘How can I sell this message?’ ‘What are the best routes to reach the audience?’ and ‘What are the implications of success and failure for our organization with a proper risk communication strategy in place?’ I do not mean to imply that risk communicators need to be sleazy car or furniture sales associates to get their message across, but thinking of the risk communication process as similar to a marketing process might help us (or at least me) overcome many of these constraints. Chapter six further supported my comparison of this process to marketing when discussing the process and presentation of risk communication.
One question I have still remains, even after reading about audience apathy. What about complacent audiences? What about the social and cultural institutions and influencers that, time and time again, define risks incorrectly? The authors attempt to answer my question by reiterating the importance of understanding your audience. “When faced with apathy, those who are communicating risk need to conduct as thorough an audience analysis as time and other resources allow. Only by understanding the audience can we hope to identify matters of importance to them, and then link to the risk communication efforts those important issues” (p. 65-66). In particular, I think of high school aged students who may say one thing, but do another due to social forces greater than their own logic. I imagine this can be the case with any aged audience, social and cultural influences and institutions override or overestimate the risk. Although, understanding the audience seems to be the boost risk communicators need to overcome constraints on the process, these social and cultural influencers are what make audience analysis difficult. I think that this can be solved by using qualitative and participatory action research methods when researching the audience. Although time consuming and difficult to sell to those unfamiliar with the purposes of the methodology, I think they yield rich information upon which risk communication messages can be constructed.
As an agricultural communicator, I am constantly aware “that perception is a reality” (p. 99). In my opinion, this section should have come first in the Principles of Process. With less than 2% of the United States population involved in agriculture, the concepts and reality of animal and crop production are far-removed from most people’s minds even though we all eat and wear clothes every day. As a result, many false perceptions exist about how our food is produced. It is too easy to brush off our audience’s perceptions and think they do not matter because they are not true. “Audience perceptions and concerns must be considered if risk decisions, and their communication are to be successful” (p. 100). Everyone constructs a reality of the world we live in because we can not be involved in all of it. Knowing this, how can we overcome the desire to control and change our audience’s perceptions and instead work with those perceptions? Or should we try to change them? If so, how do we change perceptions without, for lack of better words, making them feel stupid?
This is where pre-testing your messages whenever possible and communicating early, often, and fully comes in. When looking at where risk perceptions stem from, I can usually determine that flimsy communication efforts were at fault. One thing I felt was missing from this chapter was understanding how the mass media picks up risk communication. Last week we talked about this society of fear many believe is proliferating. In a health/science communication course I took last semester, we talked about how the media emphasizes risk to get people’s attention. As risk communicators looking for multiple routes to communicate with large audiences, mass media outlets are often necessary. What are some tactics for dealing with the media?
By
Katie, at 12:38 PM
Wes Jamison PUR 6934 Reaction blog #1 Lundgren and McMakin chapters 4 & 6
The readings were practical and applied, if somewhat pedestrian. The authors identify various risk venues and scenarios, and provide a compilation of the literature, and in so doing present a “cookbook” of pragmatism for the practitioner. Whether in the form of constraints such as inadequate resources, management push back, role confusion, procedural hurdles, or other internal or external constraints, chapter 4 is valuable in stating the obvious: any practitioner can empathize with the authors’ discussion of constraining variables related to risk communication, and the value of chapter 4 lies in its articulation of what might otherwise be mere intuitive, anecdotal, and esoteric knowledge limited to professional expertise but rarely stated. Similarly, chapter 6 takes the obvious aspects of practitioner experience and articulates their components, and the authors lay out their gambit: risk communication entails knowing your audience and knowing your situation. Nonetheless, risk and its communication is more complex and confounding than the authors make it appear, and several practical and theoretical issues emerge from the readings.
Interestingly, the authors note on pp. 56-57 that personnel constraints are real and potentially serious, but the three emotional constraints they list involve limits on rationale choice rather than other social psychological affects. Obviously the authors implicitly support rational choice and social exchange theory, but nevertheless they overlook a potentially devastating consequence of risk communication: what are the negative psychological consequences on the communicators that must constantly deal with real and perceived risks, such as increased personal anxiety, cynicism, and trivialization of real risk? If individuals underestimate risks that are familiar, what is the impact of constant risk attenuation upon communicators’ perceptions of risks? Social Psychologist Sherry Latinga has noted that proximity to potentially anxiety-ridden and risky situations can cause risk invisibility.
Likewise, one of the constraints includes uncooperative management, thus membership in, or influence upon, the dominant coalition is critical for effective management of risks and communication thereof. Yet, the authors provide little insight as to techniques for ingratiation of risk communicators into the dominant coalition, or alternative communication strategies is the risk communicator is excluded. Similarly, the authors note that management may be reticent to provide information. This is no surprise, since information is a source of power in organizational settings, and organizational sociologists tell us that stewardship of information and “information frugality” is often seen as a critical component of management power. And the authors posit that practitioner inability or unwillingness to see differing value systems is a constraint---this argument has profound implications. Peter Berger posits in “The Homeless Mind” that individuals who are constantly bombarded with alternative value systems can experience “cognitive homelessness” and subsequent anomie if they cannot exclude those value systems from their frame of reference. In other words, all value systems are not equal, and the very act of recognition and understanding undermines the heuristics, schemas, and cognitive shortcuts that provide meaning and grounding.
While the authors do an admirable job of listing constraints, they fail to discuss them in any depth. For instance, on pp. 67 they discuss stigmatization and efforts to reduce it without discussing the very real and beneficial social functions of stigmatization in various contexts or the self-conscious efforts of competing political actors and rhetors to use social stigmas for political gain. Their discussion, albeit limited to practical discussions for pragmatic practitioners, could have used a discussion of the broader context and implications of their recommendations.
Chapter 6 was similar in that it provided useful “how-to” guidelines and a ready reference standard, without providing deeper context or implications. Most interesting is their presentation of Covello’s matrix of risk response as well as the importance of social trust in institutions. Covello provides a very useful matrix for testing in various research frames, and the variables proved accurate and predictive in a research project I did in Europe. The work done in Europe on trust indicates that one effect of post-modernism and post-structuralism, e.g. the disintegration of traditional social structures and communities of meaning and their reintegration into reified communities of “people like me”, has profound implications for risk communication. Indeed, counter-intuitively, the Eurobarometer biannual survey of EU public opinion indicates that increased scientific knowledge of abstract risks actually increases opposition to the risk, and it also indicates that trust has declined precipitously in institutions that have traditionally been vested with dissemination of risk information, e.g. government agencies, universities, and that people increasingly withdraw from public discussions of risk in favor of seeking explanation in their individuated communities of meaning. This is by way of saying that traditional risk communication models face increasing difficulty in the EU.
Finally, the authors posit a very parsimonious and compact definition of risk communication: know your audience and know your situation. But, given the advent of new media and their impact on communications and the ability of publics to align and realign in a limitless array of ideologies, perceptions, and opinions, what exactly constitutes a “public” these days? Was the individual blogger who precipitated a crisis for the Krypto-lock manufacturer a “public?” If so, how can any practitioner know the almost limitless and shifting publics within her domain? Who is a “stakeholder” given the new media and the fragmentation of communication channels, and how can a company possibly engage in effective environmental scanning when its environment is typified by perpetual and complex mutation?
These are questions that the authors neglect to discuss, and although the text may be effective as a manual, a “recipe book” of best management practices, if the devil is in the details, or rather the contingencies, then chapters 4 and 6 lack the needed depth and context.
By
Wes Jamison, at 4:30 PM
I’ll admit that I’d never delved deeply into the topic of risk communication prior to reading the introductory chapters of our textbook, but now I’m fascinated by the sheer scope of what this field encompasses. When one tends to think of risk communication, the more obvious examples come to mind, such as warnings about safety and health in hazardous situations and more commonplace ones, like the “keep hands inside the tram at all times” messages at Walt Disney World.
Care communication is a term that I hadn’t heard previously, but it includes many activities that we encounter on a daily basis, whether through campaigns by health organizations to minimize risky behavior or through simple leaflets from a utility urging customers to conserve water in times of drought.
I like the concept of consensus communication, especially the public involvement aspect. As symmetrical, two-way communication is the ideal that those of us in the public relations field strive for, consensus communication would seem to embody that. Similarly, the convergence communications approach, states that “the audience must be involved in the risk communication process, that the process must be a dialogue, not a monologue, on the part of the organization.” This is especially applicable to consensus communication, but also for the other branches as well. I’ll be very interested to read some case studies of organizations that employed consensus communication to manage a risk – especially since we all know that two-way communication doesn’t always work as intended!
The mental models approach embodies another key tenet of public relations: know thy public (as I believe was mentioned in another comment), which builds on the concept of consensus communications. Lundgren & McMakin claim that “to really communicate with your audience, you must understand what your audience already believes about the risk” (p.17). This also underscores the importance of research in the field, as well as being a good corporate citizen. Organizations that understand their audiences and have earned their trust will be much more likely to be successful in their risk communication efforts, as “information alone, no matter how carefully packages and presented, will not communicate risk effectively if trust and credibility are not established first” (Lundgren & McMakin, p. 25).
Crisis communication seems to be the branch of risk communication that receives the most attention, mainly because crisis communication seems to be thrust into the spotlight, simply due to its nature. However, as the book states, crisis communication is often (and should be) the last resort.
Many of these concepts are brought home for me in that most of them are directly applicable for the company I work at. Regeneration Technologies processes human and bovine tissue into shaped implants, which is all done in the facility in Alachua. The facility in itself is very unique as we have several types of industry all contained under one roof. Our manufacturing building, in which the tissue is sterilized and machined into the implants (in a hospital-grade clean room setting), must meet high standards for SOPs (standard operating procedures) as well as sterility. We have to meet medical standards for the safety of information regarding our donors, as per HIPPA regulations. All in all, we must comply with regulations from the FDA, OSHA, AATB (American Association of Tissue Banks), HIPPA and the SEC (as a publicly held company).
Therefore, in our risk & crisis planning we have a lot of factors to consider, in terms of situations that could occur. Almost all of our marketing materials involve some aspect of risk communication; while there is zero risk of disease transmission through our implants (thanks to our BioCleanse process), many other competitors in the industry don’t have such measures in place, so we emphasize the safety of our products.
I’ve been able to witness crisis communication in action at RTI, as the company was dealing with a scandal involving one of its processors, where the processor didn’t obtain proper consent from the families of the tissue donors, as well as falsifying information in their medical histories. RTI conducted a recall of all the potentially affected tissue (although, as mentioned before, the risk of disease transmission is not an issue due to our sterilization procedures), but many recipients decided to sue RTI and other processors, in addition to the company that illegally recovered the tissue, mainly due to fear, which was compounded by the efforts of many trial lawyers. A lot of negative publicity for the industry as a whole ensued as a result of the scandal. I hope to explore this situation in greater detail for the research project in this class.
By
Giselle, at 5:31 PM
Much of the readings in the Lundgren and McMakin texts stated the obvious but were good launching points for discussion. I think that risk communication is not a specialty or subset of public relations but is a necessary component for anyone practicing in the field of communications. Many events of the last few decades, from the tampered batches of Tylenol case to the September 11 terrorist attacks, all required crisis communication to quell confusion and fear.
An important point in Ch. 4 stood out to me – “Risk communication efforts are constrained when the audience expects a different role from the one the organization is willing to play” (p.52). As if the job of public relations professionals isn’t hard enough! I agree with Wes – it is key that communicators know their publics and know those publics’ concerns and expectations. It is crucial that the public be understood prior to a crisis because, in a time crunch of a crisis, neither time nor resources can be wasted on figuring out who needs to know what and when. It is important to know publics’ expectations in order to avoid further confusion and hostility, which only makes the public relations professionals jobs more difficult and, in turn, negatively affects the public’s opinion of the organization.
I found the “hostility chart” on p. 60 interesting and helpful. A crisis, by definition, elicits one or many emotional responses. When reading through this list, I couldn’t help thinking of the movie Erin Brockovich, based on a true story of a one-woman crusade to hold culpable a utility company in California that was found to have polluted groundwater for decades.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/now/dec10/apha_brockavich.html
Regardless of whether the utility thought the public would never find out about its practices, what happened as a result of Brockovich’s research was eye-opening for many companies. Some key results included a) one person CAN make a difference in terms of encouraging openness and honesty from organizations b) never underestimate the power of people who are trying to protect their families and their children and c) just because a public may not understand an issue doesn’t mean that they aren’t interested and they don’t want to learn. In this particular instance, the publics may have lived in rural areas and were therefore not highly educated, but they knew that something was wrong. Had the utility taken responsibility maybe some of the illnesses could have been prevented. As it stands now, with risk communication having a much larger body of knowledge than even a few decades ago, the best we can hope for from this case study is that it has led to many organizations changing their practices to being upfront with their publics in order to prevent similar occurrences.
The utility case, although affecting health, differs greatly from, say, a flood, hurricane or other natural disaster. As the text states, these cases require constant updating and communication. Even if there is no new information, the public must be aware of where to go for information; they must feel like they are in the know and nothing that could affect them is being left out.
When the hurricanes of fall 2004 swept through Central Florida, the City of Orlando communications staff, of which I was a part, manned the EOC (Emergency Operations Center) 24/7. We slept there, ate there and showered there for two weeks. Some days we would have three press conferences a day, other days we could just send out email updates to the press and public. Some days we answered very specific questions about the progress of recovery and other days we just let them know that the clean-up was continuing. The point is even when we didn’t have new information, the public, and the media, knew we could be reached at any time of day to share information. As the text states, we communicated “honestly, clearly and compassionately” (p. 101).
Although it took a lot of manpower, time and effort to keep the EOC staffed all the time, we thought it showed the public and the media that we were on top of things. Do you agree? Do you think it’s better to keep a bare bones staff during times of crisis, especially if there is little risk anymore, to keep costs down and reserve the energy of your staff? Or is it better to make sure you’re prepared and well-staffed regardless of the cost or physical effect on your staff?
By
Lauren, at 6:07 PM
I agree with Courtney’s opening statement regarding the “Know Thy Audience” quote. It is difficult to carry on any kind of dialogue without some information from the other end. It is vital that an organization understands the people that it is speaking to. It makes it easier to tailor messages and puts an organization beyond the first step of establishing a relationship with that public.
Likewise, it is easier for a group of people to understand an organization with which they have had a good and long relationship with. Communication is and should always be a two-way street. Having an open relationship with an organization gives means that an organization has already gained, in part, the trust of the people they serve and work with.
If the effectiveness of a message is reduced by 80%, as explained on page 22 of the Lundgren and McMakin book, then channels of communication must be as smooth and open as possible. Why can it be so difficult to meet new people? No background information. It’s a lot easier to work with someone if you have a decent sense of how they may react, which is one of the reasons for this class: understanding how to hold a discussion with people in times of stress.
Knowing one’s audience, then, means understanding that people tend to react first and think second. In times of crisis, that means the perception is reality, as the book discusses at a number of different points, but especially on pages 99-100 in our reading, “To [technical experts], reality is build on carefully constructed, tested, scientific truths, not someone’s possibly uninformed perceptions” (p.99). In psychology, it is called acknowledging their emotions. It is extremely important to know and understand the people you work with and the situation that you work in. Know where you stand in every section of chapter four between your organization and your publics (internal and external).
It is at this point where we draw the line that was discussed at length in the book as well. The professional or scientist may know the exact danger a chemical poses to the masses, but the people don’t. It is our job, as communicators of risk to assess the situation and accept that they are afraid and understand the subsequent knee-jerk reactions that come with the fear. It’s the fight or flight response. As communicators of risk and in times of crisis it is our purpose to be beyond that.
On page 108, the book illustrates the differences between people’s fear of cancer from cigarettes and fear of cancer from nuclear radiation. I believe this is an archaic example and it is also an example of how people’s feelings and emotions change as they get more comfortable with something that was once foreign and “exotic” as the authors explain. Look at what is happening with nuclear capabilities throughout the world right now:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/iran.nuclear/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070107/pl_afp/usweaponsnuclear_070107222331
http://www.mineweb.net/energy/572787.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7921287/
At a time when we have never been more afraid of nuclear terrorism (Iran, North Korea), we are getting more and more settled with the idea of restarting and retrofitting older nuclear warheads, revamping nuclear power projects. Twenty years ago this would be fought tooth and nail, but today the only fear is that “terrorists” could get a hold of it and use it against us. Domestically, we have never been more open to discussion.
While the dangers of nuclear power far outweigh those of a cigarette, the risks are being communicated differently now, and the topic has become much less exotic than it once was. In general, people are more ready to trust technology and its ability to keep us safe from danger. Has anyone seen Thank You for Smoking? If only the nuclear industry had those kinds of reps.
As an audience, America is much more accepting of the idea of nuclear power. We have forgotten some of the past mistakes and we are much more used to hearing about it in the news. It has lost some of its mystery. The risk factors have changed and our perceptions as a public have changed. And, as outlined in the second half of chapter six, the risks are also beginning to outweigh the benefits (check out the mineweb.net link above).
It is an excellent example of how through communication of an idea that was once exotic and proper discussion of the risks versus the benefits and situations outside of your control can all influence how people think and feel about such a serious topic.
By
Paul Jonas, at 8:01 PM
For a public relations practitioner, effective risk and crisis communication skills are now more of a fundamental ability rather than a special field of practice. Along with the popularity of new media that arm individuals with powerful communication tools; blogs, cell phones, wireless Internet, and so forth, the speed of “trouble” travels far and fast compared to the past. Furthermore, because of these advanced technology, what started as a simple dew drop may result as a hurricane if they are not handled professionally. People have better access to information, and the skeletons cannot stay in the closet forever anymore. In this extent, it is important to know the initial actions you need to take during a risk situation. This is where the tips from our textbook come handy.
While it seems pretty obvious, Lundgren and Mcmakin illustrate the importance of “knowing the audience.” Basically, risk management starts from audience analysis because that is where communication initiates. The book goes as far to state that by properly analyzing the audience, “you will be in a position to know how to apply any of the other principles” (p.100). Additional factors indicate the need to diversify methods in order to meet segmented audiences, simple and explicit messages to utilize understandings, honest and compassionate communication methods to reconcile the audience, and consistent messages sent out to build credibility (p.100~p. 103). The text also identifies certain factors that “constrain care, consensus, and crisis communication” (p.47). Because a communication process is a two-way road, it is essential to consider both roadblocks of the practitioner and the audience. Both sides need to be confirmed in order to resolve a risk situation.
In April 2006, a chemical compound which is commonly known as benzene was found in a popular vitamin drink in Korea. The Korea Food & Drug Administration tested 5 different vitamin drinks on the market and found out that all of them had benzene in it. About half of the products had sufficiently more than the limited amount of the chemical compound within beverages. Of course this was reported to the media, and naturally people were outraged. Immediate crisis communication took place. Manufacturers of the products recalled all drinks on the shelves. They wrote a letter of apology to the public and promised a higher level of concern towards the product’s health issues. However, this was not enough to resolve people’s outrage. Sales dropped dramatically and the whole vitamin drinks market practically wiped out of business at that time. During the same period of time, other bottled drinks such as orange juice and energy drinks also dropped in sales simply because they contained contents in the same containers. The initial reaction to this incident would be pretty similar among public relations practitioners they should have seen it coming. If a risk is directly related to people’s health, it is bound to cause a dramatic effect. However, if you take a closer look to the situation and analyze what went through the mind of the manufacturers, the crisis situation faces a whole new level.
Benzene is prohibited from table use since it causes cancer and dramatically affects the hematosis systems. However, it is almost inevitable for beverages to contain this component during the process chain. There is a certain amount of benzene needed to threaten our health, and the portion is so minimal in the vitamin drinks, the manufacturers decided that it was better not to mention it on the face. This was considered a smart choice among the “decision makers” since there is no point on alarming the public when nothing really is the matter. A more important factor was that this was a “vitamin C drink.” Not only did these drinks meet the well-being trends of Korea, it really did do good things for your body. Compared to the advanced economical and technological status of the country, the awareness and education level regarding vitamin C effects and the importance to take supplements is among the lowest of OECD membership countries. The vitamin C drinks were highly welcomed by nutritionists, since it contained 500mg of vitamin. This is more than the required daily intake which means one drink a day will take care of the worries of the shortage of vitamin C consumption among Koreans. In other words, the risk was in presence along the whole process, and they knew about it. The manufacturers decided to carry this risk along the road since the drinks were making so much money and also because it gave more than it had of risk. Clearly, the judgment was wrong since as mentioned above, the vitamin C drink market practically died and people are resistant to take pills because it seems to be “too much of a medicine.” It appears that the current situation rather seems to be a crisis.
Risk and crisis no longer stare at you in the face they hit you from every angle, and they hit you fast and hard. My ultimate take after reading chapter 4 and six all comes down to one big question. Is there really a guideline? I assume that practitioners who’ve had some educational background in public relations would have the least knowledge to deal with risks and crisis, but we see crisis almost on our daily basis. How is this happening?
By
Min, at 9:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home