Message mapping is an excellent tool for both risk and crisis communication. It allows you to brainstorm possible scenarios and the potential questions and responses that may follow, arranged in an easy to read chart. This would also be a handy “cheat sheet” for public relations professionals in the role of spokesperson.

The mental models method is also ideal in that you can get an idea prior to an event what the audience perceptions surrounding the risk/event is. Focus groups would be an excellent setting to conduct research on potential audience reactions, if the organization has the time and resources to do so. However, care must be taken to educate the participants that the situations discussed are hypothetical in nature and/or have them sign confidentiality agreements – otherwise they could potentially spread the word about what they discuss, generating a negative image of the organization in the surrounding community, which would negate the positive image of the focus group!

Stakeholder participation also falls along these lines, especially in situations where there is an environmental or health risk to the surrounding community (i.e. Superfund sites). The authors comment that “stakeholder participation can be a frightening proposition to some risk managers. They fear loss of control over the risk decision instead of seeing that the audience’s input can be invaluable to a lasting, equitable decision” (p.165). I understand this perception, but this is avoidable. Risk managers must realize that not having this valuable input at all is a much worse situation, and they’re not really “ceding control”, so to speak, they’re engaging their audience in a dialogue. Second, the advisory group must be aware that they’re purely for informational purposes and that any suggestions they offer are not necessarily binding to the organization – a “real life suggestion box”, in essence.

When designing tactical pieces for risk communication, visual elements are vital. Not only are they memorable, they are more widely understood that text alone. A key component of risk messages is being able to communicate across audiences, which include varying literacy, cultural and socioeconomic levels. Especially helpful is the use of universal symbols, such as the stop sign, which the general public can understand and apply to the situation at hand. The authors point out that visual representations are also easier to translate into multiple languages, which is excellent for communicating risk in multi-lingual regions. While a limiting factor is that they can “carry only limited information” (p.160), this may not necessarily be a bad thing, as there’s a very fine line between disseminating too much information and what is essential for the audience to know. Visuals ensure that you only give the most important information at one glance – ideally, one would follow-up visuals (such as posters, etc.) with a brochure that has a finer level of information and detail.

Again, it’s essential to know your audience. Mental models and other methods of stakeholder participation can make the task of designing tactical materials much easier, could limit the need to pretest, and will ensure that your message has a much greater chance of being received and comprehended by the intended public.