Chapter 10: Determine the Appropriate Methods

Most interventions fail the test of determining appropriate methods of communicating. While I consider analyzing the audience as one of the most critical component in risk communication process, determining the best methods and tools with which to communicate is the next challenge. It is a challenge because “no one method will meet the needs of every segment of the society” (p.157).

After reading comments posted already, I was a bit tempted to delay my reaction on Chapter 10 (Determining appropriate methods) because waiting a little longer will help to style my reaction using ‘real world perspective’, by drawing from diversity of views and comments, mainly on the theme of message and channels. As we begin the groups’ case presentations, what impress me most now is the way chapters are now linked to the case materials – real world situations (applied). I will use some of the comments already made to link with what Chapter 10 is all about. Like Katie, “I’m sure someone else will provide a wonderful summary of this chapter”.

Know your audience
Knowing your audience is the basis of the communication process. Courtney said “the article on HIV/AIDS awareness in Uganda is a wonderful example of effective message development. The risk communication efforts were successful because the communicators recognized the social and cultural networks unique to Uganda. The resulting message of openness “has been embraced and integrated into the culture, emphasizing prevention and care of those who are affected” (Albright & Kawaooya, 2005, p. 107).” The key statement here is “communicators recognized”. Simply put, Courtney is saying that the communicators somewhere along the communication process did their homework well. They analyzed their audience and knew what it will take to effectively communicate with them. Recognition of socio-cultural realities and integrating them in intervention approach can only be achieved if someone knows his/her audience well.

Information materials
Jenifer said “…... and pamphlets also helped to drive home the seriousness of the disease by using graphics and pictures of sick people and of burials. These graphics and pictures were something people could identify with, therefore they paid more attention to the information”. The characteristic features of information materials captured here are noted in Chapter 10. The main advantage of information materials is that they could be tailor-made to suit the audience needs and level of understanding.

Visual representation of risk
Jenifer said “…..by using graphics and pictures of sick people and of burials. These graphics and pictures were something people could identify with, therefore they paid more attention to the information”.
Advantage: “visuals may be culture specific….”, and are best choice “if your purpose is to raise awareness.” (p. 159).

Face to face communication
Katie said “we now live in a society that thirsts for personalized information. I can see it in how we chose our news sources (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC), the RSS feeds we sign up for, and overall, this movement toward selectiveness and personalization of information. Information is in abundance and the only way we can hope to process it all is to choose it as it is relevant to our lives and interests”. The statement reminds me of a recent debate during a class seminar on how best to make science and technology news more appealing and interesting to lay audience. The concern was that lay audience’ awareness of science and technology news is low because their interest in reading is inhibited by the complex way in which science and technology is communicated through the print media. One suggestion from a study conducted by Yaros (2006) http://crx.sagepub.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/cgi/reprint/33/4/285 was for journalists to make science and technology stories contextually relevant to the readers world of understanding. This according to the author will help enhance both understanding and interest, and thereby contribute to the public understanding of the science and technology issues. The study suggested that journalists should supplement their stories with more explanations and background contextual issues to enhance understanding. The key phrase during the class discussion was “science and technology news should be made more personal than technical to arouse my interest”. Face to face communication has this charm of personalizing the risk information. Jenifer nailed it home when she said “the most successful was the interaction between peers. People who heard about the seriousness of HIV/AIDS and how to prevent it from one of their peers were more likely to apply what they learned.”

Stakeholder participation:
Katie said “efforts to reduce the number of cases of HIV/AIDS in Uganda would not have been successful without involving members of the community in all components of the effort, from top-level decision making to the grassroots level. In many countries, if community members are not an integral part of the effort and merely cast as receivers of aid and information, then impacts of any programs or plans are simply not sustainable. The community has to “own” every bit of the effort. External organizations undoubtedly need to kick start and help organize these mass efforts, but they’re there to help not do it for them.” While it is usually called “multi-sectoral approach” in the language of governments, it is in fact stakeholder participation. A paternalistic approach of governments trying to solve all problems alone will not bear meaningful results in this era.

Working with media
Jenifer said “if China had communicated with the Chinese citizens through the mass media, people would have learned that there were only a few incidents and they would not have been as afraid to go about their normal daily lives. The citizens could have also helped the police stop the attacks and catch the perpetrators by keeping a lookout for suspicious people”. The importance of working with mass media cannot be underscored, mainly considering the potential wide-broad reach of the method.

In summary, to meet the challenges posed by the fact that “no one method will meet the needs of every segment of the society” (p.157), the bottom line is, “use a mix of appropriate methods informed by audience assessment. I rest my case.

Here's how to persuade the bobos

Wes Jamison PUR 6934 Reaction blog #4 Lundgren and McMakin chapter 13

Chapter 13 forms the prelude to part III, which fittingly enough begins with this quote: “The farther away we get from individual contact, the more room there is for confusion and misunderstanding” (pp. 193). Spoken like true disciples, Lundgren and McMakin take us through the many tasks associated with implementation of risk communication with nary a digression into any messy discourse on the ethics of using language and framing in the service of individuated interest.
Chapter 13 is really about learning how to choose and use information, and about the selection, organization, rhetoric, and narrative stylization of risk messages. As always, the authors refer to the axiomatic “know your audience” refrain to begin their discussion. Once that is accepted as a truism, they begin to lay out a concise and helpful series of checklists regarding information on risk. They note that risk communication consists of the goals and content of the information, the nature of the risk, alternatives to exposure to the risk, any uncertainties associated with the risk. They also suggest that risk management is a component to be communicated, as is any benefits of the risk, audience actions that may alleviate or mitigate the risk, who to contact, plus additional information to take the esoteric and jargon-filled language of risk assessment and placing within the context of the exoteric stakeholders.
Interestingly, Covello and Kasperson have both noted problematic developments in the realm of communicating risk uncertainty. They both note that the presence of risk uncertainty amplifies stakeholder anxiety, and the Eurobarometer Survey has noted that the “tipping point” whereby stakeholders, when confronted with scientific uncertainty and risk uncertainty, withdraw from public discourse regarding the risk, is relatively low and easily manipulated. To put it another way, when faced with uncertainty, consumers are decreasingly relying upon rationality and logical evaluation of competing truth claims, and instead they are retreating from the public discourse regarding risk into their cognitive communities of meaning, into their clusters of “people like me,” to help them answer that three basic questions that people bring to risk assessment: what is it, what should I think about it, and what should I do about it. The implications of this are breathtaking: purposive political organizations (using Wilson’s typology) are now using this public uncertainty aversion for political gain. Indeed, research has indicated that NGOs in Europe self-consciously sought to cast GM foods in a negative light by raising the specter of “scientific uncertainty.” They knew from the literature in social psychology that consumers would withdraw from the discourse in the face of uncertainty, hence their strategy was to contest all scientific claims, regardless of rigor or merit, with rivaling scientific claims. In other words, no “fact” would be allowed to gain heuristic footing without another, contesting and conflicting “fact” being forwarded to create the sense of uncertainty. Lundgren and McMakin would have done well to discuss this further---their discussion on pp. 197 and in Chapter 6 could have been bolstered by a discussion of the emerging research on the social psychology of risk uncertainty and its impact on the ability to communicate risk.
Nonetheless, the authors provide very valuable practitioner suggestions, from the ideas regarding organizing materials in such a way so that how the risk was determined is abundantly clear, to giving a summary of results for more sophisticated readers. Interestingly, in their discussion of language and rhetoric for risk information materials, the authors cross an ethical line: they note “Avoid any kind of language that might give your audience the feeling that they have no control” (pp. 201). However, many modern risks are so problematic and divisive exactly because stakeholders have no control! That is, Covello notes that lack of control of modern risk is a key factor in audience anxiety. Beck supports this in Risk Society, and Perrow also notes this in Normal Accidents. That is to say, “control” is a very context-dependent, socially constructed reality, and in many settings it is a ruse, a myth. After all, the authors should know that residents of the tri-city area in southeastern Washington have no control over radioactive leeching, radioactive decay rates, or background and direct exposure to radioactivity derived from Hanford. They should know that often times various publics really do lack control over their exposure to and knowledge of risks. Indeed, much of the literature on environmental racism makes this exact point. But instead, Lundgren and McMakin take the philosophically pragmatic approach, advocating an ethics of default in that they presuppose that successful risk communication can and should be uncoupled from the reality of the situation to their various publics. Hence, they actually advocate not telling publics they have no control, when they very well know of situations where this is indeed the case.
Another interesting discussion is their chapter concerned narrative and rhetoric, and they note that the language of risk communication is as important as the technical content of the actual communications. In other words, they note that presentation can be more important than content, or to paraphrase the old marketing flacks, “sell the sizzle, not the steak!” This makes intuitive sense, and we all know from experience that framing and language structure make immense importance in communications. They note that audience involvement, relevance and ability to understand the language are all central to the rhetoric of risk. Furthermore, they note that constructing such narratives in the form of testimonials by “people like me” can be effective ways to communicate a risk narrative. This indeed sounds compelling, but upon further reflection I’m left with a nagging thought: no truer form or persuasion in the service of self-interest has ever been devised. The use of rhetoric, meta-narratives and existential identification with risk rhetors is relatively new, and the consequences of such approaches have barely been discussed, much less debated. The authors would have been well-served to refrain from discussing such potentially effective and destructive methodology prior to its maturation in the literature.
The rest of the chapter lists the many mundane and pedestrian considerations of risk communication, and ends with a very practical checklist of information materials and formats for successful risk communication. However, one cannot read this chapter without feeling nebulously queasy over the idea of risk communicators with vested interests in a nuclear enrichment facility that sits atop the Superfund list using social psychology and other techniques to persuade people about risks; they advocate approaches that certainly warrant discussion in the ethics literature (e.g. assuring people they have control when they really don’t); and they view risk communication as a series of checklists to be completed. How does that approach bring us any closer to our audiences? Likewise, the emerging literature on risk uncertainty and its use for political purposes warrants further discussion.

It is all about the message in chapter nine...

As Courtney pointed out, the article about AIDS in Uganda is an excellent example of chapter nine. Creating an appropriate message that is sent during risk and crisis situations is possibly the most important thing that a communicator can do for their organization or individual that he or she represents. We discussed audience analysis last week, and it is very important to the message that is developed, but audience analysis should never replace it. What does the stakeholder public need to hear? How do they need to hear it? The text tells us that it is not just a catchy slogan but the message that will be most appropriate and effective in the specific situation.

To build on what Courtney said, chapter nine also mentions user centered risk information guidelines of the mental models approach. I could see how this could be applied to the AIDS situation in Africa, when educating the people about the risks.

The first, “Focus on not only what people believe, but why and how they reduce risks” (L & M, p. 149). Now, obviously, believing something does not always make it true. There are probably many people with AIDS now that didn’t believe they were going to contract the disease. I don’t know what the majority of Africans or the Chinese believe about this situation, but it is important for the communicators to have a clear grasp of who they are talking to and the beliefs that they hold coming into the situation, and their current plans to reduce the risk.

Secondly, “Include divergent views related to demographics, length of work experience, and disability” (p. 149). When creating the message, it is important to have other people around who are different than you representing the audience. Everyone has different life experience to pull from, as well as different ways of thinking and different opinions. In a situation such as the AIDS pandemic, one person creating the messages would probably not be nearly as effective to the intended audience that a group of people that may have been either victims of the disease or a family member of one infected.

Third, “Realize that there may be more than one expert model” (p. 149). Basically, there may be more than one way to communicate a risk, depending on your problem.

Fourth, ask and answer the obvious questions while presenting the information. Such as, “How might this happen? What can it do to me? How can I protect myself?” (p. 149). Think about what kind of questions you might get from people, and decide on what the most effective way to answer them is.

Fifth, “Test whether new risk messages affect behavior, not just improve understanding” (p. 149). You might of improved understanding, but if nothing is changed in the behavior, you have not accomplished your goal. In order to find out whether you have really successfully communicated the risk, you must monitor and measure the change in behavior.

As Courtney mentioned, this seemed to be the success in the communication plan in Uganda. The point she raised about the amount of information the communicator should give to the people in this kind of situation is an important one to consider. In the situation in Africa, education about AIDS is a problem, so providing as much information as possible seems to be a good plan. As we know, raising a panic could be a problem, but in a situation like this is might be better than apathy towards the problem.

Giselle also mentioned to us the benefits of message mapping that are discussed in this chapter. This makes sure the messages stay on target and are consistent. I found the website for Dr. Vincent Covello, who invented this approach, and I thought you may think it is interesting. This is a pdf file that explains the message mapping approach in a systematic way that gives more detail than chapter nine. http://publichealth.yale.edu/ycphp/CERCFiles/TrainerResources/Covello_message_mapping.pdf

Appropriate methods of communication can help prevent a crisis or solve one.

The importance of using the appropriate methods of communication were definitely evident in Team 1’s readings. In China, people were terrified of being stabbed by HIV positive needles; some so much so, that they would not leave their houses unless absolutely necessary. In Uganda, people were worried about contracting HIV/AIDS, but they felt they had the necessary information to prevent contracting the disease themselves.

Both examples show the importance of choosing the best methods of communication for an audience. In China, the government was so concerned about not causing a panic that they allowed rumors to spread and people to worry about something that may not be as prevalent as they thought. Therefore, in essence they caused somewhat of a panic while they were trying to prevent one. One woman had her husband drop her off and pick her up at work, while another would not leave the house unless she had to. Another woman was terrified to talk to a reporter once he asked about the stabbing incidents. The Chinese government’s attempts to keep control put them in danger of losing all control on the information by setting people in and out of China to believe rumors that may be untrue. If China had communicated with the Chinese citizens through the mass media, people would have learned that there were only a few incidents and they would not have been as afraid to go about their normal daily lives. The citizens could have also helped the police stop the attacks and catch the perpetrators by keeping a lookout for suspicious people.

In Uganda, the government acknowledged the problem of HIV/AIDS in their country, therefore they were able to get more help from organizations from around the world. Many methods of communication were used in Uganda, from videos to interaction between peers. The most successful was the interaction between peers. People who heard about the seriousness of HIV/AIDS and how to prevent it from one of their peers were more likely to apply what they learned. Videos and pamphlets also helped to drive home the seriousness of the disease by using graphics and pictures of sick people and of burials. These graphics and pictures were something people could identify with, therefore they paid more attention to the information.

Uganda is a good example of the government and other organizations knowing how to best communicate with their audience. Because there are many different education levels in Uganda, the government and other organizations used methods of communication that would educate everyone. Because of their ability to communicate with just about everyone in Uganda, the government was able to reduce the number of cases of HIV/AIDS in Uganda. China’s denial of the HIV/AIDS problem in China has caused the number of people with the disease to increase and has prevented help from organizations from around the world. Because of this, the number of people with the disease keeps increasing. If the Chinese government were to acknowledge the problem, they would be able to communicate with their citizens and help to stop the spread of the disease. An approach, like the approach in Uganda would be the best way to communicate with the citizens of China because the Ugandan approach communicates with people of all different education levels. Knowing how to communicate with you audience is important whether you are communicating about HIV/AIDS or something less serious.

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.

When there's madness, you're gonna need a method.

Risk information will fall on deaf ears if care and consideration is not paid to determining how to disseminate the messages. The agriculture industry has major problems in this area when trying to communicate with the non-ag public (98% of the U.S. population). I’ll get to that later; first, I want to briefly discuss the case presentation team’s articles.

HIV/AIDS Risk Communication
Chapter 10 fits in well with the article on how information about HIV/AIDS moves through communication channels in Uganda. I’ve never seen the acronym “ICTs” before and the authors didn’t tell me what that stands for, but I gather that it means information communication technologies? Courtney, Liz and I learned a lot about successfully communicating and integrating extension projects in foreign countries in an international extension class last year. Efforts to reduce the number of cases of HIV/AIDS in Uganda would not have been successful without involving members of the community in all components of the effort, from top-level decision making to the grassroots level. In many countries, if community members are not an integral part of the effort and merely cast as receivers of aid and information, then impacts of any programs or plans are simply not sustainable. The community has to “own” every bit of the effort. External organizations undoubtedly need to kick start and help organize these mass efforts, but they’re there to help not do it for them. The China news article contrasted the research article perfectly. China’s means of handling risk communication are to put the lid on it. The journalist clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the government’s tactics for controlling the risk. If you don’t inform, rumors and imaginations of what the risk is will fill in for the lack of factual information.

Chapter 10
There are numerous ways to get a risk message out, and “usually no one method will meet the needs of every segment of your audience” (p. 157). Unlike communicating in a crisis, the effectiveness of mass communication is limited with risk messages. We now live in a society that thirsts for personalized information. I can see it in how we chose our news sources (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC), the RSS feeds we sign up for, and overall, this movement toward selectiveness and personalization of information. Information is in abundance and the only way we can hope to process it all is to choose it as it is relevant to our lives and interests. I’m sure someone else will provide a wonderful summary of this chapter, so I will discuss/rant instead. This chapter brought out some deep-rooted passions and struggles I feel as an agricultural communicator.

Agriculture Playing Catch-up
As I said earlier, the agriculture industry is playing catch-up with this new way of communicating to people. I grew up outside Chicago, unaware of 4-H, FFA, and agriculture in general. The cornfield I used to explore near my subdivision was the extent of my agricultural knowledge. Now I’m knee-deep in agriculture and always trying to remember what it was like to not know a lick about it. How can I make agricultural information interesting and personalized for the 98% of people not involved in it? How can I communicate to the people who have spent their entire lives in the industry? How can I bridge the two, which are seemingly so detached from one another?

Many people dread the ill-effects of perceived risks and uncertainties in their food. For example, look at the boom in sales for organic dairy products, especially milk. Organic milk shoppers say they just don’t want to take their chances with hormones and antibiotics in conventional milk. Most people don’t know every milk tank (not just organic) is tested for antibiotics and hormones and will be dumped down the drain if even a trace amount of either is found. It’s been that way for a long, long time. Why don’t people know? A labeling saying “no this” “no that” and “none of this” doesn’t inform people, it just makes them think “I guess I don’t want those things and they must be bad, because I have to pay more money to protect myself.” People get their food risk information from the media, food labels, and advertising campaigns. I recall from a focus group I conducted on consumers’ perceptions of the term “all-natural” one participant said, “When they tell me we don’t add chemicals, additives, or phosphates, I start thinking, maybe we should start buying that meat. I don’t know what those things are or why I don’t want them. I wouldn’t know a phosphate if someone dumped a bag of it over my head.”

Agricultural organizations just aren’t as effective in communicating about food risks as activist and other groups are. It’s a shame. I teach an agricultural Web design class and it is so hard to find a really good ag site. Compare http://www.animalagriculture.org/ to http://www.peta.org/. Even http://www.animalagalliance.org/ can’t compete with PETA. Conventional agriculture is getting a bad reputation, because we don’t use the right methods to communicate about the good things in agriculture or handle risk perceptions adequately.

As you can see, I struggle with the lack of risk communication in the agriculture industry to the non-agriculture population, and hopefully agricultural communicators can turn it around. We need to use new and innovative methods to reach this audience.

End rant.

February 6 - L&M Chapter 13

L&M Chapter 13, “Information Materials” is the first of six in Part III under the general theme of Putting Risk Communication into Action

I think what L&M mean by “information materials” is individual components of information which aggregate into an overall message. The channel chosen to deliver the message (newsletter, pamphlet, technical report, etc.) is distinctly separate from “information materials.”

There’s not really a lot to interpret in this chapter (like some others); it’s pretty much a straight-forward enumeration of information the authors feel should be included in risk communication. None of it is arguable, nor speculative. Here it is (mostly for risk, crisis where mentioned):

Goals and content of this specific communication effort should be summarized and front loaded

Risk should be described, contextualized and compared to similar risk if appropriate
Various courses of action to a specific risk should be communicated, as well as risk associated with each

Uncertainty should be communicated with caution – plausible explanations for why differences might occur when assessing risk is necessary, but should not be presented as fact

Explaining how the risk will be managed is a component of risk communication, and may vary depending on whether care, consensus or crisis communication is applicable

Include benefits of risk situation only if it arises out of an audience “want to know” variable

Empower audience by presenting action members may take regarding the risk. This may minimize hostility because it involves audience members – they may feel less like victims

Always offer contact information, keep this information consistent across channels

Glossary: More than 20 pages? Include definitions of abbreviations, acronyms, technical terms, scientific notation, hard-to-grasp graphs and charts. Less than 20? Avoid acronyms and define technical terms in body. Metric measurements: A lot? Include conversion table. Few? Offer U.S. units in parenthesis in body.

Long documents (40+ pages) should include an index
Provide methods for audiences to seek other sources of information, both inside and outside your organization

Organizing the delivery of risk information according to channel

No matter the channel, explain how risk was determined before presenting information (especially data) on the risk itself. Knowing the audience helps one craft the message with appropriate language. Use culturally appropriate terms when assessing and addressing your audience. Use conditional verbs if decision regarding risk hasn’t been made, use passive verbs so message feels inclusive rather than confrontational. Don’t speculate or present estimates as fact. Include scientific notation and/or mathematical formulas only if you can explain their meaning in lay terms.
If using narrative style (structured story rather than straight listing of facts), message should be previewed by sample audience to confirm the story is involving and relevant, and that the message is comprehensible. If behavioral change is sought, new behavior should be achievable

Tailoring information to specific channels

Newsletters – good for long term (serial) communication. May be subject to chain of approval. Should relate to same risk or type of risk; identifying language should be consistent; acronyms and abbreviations should be avoided; mailing list should be accurately maintained; headlines and graphic elements should attract reader, headlines should communicate main elements

Pamphlets, booklets, fact sheets – good for short-term, one message communication, or one aspect of a complex risk. Information should be self-contained, covering all that is needed to convey point. Visual consistency is important, as is distribution. Put ‘em where they is.

Posters, advertisements, displays – should be simple and clear, graphics should reinforce message and be visually compelling. Include contact information. And – put ‘em where they is.

Articles - match message and language with publication and intended audience

Technical reports – summarize information at the sixth-grade level of reading. Body of report should be written for the tenth-grade level. Graphs, charts, statistical data should be contained in appendices or in supporting documents. Summarize key points often.

Mic Brookshire

Chapter 9 – Developing the Message

After the initial steps of determining the purpose and objectives and analyzing the audience, the emphasis is now on developing the message. This is a crucial step that demonstrates if the information gathered in the initial stages can be appropriately translated into an effective message. The authors stress that message development is not as simple as writing a catchy slogan. “The point is not to try to bombard people with what you think they ought to know, but to understand what they want and need to know and addressing those things in a clear, concise way” (p. 143).

The article on HIV/AIDS awareness in Uganda is a wonderful example of effective message development. The risk communication efforts were successful because the communicators recognized the social and cultural networks unique to Uganda. The resulting message of openness “has been embraced and integrated into the culture, emphasizing prevention and care of those who are affected” (Albright & Kawaooya, 2005, p. 107).

The book lists four main pieces of information people are most likely to want to know:
Description of the risk
Risk consequences
Level of control about the risk and its consequences
Exposure information

The Mental Models approach (first introduced in Chapter 2) can also be used to develop risk messages by interviewing how people understand and view the risks around a particular issue. The purpose of this approach is not to persuade people that the risks are small, but to provide the appropriate amount of information people need to make informed, independent judgments. I believe an additional qualifier need to be placed on this approach to help people make correct independent judgments. What is the use of a risk message that allows people to make informed judgments that are still incorrect? This is where the HIV/AIDS campaign in Uganda was so successful. By providing information about condom use and zero grazing, people were more informed about the disease and the correct methods to prevent its spread. My point is that risk messages not only need to be informative, but I believe they should also provide clear explanations about what the correct behavior should be as a result.

The chapter provides very specific points about communicating health risks. Although these points often are persuasive, they should still address the audience’s concerns, needs, and incentives to act. The article about the HIV scare in China illustrates what happens when people’s concerns are ignored – a panic develops. This article demonstrates why clear and open communication is better than denying a risk. By telling people about the risk situation, they feel empowered because they know what to do or they are at least more informed.

However, this article did make me wonder, is it better to provide more information than necessary and possible create a panic? Or is better to provide less information than necessary and leave some people uninformed? How do you know when you have reached the appropriate balance?

Chapter 17

Stakeholder participation is critical to effectively communicating risk and maintaining organization and source credibility. The authors stated best when they wrote “having the audience or stakeholders interact directly with those who are communicating ……the risk can be extremely effective way to communicate the risk.

Accordingly one must keep in mind when attempting to utilize effective stakeholder participation, is that the stakeholder participation is most effective when key choices concerning the risk have yet to be made. This gives the appearance of good faith by the communicating parties.

Requirements for stakeholder participation

The authors emphasized that the communicating organization must be comfortable with the way or methods by which it interacts with the stakeholders and vice versa.

The author also state that in order for stakeholder participation to truly work the organization must be truly committed to the plan. The best way is to maintain with all active organizational participants that stakeholders have a right to be involved.

Some keys to implementing the plan:

it is important to gauge stakeholders’ perceptions
essential to the plan is to find consensus with all groups/parties involved
work to prevent conflicts so the plan maybe implemented


Types of participation

The Formal Hearing – be sure the time and place has no pervious association with negative events or sentiments.

Self Help Groups -- motivates stakeholders of potentially risky behavior, also informs them of the preventative actions they can employ.

Focus Groups – stakeholders’ representatives who meet for a specific purpose, for a specific period of time.

Workshops – similar to focus groups, the nature of the workshop is more educational than participatory.

Advisory Groups – made up of stakeholder representatives who advise the organization about concerns, over a variety of subjects over an extended period of time.

These are essential instruments to be used in stakeholder participation.

Chapter 7 emphasizes the need for a comprehensive plan when conducting risk communication efforts. It’s very similar to planning a public relations campaign; you need to set measurable goals and objectives that will aid in the execution of the plan.

As outlined in chapter 8, knowing your audience is the key to conducting successful risk communication. Understanding who you’re communicating with and their backgrounds will make it much easier to create a message that has a better chance of being received. While a comprehensive audience analysis would obviously be the most helpful, often time and budget constraints prevent that level of detail from being obtained.

I found it interesting that Lundgren and McMakin claim that “the least effective but more often used form of stakeholder participation is the formal hearing or public meeting” (p.301). The reason these meetings are frequently used probably have more to do with the aforementioned budget constraints – it’s cheaper to hold several large meetings, rather than conducting in-depth individual research and multiple focus groups, which can end up being costly in the end. Large meetings also offer the best chance to receive public recognition, as members of the media can attend and report back to the rest of the community.

Because it’s mentioned frequently in the readings, I decided to Google Superfund to find out exactly what it was, as I was very curious. The following is from the EPA’s web site:

What is Superfund?

Superfund is the Federal government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the Superfund program, abandoned, accidentally spilled, or illegally dumped hazardous waste that pose a current or future threat to human health or the environment are cleaned up. To accomplish its mission, EPA works closely with communities, Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), scientists, researchers, contractors, and state, local, tribal, and Federal authorities. Together with these groups, EPA identifies hazardous waste sites, tests the conditions of the sites, formulates cleanup plans, and cleans up the sites.

What is a Superfund site?

A Superfund site is any land in the United States that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health and/or the environment.

"There are tens of thousands of abandoned hazardous waste sites in our nation, and accidental releases occur daily. At the core of the Superfund program is a system of identification and prioritization that allows the most dangerous sites and releases to be addressed within the confines of limited Federal funding and human resources. ...The first step in the Superfund process is to identify abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

All sites where releases or potential releases have been reported are listed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)."

Community involvement is a key component of any Superfund site plan, as notated by their goal statements:

• Keep the community well informed of ongoing and planned activities.
• Encourage and enable community members to get involved.
• Listen carefully to what the community is saying.
• Take the time needed to deal with community concerns.
• Change planned actions where community comments or concerns have merit.
• Explain to the community what EPA has done and why.

Their web site is quite comprehensive and explains the Superfund program in detail, including cleanup procedures and the like. There’s even a kids section which includes a cute comic that explains what happens when an area gets contaminated and what the EPA does to remedy the situation.

Also included is the “community involvement toolkit”, which highlights their complete community involvement plan and all the tactics/methods they employ, many of which are discussed in chapter 17. I encourage you to check it out, as they’ve done a good job of mapping out a clear plan of how to achieve their community involvement objectives.

Reflecting 'Chapter 7' on a case study

This chapter spells out several factors that influence purpose and objectives. Those factors include legal issues, organizational requirements, risk itself, and audience requirements. As an effort to find out how these factors can provide helpful guidelines in actual practices, I’m going to bring one of the case studies presented on PRSA Web site into this discussion.

The case is about the public release of worst-case scenarios by 14 chemical plants in West Virginia’s Kanawha Valley in June, 1994. This case study was published in the March 1995 issue of the PRSA Environment Section newsletter, on the Environmental Horizon. The discussion will be focused on how these factors presented in the chapter 7 were taken into consideration when determining the purpose in this specific case.

There were two laws that affected the determination of purpose here. The public release of worst-case scenarios was expected to be mandatory in communities throughout the nation within 4 years under provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments. Ahead of Clean Air Act Amendments to be effective, there was a decision made by K/PLEP (Kanawha/Putnam Local Emergency Planning Committee) in February 1992 that it had authority under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act to require these reports. When it comes to organizational requirements, there must have been a certain policies (although they are not mentioned in the case study abstract) that involve risk communication since they are chemical plants that are very likely to have great influence to the environment.

Looking at the risk itself, this risk communication can be categorized as care communication since the possible dangers are already recognized and formalized as worst-case scenarios. Therefore, as the textbook suggests, the purpose in this case is “to alert the audience and provide information (p. 118)” In addition to the communication type, another consideration (relative newness of the risk and its visibility to the audience) can be easily recognized. It was the first time that these chemical plants are publicly informing the related issues. And the risk they were talking about was the possible dangers that are not yet very visible. Hence, the situation falls into “relatively new & little known” section in the matrix of Figure 7-1 (p.119).

The audience requirements couldn’t be any more obvious. The local activist groups have requested K/PLEP that the public informing session be made.
Based on the factors mentioned above, the purpose (or “goal” which is more frequently used in the field) of the risk communication effort for this case turned out to be appropriate:
• Communicate to the public about the worst-case scenarios of chemical plants in the Kanawha Valley.
• Communicate to local residents about what companies are doing to emphasize safety, reduce risk and handle an accident if one should occur.
• Indicate to the residents of Charleston that they can take steps to reduce their own risk of exposure in the event of an accident.

Finally, the followings are some of the lessons that the case study listed out at the end in resonance with the reasons for formalizing the purpose and objectives for effective risk communication described in the text book (p. 115).
• Begin with a clearly defined set of goals and roles for committees.
• Facilitators/consultants should be incorporated in the process as early as possible to improve consistency.

Despite it being such a cliche to mention, let me say this once and clearly as a conclusion: Having a risk communication plan with accurately and properly defined purpose and objectives is the key to an effective risk communication.

Chapter 8 analysis

While some of the readings regarding audience analysis may seem redundant, the truth is this is a crucial part of any risk or crisis communication plan. Chapter 8 explores the importance of not making assumptions about anything when developing a crisis plan – especially the audience.

Audiences can think the same way we do -- analyze issues the way we do -- or they can not. Either way, we could sit around and guess all day about how to best target an audience. But like any respectable public relations team or staff, we must scientifically go about designing a mode of communication. It really is a science – how to include enough information to educate the public, sufficiently address the issue and examine all angles while avoiding confusing people, or worse, alienating them. No one likes to feel inferior to someone else, and this is where we as public relations professionals need to address audiences accordingly. We cannot overwhelm people with information, but at the same time we must not water down the information to the point where people know they are being talked down to. We are trying to communicate our message and get the public on board – not offend them. The text talks about the importance of determining your goal…is it to increase awareness? Change behavior? Encourage consensus building? Answering these questions determines the direction in which you take your communications plan.

Ideally, you will have unlimited time to fully analyze your audience and how best to address them, and you will have a large staff to get out into the community and sit and talk with the publics. However, as is often the case in risk and crisis communication, you will probably have limited time and staff resources. Because of this, we need to tie back into our strengths in relationship building and take advantage of services that can help us most accurately determine our audience. Get with certain civic leaders, community pillars, religious leaders – determine the audiences cares and concerns in the community. Where do they spend their free time? What is important to them? How involved in the community are they? What are the issues of the area? Roads? Schools? Crime? What are the identifying qualities of the community? Area history? Art? A great leisure and recreation atmosphere? Demographics are important here, too, as are education levels and previous history with certain issues. Has the community been in these situations before? What was the result of previous communication plans? Only when you understand the driving forces behind a community are you able to understand how and why they feel the way they feel and you can then connect to them. This is why it’s important to appoint a spokesperson that the community trusts. When getting to this point, it’s especially important to look from the outside in. Don’t choose a spokesperson just because you like them or the CEO thinks they’re a good fit. Make sure that person has credibility and (ideally) familiarity to the community. This is your opportunity to connect with people in a way that satisfies your and the community’s goals – you get to have an expert in the field, someone well-versed on the issue, and the community can feel like the issue no longer exists outside their realm of understanding and contribution.

Boycotters vs. Stakeholders

“Stakeholder participation is most effective when key choices concerning the risk have yet to be made” (p. 301). My public relations training thus far (combined with a minute amount of common sense) has convinced me that including stakeholders in the decision-making process is an essential action.

I explicitly agree with the assessment that “[e]veryone involved with the risk assessment and risk management process…must believe that stakeholders have a right to be and can be involved. If anyone has reservations, those reservations will be apparent to the stakeholders and spoil any chances for meaningful interaction” (p. 303).” Although I did not see an instance in which activist groups were being listed separately from “the public” in the chapter (This does not mean it’s not there. Feel free to correct me if that is the case.), the point that people who could be affected by the organization’s actions should have a place in the list of stakeholders leads me to include activist groups (even those who generally oppose entire industries based on principle) when the term “the public” is used. What I have noticed in my perhaps limited experience so far is that some organizations may not really want to have dialogue with outsiders, especially when they are not popularly considered to be stakeholders.

In particular, I am thinking about the question of whether a social movement that boycotts an industry can be considered a stakeholder, especially within risk management. Unfortunately, the animal agriculture industry and the animal rights movement do not have a good record of positive dialogue. Instead, because animal rights activists often do not eat animal products, they are often not considered to be stakeholders. Last Thursday, pork processor Smithfield Foods Inc. announced that it will phase out gestation crates within ten years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16812499). According to Smithfield, this decision was not based on pressure from consumers or activist groups. Instead, they chose to do this because, even though it will consist of a large financial commitment, it is “the right thing to do.”

For several years, PETA has been pressuring large purchasers of pork such as McDonalds and Burger King to demand that its suppliers (such as Smithfield Foods) to stop using gestation crates based on their inhumane qualities. The European Union is in the process of eliminating them entirely and ballot initiatives in Florida and more recently Arizona have demanded that the use of gestation crates by pork producers be phased out. In this situation, should animal rights groups concerned with the mental (yes, mental) and emotional well-being of an animal raised to be slaughtered be considered a stakeholder group?

Don't forget to analyze your audience!

Chapter 8 was about the importance of analyzing your audience. This seems like a topic that is always covered in communication classes, but Chapter 8 does have some important and helpful tips about how an audience should be analyzed.

There are three levels of audience analysis: baseline audience analysis, midline audience analysis and comprehensive audience analysis. Baseline audience analysis is the simplest form of audience analysis and provides the least in-depth information about your audience. Midline audience analysis provides more information than baseline and less than comprehensive. Comprehensive audience analysis provides the most in-depth information about your audience. It is important to know how much information you need to know about your audience, so you know how much research needs to be done. The charts in the chapter are quite helpful because they break down the levels of audience analysis and they organize the types of things to research at each level of audience analysis.

The chapter also mentioned tips to use when direct audience analysis is not possible. It is good to know the indirect methods of audience analysis because then there is a way to know how to tailor your messages for your audiences if you cannot directly analyze your audience.

Analyzing your audience before sending out a message may seem like common sense, and to me, the chapter basically covered what I had been taught before in communication classes. While this may be the case for most people, I think it is still good to read about the importance of audience analysis because we may easily forget that if we do not know how to best reach our audiences, our messages will be ineffective.

Chapter 8 is a good reference tool for anyone who is analyzing an audience. The chapter gave several lists of what information should be researched when analyzing an audience and what information should be researched at each level of audience analysis. These lists, which may be uninteresting to read, are helpful when it comes to analyzing an audience and you need a place to start. The lists also mention where the information can be found so that you do not have to search everywhere to find information that you may need.

Analyzing your audience is a very important part of communication. If you do not know how to best reach your audience your message will be lost in translation. While analyzing an audience may seem like a daunting task, it is not very difficult, but it could be time consuming, if you do not know where to start or how to go about it. Chapter 8 is quite helpful in giving information about how to go about deciding what information you need about your audience and how to find it.

Chapter 8: Analyze your audience

To me, chapter 8: analyze your audience is a comprehensive and down-to-earth guideline for practitioners keep in mind when they have problems finding what the publics really care about. As a communication major student, it has been my belief that knowing the audience is the key to communication campaigns. However, when it comes to research and analysis, we are often constrained by lack of time, funding and organizational supports. More often than not, conducting audience research ends up with unrealistic things to invest from the profit-corporation side.

This chapter discussed how to start and utilize research information to analyze our audience and tailor messages to them. Fist, we begin to set purposes and objectives we aim to achieve through the communication efforts. Defining goals and objectives are extremely important for managerial positions. Objectives allow us to evaluate the effects of our communication campaigns. Second, we determine the most appropriate level of audience analysis based on the previous purpose and objectives. Three levels of audience analysis can be summarized into the following table.

	Suitable for	Purpose	Time
Baseline	Any risk com. and Crisis com	Comfort and build awareness	4 hours to 2 weeks
Midline Analysis	Care communication	Increase awareness	1 week to 1month
Comprehensive Analysis	Care and Consensus Communication	Change behavior	3 weeks to 2months

Then, we make a detail list of the key audience characteristics we need to know. After that, we can determine what kind of methods would be appropriate to find information. Usually, direct methods including interviews, surveys, focus group yield more depth information than less direct methods while less-direct methods, using surrogate audiences and existing sources of information, can save us time and cost. Finally, the author raised the issue of the selection of communication channels and messages. The key concept here is to “tailor risk messages to meet specific audience and situation needs (p. 138).”

After reading this, I can’t help saying that all of these are so perfect. The issue would be whether we can implement all steps in terms of analyzing audience. I am curious about several questions: when we are dealing with a crisis situation that happened before in the same industry (e.g. food industry or pharmaceutical industry), would it be necessary to collect as much information as we can or we may follow what certain organizations have done to respond to the crisis and slightly modified the way? I’m thinking this is the value of why we having case study discussions. Knowing what other people perform in the similar situations help us learn how to handle it in a more responsible and successful manner. Besides, using surrogate audiences seems cost-effective when it comes to communication risk to a distant community. The way of using surrogating audience is similar to convenience sampling. The information may have problems in generalization to other subgroups. In this way, would some audience information be better than none once the information is misleading or biased?

Goals and Objectives

In every communication effort, we need to develop the purpose and objectives. The purpose is a general statement about the reason of the risk communication and “objectives are statements of specific, measurable details to be accomplished” (Lundgren and McMakin, 2004, p. 115). Lundgren and McMakin (2004) also mentioned that legal issues, organizational requirements, the risk itself, and audience requirements are important factors for the purpose and objectives of the risk communication.
The important laws mentioned in the book were Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the requirements set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
To know your own organization’s requirements and policies, crisis managers should know how much they can involve with the public, how much information they can release, and how they develop the communication materials and processes in general. This does not only apply to crisis managers. Ideally, all employees in the company or an organization should acknowledge of their organization’s requirements and policies. It is very important for the organization because it directly means how well communication is possible and core values are shared within the organization. From public relations perspective, I believe this is the core for the employee relations. Shared values and two-way communication should be guaranteed for the effective employee relations.
Risks are classified as three categories: care communication, consensus communication, and crisis communication. Care communication is for situations in which the risk is no loner in doubt, and includes the risks from using tobacco and contracting the AIDS virus. Consensus communication is for situations in which the audience will help assess and manage the risk, and includes operation of a hazardous waste incinerator, siting of electrical power transmission lines, and cleanup of a Superfund site. Finally, crisis communication is for an immediate risk, and includes a chemical plant fire, an earthquake, and a train derailment. I understood that care communication is everyday efforts to prepare the risk and consensus communication is the situation which needs to clarify how to understand it. Crisis communication is an emergency which should be prepared before as a plan.
Related to audience requirements, Lundgren and McMakin (2004) explained that audience generally wants to know about any risks that would prevent their living a good life for care communication. For consensus communication, the audience generally wants to contribute to a decision about how to assess and manage the risk. For crisis communication, audience generally wants to learn how to minimize their risk as quickly as possible. To know the audience’s needs is very important because the goal of risk communication is to make the audience prepared for the crisis. From this chapter, I learned about the new concept, “consensus communication” in risk communication. I think consensus communication is somewhat related to community relation because it needs an agreement or participation from the audience. Generally, the audience of consensus communication may be the community in risk communication. The community should be directly involved with the risk and plays an active role for efficient consensus communication.

Why a Game Plan is Important

Well Catherine did a great job summarizing chapter 7 on Determine Purpose and Objectives. This is a reaction to how a plan would help my every day job. About a year and a half ago the marketing office was divided into 3 separate entities. What used to be organized and had some what of a plan now doesn’t. Not only that, the 3 entities do not communicate with each other so even if there was a plan no one would know about it.

If we knew the why and the how and we formalized a plan in writing the trick would be to communicate it back up through the bureaucratic layers of administration. The next step of getting everyone on common ground upon which to build could take years, probably right up to having a crisis in front of us as a prod. Once common ground was agreed upon the upper management would have changed so we would be back to square one. We would not have to worry about measuring success at that point.

This chapter made me realize that educating all levels of management on this issue is very important. The plan will not succeed without their input and buy-in. It is also imperative to know the legal issues that different departments in IFAS face and how they affect the overall plan for the organization. I’m sure we could find evidence to support the “formal” and “traditional ways to handle risk communication from some past effort. IFAS also has the possibility of having to communicate in the following three areas of care, consensus and crisis. Given these opportunities exist we should be better prepared to handle the situation when they were to occur.

For example during the citrus canker outbreak, it should have stated in a plan at each of the research centers and other departments that do citrus research who would make statement to the media. Not having that plan in place, many researchers were interviewed. Many times the ones interviewed had no training in conducting an interview with the media let alone about a highly emotional topic. Some researcher should never be allowed to face the media. In fact having to go back to apologize to a whole industry is worse than delaying the interview. The researcher basically blamed the citrus industry for having canker problems because they weren’t funding the research needed when the problem first came on the horizon. A plan would have helped greatly.

The area that IFAS seems to understand is the diversity of the audience. The audience is the most important element of having a successful risk communications plan. The area of expertise within IFAS is also diverse and that helps them be prepared for the cultural and social differences that exist within a community.

I found the check list for determining purpose and objectives very helpful not only from a planning perception but also as an education tool. It would be a simple and clear way to start teaching upper management about a crisis communications plan and all that it entails.
Thanks, Liz Felter

Audience Analysis

The key message delivered in this week’s readings was “know thy audience.” The first two chapters – and even the chapter on computer usage conveyed the necessity of knowing exactly who it is you are trying to reach in order to effectively reach them.

If you don’t know who you are talking to (or talking with) then you won’t know how to reach them. There are issues of language to be employed; means of addressing the issues, types of communication that might work best, soliciting feedback (or not) that come into play. How can you communicate risk – or in a way, communicate anything – if you don’t know your audience?

That may seem obvious – but we have all witnessed case after case of failed communication efforts because those in charge did not know their audience. The need to change approach was documented quite well in a movie I saw this weekend, “Freedom Writer,” about a young and idealistic female teacher whose first job was in an inner city school in the greater Los Angeles area. Her students were Asian-American, Hispanic, African-American and a smatter of whites – most gang members – who hated each other and had basically been written off by other educators as having no future – literally and figuratively. This was definitely a group at risk; but the teacher analyzed her audience and found a way to communicate with these students that worked. A different kind of risk communication, but one I think that helps make the point about the need to understand your audience.

Another recent issue that comes to mind was the case of the student protests at Gallaudet College over the appointment of Jane Fernandes as president in October 2007. The students were angry because they felt they had not been consulted or brought into the process. (They were not.) There is a history of student activism on the Gallaudet campus especially around issues of deaf culture. The decision makers, and the communicators, did not know their audience – or if they knew their student audience -- failed to take its members into account. Had the Gallaudet administrators engaged in consensus communications, they might not have had crisis communications to contend with ex-post-facto? Because I was curious to know the outcome, I looked online and saw a new president, Robert Davila, had assumed the office on Jan. 1, 2007. He seems to have learned from others’ past mistakes. He has already begun what appears to be an excellent outreach effort to develop real consensus communications, something he is calling “Bob’s vlog: A conversation with President Robert Davila” which he hopes “will help Gallaudet come together as a community.”

And this just in from California about the aftermath of the spinach E-coli outbreaks late last year which left three people dead and caused at least 200 other people to get sick. The spinach was traced to California as was the spinach that was reported to be the source of two other E-coli outbreaks in November and December of 2006.

According to a news story in the Sacramento Bee last week, http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/114684.html, farmers and legislators are trying to come up with a way to provide better consumer food safety guarantees. The growers are proposing a new set of voluntary safety standards, but consumer groups are bound to question how effective a voluntary standard could be.

The E-Coli incident was definitely a crisis communication situation when it occurred, but it seems now that care and/or consensus communications could more appropriately be the order of the day. Yet as far as I can tell from what I have read, legislators and growers are communicating with each other about what is best for the consumer, but the consumer is not part of the process. Beware!

My final comment concerns the case study from Rutgers University. As a Jersey girl, I am always interested in news from my home state. But I found the study of the RUSure campaign to be quite interesting. The possibly fictitious incident used to set up the report was effective precisely because it conveyed the sense of normal drinking patterns among first-year university students – It did not end with the death of one or the rape of another. It simply conveyed what the existing problem was. But what really grabbed my attention in this one was how effective the campaign was because the message was coming from other college students – not from administrators or health care professionals. That made the message more effective and I think was what really made the campaign work. Again, it seems that a real effort was made to analyze the audience and proceed accordingly. Go Rutgers!

Audience Analysis

The key message delivered in this week’s readings was “know thy audience.” The first two chapters – and even the chapter on computer usage conveyed the necessity of knowing exactly who it is you are trying to reach in order to effectively reach them.

If you don’t know who you are talking to (or talking with) then you won’t know how to reach them. There are issues of language to be employed; means of addressing the issues, types of communication that might work best, soliciting feedback (or not) that come into play. How can you communicate risk – or in a way, communicate anything – if you don’t know your audience?

That may seem obvious – but we have all witnessed case after case of failed communication efforts because those in charge did not know their audience. The need to change approach was documented quite well in a movie I saw this weekend, “Freedom Writer,” about a young and idealistic female teacher whose first job was in an inner city school in the greater Los Angeles area. Her students were Asian-American, Hispanic, African-American and a smatter of whites – most gang members – who hated each other and had basically been written off by other educators as having no future – literally and figuratively. This was definitely a group at risk; but the teacher analyzed her audience and found a way to communicate with these students that worked. A different kind of risk communication, but one I think that helps make the point about the need to understand your audience.

Another recent issue that comes to mind was the case of the student protests at Gallaudet College over the appointment of Jane Fernandes as president in October 2007. The students were angry because they felt they had not been consulted or brought into the process. (They were not.) There is a history of student activism on the Gallaudet campus especially around issues of deaf culture. The decision makers, and the communicators, did not know their audience – or if they knew their student audience -- failed to take its members into account. Had the Gallaudet administrators engaged in consensus communications, they might not have had crisis communications to contend with ex-post-facto? Because I was curious to know the outcome, I looked online and saw a new president, Robert Davila, had assumed the office on Jan. 1, 2007. He seems to have learned from others’ past mistakes. He has already begun what appears to be an excellent outreach effort to develop real consensus communications, something he is calling “Bob’s vlog: A conversation with President Robert Davila” which he hopes “will help Gallaudet come together as a community.”

And this just in from California about the aftermath of the spinach E-coli outbreaks late last year which left three people dead and caused at least 200 other people to get sick. The spinach was traced to California as was the spinach that was reported to be the source of two other E-coli outbreaks in November and December of 2006.

According to a news story in the Sacramento Bee last week, http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/114684.html, farmers and legislators are trying to come up with a way to provide better consumer food safety guarantees. The growers are proposing a new set of voluntary safety standards, but consumer groups are bound to question how effective a voluntary standard could be.

The E-Coli incident was definitely a crisis communication situation when it occurred, but it seems now that care and/or consensus communications could more appropriately be the order of the day. Yet as far as I can tell from what I have read, legislators and growers are communicating with each other about what is best for the consumer, but the consumer is not part of the process. Beware!

My final comment concerns the case study from Rutgers University. As a Jersey girl, I am always interested in news from my home state. But I found the study of the RUSure campaign to be quite interesting. The possibly fictitious incident used to set up the report was effective precisely because it conveyed the sense of normal drinking patterns among first-year university students – It did not end with the death of one or the rape of another. It simply conveyed what the existing problem was. But what really grabbed my attention in this one was how effective the campaign was because the message was coming from other college students – not from administrators or health care professionals. That made the message more effective and I think was what really made the campaign work. Again, it seems that a real effort was made to analyze the audience and proceed accordingly. Go Rutgers!