Chapter 14 - Visual Representation of Risks

This chapter was about when visual representation of risks can be used and why they can be so affective in communicating risks. The chapter describes ways to represent risk related information visually, by using pictures, illustrations, graphs, and etc. Visuals can be used to give information about: the nature of the risk and its effects, the size and the significance of the risk, the likelihood of the risk and the likelihood that it will affect certain people, the changes of the risk over time, and alternatives to the risk with benefits and dangers of those alternatives. It was a useful chapter in outlining detailed information about visual representation and how it can be applied to different situations.

The chapter argues that visuals help audiences understand and recall the content of risk better. Information can be forgotten, but people have stronger visual memories and tend to remember things they have seen in picture form better. This reminded me of something that I had experienced when I was ten and still impresses me when I think about it.

Me and my younger brother were staying at my grandmother’s. While we were sitting in the living room with my grandmother, my brother went into the kitchen and then came screaming, calling us to the kitchen. My grandmother had left the gas oven on and gas had leaked everywhere. I still remember how strong that smell and feeling was, it made you feel fatigued immediately. However, my younger brother who was around 7 at the time opened the windows of the house, and then took a broom and started to push the air inside the kitchen outside with the broom. He also stopped us from turning on the lights. Even today, when I think about what he did I am still impressed with him.

After he did all of these and the house was cleaned, he told us that he had seen a brochure about what to do in case there is a gas leak. He remembered the picture he had seen: the cross sign on the electric switch which meant you were not supposed to turn anything on, opening all the windows of the house, and using a broom to clean the air and push the gas outside. A seven year old saved our lives due to pictures he had seen!

Visuals are helpful in clarifying abstract concepts. For example a gas leak is abstract if you have not lived through one. No matter how much you read about it, seeing pictures of what to do step-by-step may be easier to recall during the event. Visuals can be powerful tools to explain various aspects of risks and they enhance understanding about the risks.

When you designing a certain visual for a specific use, you need to consider the audience’s information needs. Most of the time, you want to cover what people want to know in a certain risk situation, but you will also need to carefully determine and place information about what people may need to know.

Another important factor you need to keep in mind when designing visuals is where and how they will be used. If you are designing something for elementary school children, you need to determine what will be attractive and interesting to them, and what will they remember easily. Mental models might be important at the design point of visual risk communication materials since how people perceive something will also be a result of what they have in their minds. If you can incorporate what people already have in mind with what they need to know, that visual will be attractive, easy to understand and also easy to recall.

A major point emphasized towards the end of the chapter is the need to pretest your visuals with people you plan to use them for. Feedback might be important for you to determine what else you can include to make it more understandable, or even address some misconceptions or missing information they will benefit from learning.

Step right up and get some risk attenuation!

Wes Jamison PUR 6934 Reaction blog #5 Lundgren and McMakin chapter 15

Chapter 15 reinforces the truism from chapter 13, noting that “The farther away we get from individual contact, the more room there is for confusion and misunderstanding” (pp. 193). The authors provide a template for face-to-face communications regarding risk, advocating a spokesperson who is acceptable to both the audience and organization, and who has been trained and is competent to implement the task.
Face-to-face (F2F) communication bridges the gap between risk rhetor and risk recipient by emphasizing communications proximity via direct interaction. It differs from stakeholder communications in that F2F communications follows a one-way model rather than Grunig’s two-way symmetrical model. The key consideration is the acceptability of the rhetor to the audience and organization, and factors included in determining the proper rhetor are credibility, responsiveness, and acceptability to the audience. The risk communicator should be credible, which involves the marriage of credentials, experience, and empathy. Likewise, they should be responsive in that they can actually address the audience’s concerns; in this context, either single or multiple communicators who fit the criteria can be used. In addition, risk communicators should be acceptable to the audience, and this involves the ability to speak the actual language of the audience, as well as to communicate the risk using appropriate idiosyncratic phrases, e.g. present information at a level that is understandable. Also, the communicator should be able to use appropriate body language, and be particularly aware of how their social presence affects the content and resonance of the message.
The authors also note that the risk communicator must be acceptable to the organization that they represent. This makes intuitive sense because internal political concerns often drive external communications efforts. Hence, the choice of a proper risk communicator is as much a political one as a pragmatic one. Interestingly, the authors list a number of attributes of organizationally-acceptable risk rhetors, and make a prescient observation that line managers---those who actually encounter the risk and understand the risk creation process---make effective communicators if they fit the other criteria. Nonetheless, the authors also make a paradoxical and unexamined comment on pp. 253: “…in many cases, they [public affairs and PR people] will have no credibility in the eyes of a hostile audience because of the unfortunate stereotype of the public affairs person as the manipulative Madison Avenue type.” The authors let that zinger fly, and yet the pregnancy of their comment seems to elude them. What is the source of public skepticism other than the manipulative effects demonstrated by the authors? Furthermore, how can the authors identify a problem without addressing either its causes or its cures? Likewise, have they disengaged from the philosophically pragmatic process they advocate long enough to contemplate the effect of their efforts on other risk rhetors, e.g. if PR practitioners who train other risk rhetors concerning how to communicate risk are viewed as sleazy, then eventually won’t the other risk rhetors come to be viewed as tainted, a kind of “sleaze by association,” by publics that are increasingly sophisticated and cynical?
The rest of the chapter involves the practical aspects of F2F, and includes useful checklists and hints regarding getting “the locals” to accept the risk. Indeed, given visual reinforcements is appropriate because it reflects good pedagogical skills. But as we all know, heuristics are a little more complicated than the authors note. I would have liked to see a further discussion of visual, aural, and tactile learning styles and how risk rhetors could use techniques and materials to address and stimulate all three learning styles. Excellent technique involves presenting information in all three formats, but the implications of tactile learning on risk communications go without discussion. In other words, in lectures on orange production, the communicator presents the verbal information along with slides and actual oranges, and then allows the audience to manipulate an orange, smell it and taste it. But can one really accomplish that with many modern risks? Union Carbide can't really let the audience smell the cyanide, can they? But this does up an interesting point about risk communications in areas where urban and rural agricultural areas interface: some counties around the US have begun giving realtors scratch-and-sniff materials and requiring them to present those materials to potential home buyers as demonstrations of agricultural production smells.
Finally, the authors drive home perhaps the most salient point of “selling” risk: don’t promise what you can’t deliver! It’s interesting that many of the techniques that the authors advocate are derived from sales and marketing. In effect, they are selling a product (risk perception) using methods that aim to tailor the product (risk) to the needs of the consumer. Certainly we can all agree that proper communication is important, but I wonder if we all accept the tacit viewpoints of the authors. The tendency among all sales people is to over-promise and under-deliver, and that’s because they really want the sale. But it’s noteworthy that at least the authors counsel self-discipline, even if they use the language of persuasive selling. Perhaps more important, I wonder about the impact of such a reliance on persuasive selling on the public discourse of risk itself. Although not pragmatic, what’s wrong with telling people “we really don’t know the long-term consequences of the risk”? In other words, I completely understand the rationale of persuasion in risk communication---my unease is more about what such a perspective means for society and what such pragmatism, such tacit acceptance of capitalism, implies about us.

Designing Risk: Visual Representation of Risks

It's no surprise that people understand images better than text. Lately I have been visiting several doctors in the area and I've been seeing a lot of old, cheesy pamphlets and posters. Although they do make information easier to understand, and the information may still be relevant, I can not help but wonder if the outdated look means outdated information. I consider myself knowledgeable about design and visual communication, so I am probably harsher in my judgment than the average joe. However, page 217 illustrates how I typically see health risk information communicated. Who is making these horrid illustrations? Are they effective despite their resemblance to 1970s and '80s educational cartoons? I wish this chapter had addressed the importance of good, modern design techniques to communicate effectively. I think people are aware of what's modern looking and what appears outdated. If the information is new and "cutting-edge" (so to speak) then the design should reflect that.

The authors emphasize pre-testing graphics with those who will use them. Nothing and no one will speak louder to the designer(s) and communicator(s) than the audience who is supposed to use and understand the information. I would argue that the pre-testing rarely happens in many organizations and I run into this a lot as a Web designer. How do you politely tell the powers-that-be that they are not the audience? No matter how well you think you know your audience or pretend to use and absorb the information as they would, pre-testing is the only way to be sure the visuals are communicating as intended. I always tell my clients something along the lines of, “You can never assume they (the audience) will understand something or make the same logical connections that you and I can make. We have to make it blatantly obvious or see what the user says.” Until someone invents “audience goggles,” (similar to beer goggles) so we can see what our audience sees, pre-testing makes our jobs as risk communicators a whole lot easier in the end. One thing the authors did not address the amount of time it takes to do pre-testing and then to make the changes based on audience feedback. You may find that you need to overhaul the entire thing or go with an entirely different media, which could be immensely time-consuming.

Many news sites create interactive communication pieces. See http://www.toxiclegacy.com/ for an example of what’s called a “Flash news package.” I think this is a good way to create a communication process that the user can control and interact with. I see this as a potential means to communicate risk visually as well. Although, I’m not sure how much time a person would want to spend with something like that. I know podcasts and RSS feeds are trendy to have on a Web site these days, but I’m not sure about their effectiveness as risk communication tools. The Web offers so many options for communicating with people, but there are certainly some types of information that are more effective in other forms.

I went searching on the Web for some visual representations of citrus canker. I was disappointed to find broken links on the USDA site for fact sheets in English and Spanish on how to prevent the spread of citrus canker. I did find UF/IFAS’ Web site for it: http://canker.ifas.ufl.edu/index.asp. If you’re going to take advantage of the Web to communicate risk information, you better use it wisely. You’re not limited by print cost or space limitations, so jazz it up! The UF/IFAS Citrus Canker Extension program site communicates no more effectively than a sheet of paper with text on it. I better stop typing about this before I get a call to re-design this site for them.

Is a picture always worth a 1000 words?

In an attempt to better understand the subject of visualization or graphics, I came across an article based on a panel discussion on the usefulness or limitations of traditional and computer generated visuals in conveying information effectively. The discussions were centered on the common saying that ‘a picture is worth a 1000 words’. The following statements from some of the panelists caught my attention;

“A Picture May Be (Or May Not Be) Worth A Thousand Words: Lessons From The
WWW?
Barbara Mones-Hattal
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but
those words may not be the same from one person to the next. It has always been
a challenge for the artist to design with simplicity, subtlety, and sensitivity.
The integration of text and image is not new to the artist.” (p.2)

“A Picture is Not a Picture is Not a Picture...: A Picture Could be Worth a
1,000, 1/1,000, or -1,000 Words
Nahum Gershon
The difficulty in
representing information clearly, the dependency of visual and information
perception on past memories, experiences, beliefs, and culture and the
difficulty in making effective use of color are some examples illustrating the
frailty of image representations…….. But, we need to make sure in these cases,
the viewers are aware of this fact deep in their minds. Otherwise, we might
create pictures that are worth 1/1,000 (Hanson, 1970) of a word or even -1,000
words.” (p.2)

“P1000: A Picture is Worth 1000 Words
Russ Rose
In this era of the
information explosion, there exists the need to take advantage of the power
provided by the human’s visual processing system….A picture is worth 1000 words;
that is, in 1/1000 the time, a visual image can be processed and analyzed rather
than being represented and processed as words. If represented as words, it would
often require more than 1000 words, would take 1000 times as long to understand,
and would still not communicate the content as comprehensively as a visual image
can. The visual representation of the information, however, must be based on a
comprehensive and information rich structure. If not, it will easily not be
worth a single word, let alone the 1000 words (we all have sat through tiring
briefings centered around charts cluttered with information-free clip art that
provides no more than visual noise).” (p.2)

Excerpts from: Gershon, N. D. (1996). Breaking the myth: One picture is NOT (always) worth a thousand words. Conference proceedings: 7th IEEE Visualization Conference. Retrieved February 8th, 2006, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/4271/12277/00569203.pdf?arnumber=569203

The different views expressed by the three panelists captures very well what Chapter 14 on Visual Representation of Risks is all about. Though the panelists expressed different views to the common saying that ‘a picture is worth a 1000 words’, to me they were all right since they advanced and justified their positions arguably well. Analysis of their positions and discussions gives insight into qualities of effective graphics or visuals. While the importance of visuals in communicating risks cannot be underscored, it is also worth noting that “poorly designed or produced visuals are worse than no visuals at all” (p. 221). It is therefore important to design and format visuals based on the needs of the target audience. This is so because though a picture may be worth a thousand words, those words may not be the same from one audience to the next (point indicated by first panelists). It is therefore important to analyze the audience, because failure to so may result in designing visuals that may either dilute (1/1000) or portray something negative (-1000) to what one intended to communicate. Three tips are provided for designing visuals for specific audiences and uses; identify “what people want to know, what they need to know to make informed decision and how the visual information will be used” (p. 215). It is necessary also that the graphic designs support the information to be communicated.

One key thing I learned from this reading is the need to pre-test the visual or graphic with the audience. It is common that in undertaking research studies, all researchers are aware of the need to pre-test their instruments (for reliability) and adapt them to facilitate getting adequate information they need. This is equally relevant to risk communication, graphics should be pre-tested and adapted accordingly to enhance relevance and effective impact – to ensure that they will reliably communicate what they are designed to communicate.

The issue of ethics is as well revisited in this chapter, this time related to ‘graphical integrity’. The concerns are that messages portrayed are sometimes manipulative or deceptive. Manipulative messages are very common in communication of health risks or crisis. Risk communicators are cautioned against dangers of pictorial exaggeration and ‘chartjunt’ (using decorative design to obscure the meaning of data).

The good thing about this chapter is that for every item discussed examples are provided in the form of relevant studies and types of visuals. There are actually 16 figures showing illustrations, graphs, charts, tables, maps and other different forms through which visuals may be presented. Though I have not counted visuals or figures presented in other chapters, I would not be surprised if I find this chapter to be containing most figures compared to others since it discusses visuals or graphics. Where else should they be demonstrated if not in this chapter?

Week 6 Reaction Assignments

Here are the reading assignments for this week. Don't forget that in addition to your reading you also need to read the two articles highlighted by Team 2 on their bibliography, available on WebCT in the Team 2 folder.

Chapters 11& 12-
Chodil, Katherine
Jonas, Paul
Kim, Soo Yeon
Mack, Catherine
Feltner, Liz
Vera, Nadya
Moriniere, Giselle de la

Chapter 14-
Brookshire, Michael
Kim, Minji
Lee, Hyunmin
Odubela, Tolulope
Thakadu, Olekae
Warmington, Jennifer
Lovler, Ronnie

Chapter 15-
Hames, Lauren
Jamison, Wes
Looby, Ramon
Meyers, Courtney
Ozdora, Emel
Tsai, Jiun-yi
Woods, Meredith

Chapter 12: NEWS FLASH!!! Developing a Good Communication plan could help you avoid some contaminated beef, or diseased citrus!

Developing a communication plan, as those of us in public relations know, is of the utmost importance in any situation, especially when it comes to risk and crisis communication. An example from the one of the readings (not required) that my team distributed is when McDonald’s in the UK handled the Mad Cow problem in a timely fashion (Lanska, 1998). When it had been established that some of the UK’s meat may be contaminated, all the UK McDonald’s restaurants destroyed all of their meat products immediately. The following days they only served fish and chicken products to put the public at ease and ordered beef from Holland. In less than a week McDonald’s was selling non-contaminated beef and came out looking more responsible and more trusted in the public eye than they were before (1998). Obviously, McDonald’s had a communication plan in order before the outbreak of the crisis, or they could not have handled the situation as quickly and effectively as they did.
McDonald’s could not have done this without a communication plan for risk situations, and this risk turned into a crisis.

For those in the class not familiar with PR communication plans, there is a nice outline of one for risk situations on page 183 of L&M, Figure 12-1. L&M also give guidelines to developing risk communication strategies, storyboarding, the CERCLA approach, strategizing based on your specific stakeholder audience, and combining planning with the stakeholder public’s involvement (2004).

Storyboarding is a way to get the communication team’s creative juices flowing and “can also be used to develop the entire communication effort” (L&M, 2004, p. 185). It goes on to explain that this technique can probably not be used in a crisis communication situation because it requires time that may not be possible for all members to give in crisis situation. However, I think simulation is an excellent way to prepare for possible crisis communication situations and I’m surprised the book does not at least mention this here.
Basically, the storyboard itself is a bulletin board that ideas and paper can be attached to during the session. Someone not involved in the communication plan should facilitate the brainstorming session to be objective and possibly help the group to avoid groupthink. Then the facilitator categorizes the thoughts and weeds out anything that may not fit or contradict the purpose.
The CERCLA approach is from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s handbook on developing community relations plans, Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (EPA, 1992) (L&M, 2004). Here is a publication from the EPA called “What is a Community Relations Plan?” that all of you may find interesting, that is concise. http://ar.inel.gov/images/pdf/200402/2004022600577BAC.pdf The handbook provides communicators with examples of fact sheets, press releases, ect., public relations 101.
Identifying your audience is also another method that can and should be used, just as we have discussed that last couple of weeks. This should not be forgotten in the communication plan by any means! Part of the problem with the citrus canker communication was that health officials did not consider in as much depth a key audience, residential homeowners with citrus trees. People were not given enough information at first about the disease, how it was spread, and what the government was doing about it during the large outbreaks. They needed to treat the homeowners much differently than the orange grove workers.

Strategic planning is basically making sure your strategies line up with the organization as a whole’s mission and explain how these things will be accomplished. Using a SWOT analysis at this point would be a good idea. Then, once the strategies are developed, form a focus group from members of your audience. This can help the group of communicators fix glitches in the plan, and consider things that they may not have thought of before.

Chapter 15 – Face-to-Face Communication

Face-to-face communication can be achieved in a number of ways: one-to-one interactions, speakers bureaus, facility tours, video presentation, information fairs, and others. The characteristic that distinguishes this type of communication from stakeholder participation is that in face-to-face communication, only one party does most of the talking. (The checklist on pages 268-270 provides a concise overview for conducting face-to-face risk communication.)

This type of communication begins with choosing the appropriate spokesperson that has both audience acceptability and organizational acceptability. Audience acceptability can be achieved by selecting a spokesperson that is credible, responsive to concerns, and a believable speaker. Organizational acceptability addresses the ability of the spokesperson to represent the company, listen to audience concerns, answer questions earnestly, and understand the organization’s standpoint on the risk situation.

The spokesperson role can be filled by health care professionals, recognized experts in the field, risk managers, line managers, public affairs staff, or celebrities. Spokespeople can be either internal or external to the risk communication organization depending on a number of factors. Some audiences may perceive spokespeople who are not employed by the organization as more credible or trustworthy. However, it can be difficult to find appropriate representatives who are both available and knowledgeable about the risk to serve this role. Another concern is the ability of the spokesperson to speak to the audience and answer questions well without making the audience members more hostile toward the organization. To address this concern, coaching is often necessary to ensure the spokesperson is prepared to inform the public appropriately.

When speaking to audience members, the spokesperson needs to keep in mind four key things:
Give the audience something to take away – Emphasis key points and provide written materials.
Reinforce your message with visual aids – Make sure the visuals are easy to read and understand.
Speak in the language of the audience – Use words and phrases the audience will understand.
Don’t promise what you can’t deliver – Don’t say you can provide information that is confidential or proprietary.

After reading this chapter, I wanted to see what types of face-to-face communication certain risk communication organizations or associations are using to communicate with the identified audience members. I have always been interested in how the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation communicates with community members about power plant operations and safety procedures. This nuclear power plant is in Burlington, Kansas, about two hours from my home town. The Web site says they provide facility tours and have a speakers bureau to provide speakers for civic organizations, schools, and businesses. These forms of face-to-face communication complement other risk communication efforts such as media relations.

In regard to the group’s assigned reading this week, I was interested to find out what types of face-to-face communication were used in the citrus canker eradication effort. The eradication effort was halted when the USDA withdrew funding due to lawsuits and the uncontrollable spread in the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. While the eradication effort was ongoing, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services held public hearings. I couldn’t find information about any other face-to-face communication efforts during the eradication effort. This type of communication may have been difficult to use because of the large areas affected and the need to utilize the media to reach the audience. However, I would assume some efforts were made by extension agents to speak to farmers and homeowners about the risk. Has anyone else found this information?

Public Relations Professionals Prove Their Worth Once Again!

Determining the appropriate methods

As if we didn’t already know, we develop further in Chapter 10 the sense that the public relations professional is not only the master communicator of the organization, but the eyes and ears of the organization as well. Which communication methods best meet both your purpose and objectives and your audience’s needs? This is neither an easy question to answer nor a straightforward one. At the end of the day, you are employed by an organization that wants to get out its message with little interference from the outside. You have been hired by this organization as an extension of the CEO and it is your job to make sure the messages reach the appropriate audiences. However, as the all-knowing public relations practitioner you know that communicating with the audience is not just beneficial to your organization, but crucial. It is crucial in a crisis and it is crucial in developing a long-term relationship of trust with the audience.

So how do you best do this? How best to communicate a lot of information simply, in limited time and space yet in eye-catching and memorable formats? In order to develop the method you have to know your audience. Is this an audience that is Web savvy or is this an audience that has limited, if any, access to computers? Is this an audience that needs to hear a message time and again, and in differently worded formats, or is this audience quick to absorb a message and quick to retain pertinent facts? How about audiences that want to be able to take something with them, to share with family and friends?

This is where knowing your audience comes in and where you can prove your worth to management as a public relations master! Any technical member of an organization can craft a message of the facts. What the public relations professional brings to the table is the ability to craft the message to not only suit certain audiences but to make sure it’s neither overly technical nor too rudimentary. While you don’t want to insult or alienate your audience by making the message over their heads you don’t want to oversimplify either – you don’t want to insult their intelligence but also you don’t want an opportunity to convey information for your organization pass you by. If you are so caught up in making sure the message can be understood by everyone you may be missing opportunities to get your message out there.

Face-to-face communication can be an excellent method – if you and your organization are prepared for it. You can see the message being absorbed (while you will never for certain know what materials have been read, by whom and when) and you can visually note looks of confusion – where people need clarification, more explanation, etc. The positive flipside is you can see what messages are really resonating with the audience – and you can use this to your further advantage in future segments of the campaign (by including more of these points in the CEOs talking points, for example). The downside of this method is that you can over-estimate the comfort level of your audience; they may be too intimidated to ask the questions they really want to ask so you run the risk of walking away from the event thinking everyone understands and agrees. You can avoid this by utilizing stakeholder participation – a scary proposition for some CEOs, but one that will, ideally, develop positive attitudes by the audiences. If they can see exactly the development of the plan, and see how decisions are reached, they will be more likely to listen to, and to trust, the organization in the future.

Chapter 10 and a rant on the internet

Chapter 10: Determining Appropriate Methods

Chapter 10 was an excellent chapter for those who need a refresher in communication methods. It was short, sweet and the tradeoff of 13 pages seems to be writing 750 words about it.

I had a few issues with it: The first being that the inclusion of the internet seemed more of an afterthought. I pictured the authors discussing how to address the issue of the Web and simply deciding to throw in the last few paragraphs, while, in the mean time, I’m reading the first nine or so pages going “How could the miss the internet?!?” So I’m going to start talking about the internet first, then go on to my other thoughts on the chapter.

I know this was copyrighted in 2004, before blogs were the hottest thing since sliced bread, before the Dell Hell fiasco with Jeff Jarvis so I’ll go a little easy. Technology moves so fast and we’re so caught up in the flow that it’s hard to remember the terrain as we passed the land before blogging.

The still didn’t cover very much of the internet and the power of Web sites. When I am doing research for anything I go to two things: Google.com and the affiliated organization’s Web site. Tons of background information, forms, documents and informational treasures exist using these two tools. The book, even in 2004 should have addressed the absolute importance of a Web site. I can’t imagine an organization without a public of internet users.

A Web site is such an amazing tool that can offer everyone information for the cost of a little time, the domain name (which can be expensive if you can’t be creative), and a software program like Dreamweaver. I look forward to reading more about this in chapter 18.

There is an interesting and rich history that is detailed in wikipedia (wikis, of course, are another interesting method of communication and collaboration). Type in “blog” and “public relations” into the Academic Search Premier from our library and you will be connected to a number of articles about blogging and its effect on business. It can be good for some and bad for others. It can force an organization to look at how it treats its customers and it can debunk poor mainstream media coverage as what happened with Dan Rather and ABC news. If abused by organizations, such as with Walmart and Edelman, they can cause an organization’s attempt at saving face to “screech to a halt.” Blogs are a powerful entity that should be discussed because they give so much power to the people that use them, and that number continues to grow.

My initial take on the chapter could be summarized as follows: There are three primary types of communication; informational, visual and face to face. The can be short or long, easy or complex, and you should always review someone else’s informative work and ask them to review yours before you disseminate. And all this applies to Web sites and they should look nice.

When working with the media, one of the things that I must always remind myself is to look at the forest for the trees. We talk about the media one way or another, but it’s like saying all Americans are obnoxious and uncouth when visiting foreign countries. It’s not always true. When calling upon the media, I try to remember that it is someone doing their job and they, like me, are busy. That’s why I liked the comment on p. 163 about needing timeframes and being as organized as possible when putting together a campaign or a simple press release. One of the key components in building relationships in PR, especially with the media, is to have a good idea of what sort of timeframes you need and to be able to stick to them.

One trick the book didn’t discuss (it’s a bit backward), but a great way to begin a relationship with a media outlet is to take notice of who it is that most consistently reports on your organization. They are usually the best people to contact, if you haven’t done so already.

The face-to-face communication portion has some excellent advice, especially when dealing with an angry public, however they neglected to mention that face-to-face communication doesn’t need to be a presentation. It can be a representative simply going out and discussing the topic, a forum or any number of the methods that were discussed in chapter 17 and we’ll certainly discuss in chapter 15. These face-to-face methods are important too. A presentation is one-sided and more options should have been discussed.

Ronnie's Comments Feb.5

I apologize to all for being a day late. I was out of town and did not have internet access until this morning. My comments follow:

The tornado that struck central Florida last week can be used as a real-life example of the methods that can be employed to communicate risk. I was not in Florida when the tornado struck – in fact the first word I got of it was a phone call from a relative wanting to know if I was OK. “Why wouldn’t I be OK?” I wanted to know. And then she told me about the tornado that had struck Lake Mary – from her vantage point in Half Moon Bay, California. Obviously the media was on top of this story and authorities were in touch with the media to communicate risk – to those who were directly impacted and those who were not. In fact, even before the tornado twisted its way through the town, tornado watches and warnings were being communicated throughout north central Florida. For this kind of crisis situation, working with the media was essential – as was face-to-face communication in the aftermath. I see that as a major reason for bringing Gov. Charlie Crist to the scene. It was his first natural disaster since assuming office – a situation that certainly could not have been anticipated this early into his administration. Yet in terms of communicating about this risk – and showing his willingness to get his hands dirty – it was important for Crist to be there. (He did, by the way, win high marks from the media and his predecessor, former Gov. Jeb Bush) for his response.

That was a current and real situation that had some relevance to the L & M book. On the other hand, I couldn’t keep from thinking about some of what I was reading – of course. This is not rocket science after all. Naturally, there are times when working with the media is better and times when face-to-face communication is more appropriate. Isn’t that just common sense? And setting a schedule? Determining a timetable for action? On the other hand, maybe getting all these reminders serves the purpose of providing us with a kind of how-to and when-to manual.

I did find a great deal of relevance in the writings about the pictorial communication of risk. In this day and age of short attention spans and rapid-fire information exchange, visual representation of danger may do far more to communicate risk than all the words in the world. Again, going back to last week’s tornado, the images of distraught people and devastated property will communicate more about the havoc a twister can wreak than any pages of text. And hence, get people moving quicker when warnings about another tornado are issued.

Visuals can also help the risk communicator get past cultural and language barriers because regardless of the cultural milieu or the language your audience may speak – when the target audience is presented with a graphic image or a visual of a risk situation they can rapidly comprehend the message you seek to communicate. That’s why color-coded signs are so effective in communicating risk. Universally, there is a general understanding that green means go, yellow means caution and red means stop. So for example, when there is a red flag posted on the beach to signify a dangerous tide, even the beach-goer who doesn’t speak the language can understand what a red flag means.

I became interested in the power of visuals while working as a television journalist. But in newsrooms today, there is an increasing use of graphics to convey information when video is not available precisely because visuals help people comprehend a situation. And in a way isn’t this about communicating risk?

In a very undramatic fashion, could that be why we so often use PowerPoint these days to make class and other presentations. In the old days, we used to just speak. Now we have to show people something – a visual – even if the visual is no more than the same words we are speaking. Why? Because seeing it – helps the listener understand. Could that be why vlogs are going to be the next best thing and why Youtube.com has become the hit that it has? And even our blogs? If we were writing them using simple DOS programs, how many of us would be reading this now?

Presentation counts in communicating anything – but when risk is involved, even more so.

Chapter 13> Information Materials

Chapter 13 provides guidelines for communicating via a variety of information materials. The authors assert that wordings, depth of the information detail, and message channel should be carefully chosen depending on the target audience.

I’d like to bring Coca-Cola’s case into my discussion to talk about how the different forms of information materials have been used to reach different audiences. Coca-Cola Korea Company (hereafter called “Coca-Cola”) was one of my clients when I was working at a PR firm about a couple of years ago. Coca-Cola was suffering from the public’s misperception that cola is the leading beverage that does an excellent job of melting and decaying teeth. They wanted to alleviate the publics’ anxiety by distributing the message that tooth decay is not caused particularly by cola. Some of the solid and scientific information on which the message is based are: 1) Compared to those snacks such as chips and cookies that are more likely to stick to the teeth, beverage which is a liquid type is less likely to cause tooth decay, 2) In reality, soft drinks are quickly gulped down so that the liquid doesn’t stay long enough to cause melting teeth, and 3) A study published on US Journal of Dental Research proved that there is no direct association between soft drinks and tooth decay.

In the middle of this project, my agency decided to close our service for Coca-Cola because my boss couldn’t quite get along with this notoriously mercurial marketing manager of Coca-Cola. Soon another victim, I mean pr agency, was chosen to carry out the project. Anyway, back to the story, it was a few months later when these two information materials were released. (I know this case could be better described as “issue management.” However, I decided that it could also be looked at as an example of “care communication.”) The information materials were produced into two formats: cartoon and blog article. (I’ve added English captions to the cartoon below.)



This cartoon was published on one of the nationwide daily sports tabloid in Korea. Rather than presenting the scientific backgrounds, they chose to deliver the message in indirect manner. When considering that tabloids are mostly less serious than other newspapers, delivering the message in such soft manner was a good decision. In addition, a cartoon can be an effective format to appeal to our “visually oriented society.”

While the cartoon on a tabloid sends out the message with a sense of humor, the article that Coca-Cola posted on their corporate blog follows the traditional form of fact sheets. Although it contained the same message as the cartoon does, it also includes a series of detail information, research results, and statement made by knowledgeable figure like dentists. This information material must have somewhat fulfilled the needs of those audience who wants additional logical explanation. Furthermore, not only this blog posting provides scientific backgrounds on the related risk (cola’s influence on the health of teeth in this case), it also produced additional benefits that other traditional information materials cannot provide. Now I will briefly discuss about the benefit of such electronic format of information materials.

Although pretty much every information material that is mentioned in the textbook can be distributed in electronic format, there are some other forms that are unique on World Wide Web: A corporate blog is one of a kind. The advantage of using a corporate blog when communicating risk is that the speed of message dissemination is higher than other forms of information materials. The audiences and bloggers often times become the distributors of the information by linking the original posting to their own blogs for online forum. Coca-Cola’s posting that I mentioned above, for example recorded more than one thousand trackbacks. In addition, the technical support of the electronic format enables active public involvement allowing the readers to make instant comments on a distributed message. However, more than enough amount of information gets distributed on the Web. Often, some of the messages are contradictory to each other. Therefore, it is very important when communicating risk on World Wide Web to include the information about the precise source of data on which the message is based in the contents to avoid confusion.

In conclusion, it all comes down to the matter of analyzing the target audience once again. Even with the same message, you have to “scratch their back” in a way that suits best for each type of audience.

Chapter 13

Lundrgren and McMakin’s thirteenth chapter focused on producing audience-appropriate information materials. Thanks to Mic’s excellent summary of the chapter, I’ve decided that rather than providing my own (repetitive) summary, I’d provide my plain observations of the unluckily numbered chapter.
Based on instinct, I see having some sort of power in a situation as being an essential condition. Whether it be by having a voice for being a constituent, a customer, an employee or an activist, in situations in which one does not have control over what one feels to be an important aspect of the world they live in, using their voice becomes a step in acquiring power so that the situation can be steered in the best direction—whatever that might be. The authors suggest that audiences are provided with actions that they “can take to mitigate or manage exposure to the risk…[because k]nowing what they can do empowers your audience. The less they feel like victims, the less hostility you will have to combat” (p. 198). When I read the first portion of the quoted section, I immediately thought that the advice was given for the benefit of the audience, for the sake of true empowerment and plain goodness toward an affected group of people. Instead, although it can also be framed as being a fortunate by-product, minimizing hostility becomes an enticement that the crisis communicator simply cannot let go of. It’s true, but almost comical, that combating hostility would be a recommendation for us crisis communicators. I understand that when trying to communicate effectively, the last thing someone needs is hostility from the audience. However, the way I see it, hostility is just part of the territory when one works with people.
The rest of the chapter was, as mentioned by others, uncomplicated. However, one thing that caught me off guard was finding a grammatical error. Now please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that there’s an extra word in the following sentence: “Although its placement suggested that it was meant to be read quickly as workers drove home, workers had to slow down to see what it had to say, so that the safety sign actually caused accidents” (p. 207). I would normally not consider this to be a huge problem considering how many printed materials so often contain mistakes, yet I do not think that a book written by communicators specifically about communicating properly should have this happen more than once, if at all. However, I recall noticing that there was a misspelled word elsewhere in the book, so I quickly glanced through my notes, and there it was: “However, even in extreme public health emergencies like a bioterrorist attack, the public’s demand for information is likely to be higher than this apprach would satisfy” (p. 18). Once again, I’m not trying to be too critical, but even though I like the user-friendly air that the book has, multiple grammatical errors just seem like something that should not be present in a book like this one. Another section that caught my attention was in page 208, where the authors clarified their position regarding assigning reading levels to different levels of technical reports. This is something that I found to be unusual and I frankly wonder if it were not for our society’s pursuit of political correctness nor fear of the ever-present possibility of a lawsuit, would a statement such as this ever be included in a textbook: (We use reading levels here as a guide to content and style, not to imply that all interested readers read at the tenth-grade level or that all neophytes read at the sixth-grade level.)?

Chapter 9

Don’t you get the MESSAGE?

It is not extreme to assert that the risk communication process is a series of message conveying.
The5W1H should all be considered when developing your message for a risk situation- When, Who, What, Why, Where and How the message should be addressed is crucial. However, like most factors during risk communication, message developing does not mean showering related publics with “all the information.” Rather, this is a systematic process to provide structured messages according to the needs and desires of the people. Bear in mind though, that the message development is NOT “manipulative, nor is it a substitute for audience analysis or public participation” (p. 143).

Then, what are the people interested in? According to L&M, people generally crave for the “description of the risk,” “risk consequences,” “level of control about the risk and its consequences,” and “exposure information” (p.144). This basically means that people are interested at knowing the risk beyond technological descriptions, levels of danger and how it is going to affect them, what they can do to aid the situation and what the related agencies are doing to improve the risk situation, and finally what -etc.

In this extent, it is interesting and appropriate to understand the messages and channels used to communicate risk regarding HIV/AIDS in Uganda and China. While these two continents have the most dominant number of HIV/AIDS infected population internationally, the communication methods are almost exactly the opposite. In the case of Uganda, the message developers obvious considered who the audience was, what communications channels they were most frequently using, and what terms of messages made more sense to them. Because less than 20% of the whole population in Uganda own television, and more than half of the population are illiterate, it is nonsense to communicate HIV/AIDS information through conventional mass media channels. This is why the local communicators used indigenous media to reach their target audience. Furthermore, the messages they used to communicate touched the cultural essence of Uganda: AIDS prevention messages such as zero-grazing would not have made sense in anywhere else but Uganda. The risk communicators were also very transparent about what the current situation was, and what the public could do to prevent or at the least stop the situation from becoming worse. This is why the communication strategies worked. The message, the channel, and the audience were all taken into context. In the case of China, the initial response to HIV/AIDS risk situation was denial. The government desperately tried to conceal current situations and refused to face the real-world of HIV/AIDS crisis brewing in China. The distinct media structure in China also played a part as controlling possible message channels. The government owned major broadcasting channels: therefore, Chinese citizens had no credible source to attain the risk information. However, rumor started up through the Internet and through word of mouth. The risk situation now developed as a crisis: citizens refused to step outside of their homes and local hospitals were crowded with terrified patients. Even still, the government attempted to silence out the situation. As a result, unnecessary rumors kept flowing and finally revealed the truth which was far less fearful than the rumors.

Although the two countries showed very different approaches regarding the risk situation, I wonder just how much release of information is appropriate. What alarms me the most, and this is pure personally feelings, is that I don’t want to know in-depth information about the truths of HIV/AIDS. I know, “the more you know, the better you understand,” “the power of knowledge,” and all those other famous quotes but I have my own safety-zone and it tells me that I don’t want hard-core information about the disastrous global epidemics that is threatening human beings. This leaves me to a dilemma which I assume many pr practitioners face when they need to communicate with “chickens and ‘fraidy cats”: how can you develop messages that won’t scare the daunted publics? How do you communicate the truth when it is so dreadful?
I leave my questions for those you are wise enough (and brave enough).

Closing comments- Thank you all to those you found our team readings interesting and appropriate. I’m really looking forward to our discussions on Tuesday!

Chapter 10 Determine the Appropriate Methods

“Who says What to Whom in What Channel with What Effect? (Harold Lasswell, 1949)

After setting purposes and goals (dealing with communication effects), we continue to another step: pick up the right channels. The main idea of this chapter is discussing how to use communication tools properly to reach communication goals and objectives. I guess this is not a hard chapter for most of us because we have learned how to design basic communication materials (e.g. brochures, newsletters, news releases, fact sheets…etc.) in PR Foundation class. Besides, it reminds me of an old Chinese saying explaining the importance of tools. It goes: “A workman must first sharpen his tools if he is to do his work well. Good tools are prerequisite to the successful execution of a job.” Indeed, inappropriate channels and presentation methods just waste our time and efforts.

These tools include all kinds of information materials, visual presentation, face-to-face communication, work with the media, stakeholder participation. The advantages for information tools lie in quick and large dissemination and “economically meeting the needs of various segments of your audience (P. 158)” However, it is too easy to resort a jargon and overly technical language. That means information materials should play a role in bridging the knowledge gap between the organizations and their audience. How do we draw a line between being over technical and over simplistic information? Or, the amount of source may depend on the social-economic status and their level of involvement of the risk/crisis situation.

When it comes to face-to-face communication, it has been the most interactive way for human communication in that it offers the opportunity if immediate audience feedback. Although high level of interactivity carries lot of advantage, the book said face-to-face communication is not satisfactory when you have a particularly angry audience. Does anybody disagree with this point of view? I may think face-to-face communication is somehow effective to mitigate the hostility when it is compared to information materials or press conference through TV. If organizations are willing to take fact-to-face communication, the audience may think the organization are going to take the responsibility, willing to listen to their concerns and work on the solutions.

Another effective method is working with media. Media has been one of the most significant public regarding risk/crisis communication. Why? It is because the conflict of news interests between companies and reporters. When organizations run their daily operation smoothly, they don’t have any attribute of news interest from reporters’ side. But, when a crisis happened, corporations often got large amount of negative exposure through mass media for a period of time. The book suggests “developing mutually productive working relationship is an ongoing effort for many organizations. (p. 163)” How to working with the media may differ from culture to culture. I just read one journal article examining the dimension of media relations in South Korea and their impact on how public relations is valued (Sarusup and Kim, 2004). The study affirms the personal influence model of public relations. Establishing personal relationships with journalists is a critical task among public relations practitioners. If public relations practitioners do not possess personal relationships with appropriate journalists, they often have difficulty getting media coverage. In particular, personal relationships play a critical role in the event of minimizing unfavorable media coverage. The situation could be probably the same in Taiwan. So, I wonder if personal influence model would work effectively in the U.S. public relations industry, especially in risk/crisis situations.

Reaction 4 – Chapter 9

Develop your Message

The authors emphasize some main points that need to be considered for message development or delivery. These can be referred to as the key steps:

- Identify the purpose of the message
- Choose the appropriate approach for care, consensus, or crisis communication
- Analyze audience knowledge, beliefs, concerns and problems they face, also get their input. Audience participation is important for message development and delivery.
- Consider the misperceptions, knowledge gaps and ideas that need reinforcing.
- Pretest the message content and delivery so that it is in line with your audiences.
- Plan the communication process so that you can evaluate the effectiveness of messages and modify them for future use.

Develop Your Message
During a high-risk or crisis situation everybody demands explanations and organizations try to only give the minimum that is necessary. Message construction plays an important part in reducing confusion and stress during this uncertain period. Organizations should aim to have clear and straightforward messages that answer the possible questions audiences may have.

Messaging during risk or crisis communication is very important, because “making all organizational participants aware of the key messages (even if they evolve during the crisis) can make recovery actions more effective, reduce confusion, and organizational credibility” (p. 143). The people who are creating messages need to understand how audiences feel, what they want to and need to know and specifically address these concerns.

Another very important point raised by the authors in this section is that communicating the key messages is especially important for media spokespeople and people who work in the hotlines. Messages should be consistent and these spokespeople need to be trained about what messages they need to communicate to those who have questions. Since these spokespeople and people who answer the hotlines function as the voice of the organization, they need to be careful about what they say and how they say it. The attitude of these people are really important since it may also influence the audiences.

Information people want
- Description of the risk – provide information using example analogies to help audiences understand risk
- Risk consequences – give information about effects and danger associated with the risk.
- Level of control about the risk and its consequences – answer questions about what individuals can do and what agencies are doing to solve the situation
- Exposure information – inform audiences about risk intensity, duration, acceptable risk levels and how long the danger exists (etc.).

A point raised by the authors suggests that risk communicators need to include what audiences perceive they need to know if they want people to attend to and process the information. People should see things they find important in messages if they are to continue reading or listening. This is why thinking like your audience or empathy is really important for the risk/crisis communicator if he/she wants to reach the audience.


Mental models
As the authors suggest, the mental models approach is not designed to persuade audiences that the risks are not really dangerous, but to provide audiences with information so that they can make their own judgments about the risks and take action.

Even though the models in the book look confusing initially, they might be useful for understanding everything that goes on in the minds of your audiences and thus allow you to find mistakes or disconnections between certain issues and address them.

Message mapping
Message maps are created by using anticipated questions and underlying concerns, and then using this information to create messages that address the questions and concerns of your audience. This reminds me of the 2-way asymmetrical communication process introduced by James Grunig. But it seems like a reasonable approach to crisis/risk communications since it allows you to be specific about the questions and concerns of your audiences.

Chapter 10 Determine the appropriate methods

In Lundgren and McMakin (2004), the basic categories of methods of communication include information materials, visual representation of risk, face-to-face communication, working with the media, stakeholder participation, and technology-assisted communication. Needless to say, many possible communication methods would be used for the communication activity effectively.
Information materials are useful for providing general information in ordinary times. Examples are newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, booklets, pamphlets, displays, advertisements, posters, trade journal articles, popular press articles, and technical reports. However, to make those information materials effective would be very significant duty for public relations managers. I honestly often regard some information materials as paper waste and time wasting. Not to produce useless information materials, carefully planned efforts and professionals’ advice are inevitable. I don’t think public relations professionals should be the professional in design. However, I believe they should have sufficient insight to choose, decide, and produce the most practical information materials for their audiences.
Visual representation of risk includes posters, displays, direct advertising, videotapes, and television, and has the advantage of memorable (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, p. 159). Lundgren and McMakin (2004) suggest that to raise awareness, pictorial representations are the best choice, and to inform the audience, visual representations cannot be the only choice of method.
The advantage of face-to-face communication is “having an identifiable human representative of the organization or another credible person presenting the risk information, personalizing the risk information” (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, p. 161). They also suggest that to get immediate feedback and to target specific groups, face-to-face communication can be the best communication method, though, for a particularly angry audience, face-to-face many not be sufficient. Nonetheless, I believe that to deal with angry audience, face-to-face communication method would be the only possible way to relieve their anger. Definitely it would not be easy to deal with angry and emotionally attacked audience with face-to-face communication because we can expect their violence and harsh words. Yet, I cannot imagine the situation to deal 9/11 victims’ family members without face-to-face communication method from New York city’s crisis management team. In this sense, I cannot agree to Lundgren and McMakin’s (2004) suggestions that face-to-face communication may not be satisfactory for angry audience. I’m not sure if I misunderstood their arguments.
Using media in crisis communication is significantly effective considering its wide reach and powerful impact. However, a key disadvantage of mass media is mentioned as media source’s controlling content and timing the story (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004). Because of this media’s gatekeeper role, public relations professionals’ role for media relations is significant.
Stakeholder participation includes advisory committees, facilitated deliberation, alternative dispute resolution, focus groups, community-operated environmental monitoring, and formal hearings (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, p. 165). Stake holder participation is usually a long-term proposition and needs audiences’ interaction. In this sense, it can be understood as Grunig’s two-way symmetrical public relations model.
Technology-assisted communication has the advantage of being able to disseminate an incredible amount of information effectively.

Chapter 10 Overview RL

Chapter 10 Key Components

When determining the methods or channels by which to communicate risk and crisis information it is important to set the purpose and goals prior to completing the plan. The most common channels to choose from are usually information materials, visual representation of risk, face to face communication along with a few others (LM 157).

Information Materials



Information materials may contain pictures and other visuals but these are resources your audience will need to read. These materials range in size from partial- page advertisements to multi-volume statements. Information materials have the advantage of being able to include a wealth of information. Examples of these materials include: newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, booklets, and pamphlets. Because of rising paper and distribution costs can make widespread availability expensive. (LM 158-159)

Visual Representation of Risk


Risk can be communicated through the exclusive use of graphical elements. Some example include: posters, displays, and direct advertising. This is one form of risk communication, however many if not all forms of risk communication make use of pictorial representation of risk. (LM 160)

Face-to-Face Communication

Face to face communication involves someone speaking directly to the audience or listening while the audience speaks. Usually the audience and that speaker do not interact, except perhaps to ask questions.

Working with the Media

A mass media approach usually involves the use of mediums such as television, newspapers and magazines to communicate risk to a board audience. According to the authors the sources used in this approach can be powerful because they reach a large audience and can be more memorable and credible sources in a crisis communication situation. (LM 163-164)

Technology-Assisted Communication

A relatively new way to communicate risk, this type of risk communication, it uses high technology to distribute risk information or allow a member of the audience to query or receive a variety of information about the risk.