Chapter 18 - Common sense, but to whom?

I read Chapter 18 and thought it was kind of common sense. To me, it makes sense to make sure that your target publics have access to the type of technology that you would like to use. Though there are times when what seems like common sense to one person is not common sense to another. An example that comes to mind is computer help. For me, it is a crisis when my computer does not work. I was trying to install my internet software and I noticed that the instructions said that if you could not get the program to work, you should go online. Does that make any sense? How can I go online when I cannot get my internet to work? This is a good example of why as a risk and crisis communicator, you need to think about everything. How will someone view your organization if you do not have information available in a format they can use?

In today’s society, we often take the internet for granted. It is so easy to put information about a risk or a crisis on the Internet, that we may forget that not everyone has access to a computer or the Internet. People may also not be able to navigate the Internet. While my generation and my parents’ generation are pretty technologically savvy, my grandparents’ generation is only slightly technologically savvy. When it comes to communication with the older generation, communicators should have information available in a variety of formats. While web sites are a great resource, there could also be a phone number that people can call for information if they are more comfortable talking to someone than looking things up online. While phone calls are time consuming, it may be a small price to pay to have one of your key publics view your organization favorably.

I thought the e-mail tips were very good. In fact, as I was reading, I thought of several people who could learn the tips and apply them to everyday life. I know everyone probably knows someone who puts the red exclamation point, which signals urgent, on every e-mail they write or forwards so many e-mails it’s disgusting. After a while, I know I stop paying attention to e-mails those people send, so a communicators, we need to make sure we do not abuse our e-mail privileges so that when we do send out an urgent e-mail, people pay attention. Specific subject lines are also important so that people know if the e-mail applies to them. If they can tell that the e-mail applies to them from the subject line, they will be more likely to open it and read it, I know I am. I know from personal experience the importance of subject lines. I often send myself e-mails without subjects figuring that I will remember what I sent. I never do. I try to keep this in mind as I send e-mails to myself and others and I am getting better.

As a communicator, we also have to remember that e-mail may not always be the best way to communicate with people. I know I prefer to get e-mails, but my grandma responds better to written letters that arrive in the mail. Once again, a difference in generations, but something that needs to be kept in mind when communicating with key publics.

Emel Ozdora - Reaction 5 – Chapter 20

Risk communication – Before, During, and After Emergencies:

This chapter makes a distinction between a crisis and an emergency. While a crisis is defined as: “a turning point that will decisively determine an outcome,” an emergency is seen as “a sudden or unforeseen situation that requires immediate action.” Crises mostly follow a process, even if it is an undesirable on, and they are not totally unexpected. However, an emergency is random and unexpected. Good examples of emergency situations in the book are SARS and the September 11 terrorist attacks. These events are totally unexpected events that shocked the world community and left people helpless without knowing what to do and predict what will happen next.

Due to the difference in the nature of these two events, crisis communication and emergency communication need to be approached differently. In an emergency situation, the people who are responsible from communication should understand the uniqueness of the situation ad plan their communication efforts according to the unexpected and communicate with a confused and perplexed public during and after the emergency.


People tend to act emotionally during emergency situations, and risk communicators need to keep that in mind and plan their communications accordingly. One point they make caused me to agree strongly with the authors. They argued that people don’t want leaders to hide their own responses to tragedies. This reminded me of an event in Turkey. In 1999, we suffered a major earthquake that killed thousands of people, and almost destroyed two cities and caused a lot of damage in close by cities. After the first shock, Bill Clinton came to visit Turkey. And while he was walking around in one of the cities, he picked up a little child, hugged him, and walked around with him for the rest of his visit in that city. And I think later on, he became the child’s sponsor. This was a very emotional act that people still remember today and think positively about Clinton. I think seeing Clinton’s face and his genuine feelings while he was walking around the ruins made people feel that he was sharing their pain and caused people to have sympathy towards him and this is really important for a leader. People need to see that as a leader, you are deeply touched and that you share their sorrow. You need to make an emotional connection with people.

Establishing credibility and trust is also very important for a crisis communicator during an emergency. Trust and credibility will add to your reputation and make people believe in what you say. You need to tell people what you know, what you don’t know and try to answer questions as correctly as possible and correct misperceptions as soon as they emerge. Being honest and transparent is really important for your trust and credibility, thus for your reputation.

However, you can easily damage or lose your trust and credibility if there is:
- disagreement among experts
- lack of coordination among risk management organizations
- lack of listening, dialogue and public participation
- an unwillingness to acknowledge risks
- not disclosing information in a timely manner
- not fulfilling risk management responsibilities

Even though emergencies are unexpected events in nature and you cannot really plan for them, you can at least have a plan about how you will communicate during an emergency in advance. As a communicator, you can make sure that our organization is ready, that it knows which organizations it can team up with, it has an established place in the community, and already knows the appropriate communication channels. You need to have a consensus on roles and responsibilities and you need to have an internal emergency communication plan like a phone tree among the employees within the organization.

Chp 20: Crap happens, deal with it!

Wes Jamison PUR 6934 Reaction blog #6 Lundgren and McMakin chapter 20

Chapter 20 begins the ominous discussion of risk communication during a crisis, and notes that phenomena like bioterrorism, mad cow disease, and other highly complex and poorly understood events require different ways of communicating. The authors note that other types of crises like SARS and Avian Flu pose different types of risk communication models than the care/consensus/crisis model posed by the authors. Hence, beginning in chapter 20 they differentiate between crises and emergencies.
Lundgren and McMakin note that traditional definitions of crises all involve a “turning point that will decisively determine an outcome” (pp. 389). They note that crises follow discernable and often predictable patterns and processes---indeed, they argue that traditionally, crises follow not-altogether-unexpected stages. However, they contrast crises with emergencies, which can be defined as “sudden or unforeseen situation[s] that requires immediate action” (pp. 390). They note the randomness of emergencies, which don’t follow predictable patterns, and that emergencies are largely unexpected. Interestingly, there is a significant body of literature that contradicts their perspective. Perrow argues in Normal Accidents that accidents, and indeed emergencies involving modern technologies, are to be expected and can be anticipated. Beck also argues in Risk Society that apparent unpredictability typifies modern technologies, but that systems theory and chaos theory can begin to untangle the seemingly haphazard development of emergencies. Chapter 20 could have done a better job of discussing the literature regarding modern technological emergencies. Langdon Winner reinforces Perrow and Beck in Autonomous Technology, arguing that accidents and emergencies typify modern technologies and can therefore be predicted.
Nevertheless, Lundgren and McMakin do their best given the relatively newness of catastrophic events like 9/11. After noting that risk communication is a distinct field within public relations, and that crisis communication is yet another distinct field within risk communications, they begin a concise explanation of the unique attributes of emergencies. They note that the purpose of the communications is to place the emergency in context, explain what happened, and correct misperceptions. Emergency communications must also provide options, empower action, facilitate recovery, and attenuate consequences of the emergency. In other words, people faced with crisis and risks ask three questions: what is it, what should I think about it, and what should I do about it? The authors state that the essence of emergency communications is to answer those three questions as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
They also argue that emergency communications mandate that decisions be made within narrow and constrained timeframes while the emergency is still taking place and hence the outcome is unknown, all the while facilitating recovery efforts. Lundgren and McMakin also argue that emergencies disrupt normal and pre-planned crisis communication channels, thus greatly complicating communication efforts. One can think of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as an example of this scenario.
More interestingly, the authors discuss the nature of modern catastrophes and their unprecedented nature: they cross jurisdictions, effected populations demand immediate attention, and the ability to respond with food, water and health care are severely restricted. Likewise, into this perfect storm comes a media feeding frenzy, and since modern mass media have resources and access to disaster areas without the encumbrance on jurisdictional issues and constitutional limits of power, they often rush to the scene of an emergency and amplify both public anxiety and outrage. One need only point to Anderson Cooper’s combative and ill-informed badgering of Mississippi Governor Haley Barber as an example of emergency amplification and outrage exacerbation.
This raises an interesting and rarely covered aspect of the Hurricane Katrina debacle. The tight coupling of media coverage to unfolding emergencies does not lend itself to reflection or scholarship. An example is the absence of federal troops during the initial stages of the recovery. The federal government is limited by the Constitution from sending federal troops without a specific request from the state legislature. Second, the federal government was severely limited by the context: New Orleans was a heavily African-American city, and the presence of troops before or during the early stages of the hurricane would have elicited outcries of racism. Hence, while the federal government was institutionally, structurally, and contextually limited in its ability to manage the emergency, media coverage amplified the crisis and engendered outrage. More interesting than the lack of federal response to Katrina was the lack of federal response to Hurricane Rita a few weeks later in central and western Louisiana. Rita was equally powerful and devastating, but since residents were dispersed, poor, and population density was far lower than New Orleans, the media failed to cover Rita with equal verve and vigor. Certainly other factors were involved, like public “crisis fatigue” and the media’s fixation on New Orleans metanarratives, or the media’s fixation on the subtext of Katrina regarding the comeuppance of George Bush. Whatever the causes regarding the lack of attention, more important for our purposes was the complete lack of looting, hunger, or disease. Indeed, scholars argued after Rita that citizens of western Louisiana were highly self-sufficient and independent, and that they were enculturated to the absence of federal or even state aid. Indeed, it was argued that because citizens were closely linked to their environment---many were hunters and fishermen---they were able to provide for themselves until help arrived. Likewise, before the Hurricane hit, the sheriff of Acadia Parrish deputized masses of citizens under the Posse Comitatus, equipped them with walkie-talkies, and clearly communicated broad parameters of law enforcement and emergency response. That single action is largely credited with staving off any looting or civil unrest. In other words, the lesson of Hurricane Rita is that empowerment of citizens before an emergency, coupled with their own sense of self-sufficiency, can be an effective crisis mitigation formula.
That digression aside, chapter 20 lays out a very concise and useful typology of what makes emergencies different. Risk guru Peter Sandman notes that after 9/11, Rudy Giuliani was transparent in his emotional response. Indeed, Lundgren and McMakin state that “Americans don’t want leaders to hide their own response to tragedies” (pp. 392). This raises two interesting points: first, that’s a completely untenable statement, because I’m certain that several leaders have thought “it’s serves them right!” when confronted with a tragedy of stupidity. Hence, Americans don’t want leaders to hide their responses, that is, unless the leaders don’t affect sorrow, grief, or some other placating and patronizing emotion that assuages public emotions and avoids blame attribution. Indeed, in some tragedies the public is actually at least partly to blame for their own actions! Thus, the authors’ contention is ridiculous---we only want empathy and sympathy, no matter how feigned. Which brings us to the second point: feigned responses, practiced emotions, will eventually have deleterious consequences, including cynicism. One can think of the feigned tears of the anchorman in Broadcast News¸ or the famously disingenuous ability of Bill Clinton to “feel our pain” to realize that emergency communications can often be disingenuous at best and manipulative at worst.
That aside, the authors note that taking a constructive role can engage people, helping to move them beyond crisis and emergency fixation toward a common sense of purpose and mission. They also argue that research indicates that caring, empathy, dedication and commitment can increase credibility and trust, which are two critical factors in managing an emergency. And yet again, Lundgren and McMakin’s utter lack of self-examination itself breeds further disdain for the practice of PR. How can one suddenly become caring, empathetic, dedicated and committed when no such character attributes existed beforehand. In other words, the authors are shameless in recommending disingenuous emoting and feigned character as a “technique” to “manage” public response. I wonder if they actually understand what they are advocating, and the implications of recommending actions that are incongruent with true character attributes. To put it another way, integrity can be defined as being on the outside what you are on the inside, or to quote Martin Luther King, integrity is what you are when nobody is looking. But Lundgren and McMakin bypass such messy discourses about authenticity, opting instead for a discussion of “what works.” In so doing they do disservice to the profession and the public.
The rest of the chapter follows the same format as previous chapters. The authors lay out a schematic approach to emergency communications that is practical and applicable, at once concise and relatively parsimonious. But like the other chapters, they leave the ugly details like discussing manipulation and disingenuous motives to others. They spill scant ink reflecting upon the implications of their recommendations. George Bush is not my friend no matter how many times he cries, Bill Clinton does not feel my pain regardless of how skilled his media training has been, and the local flak for a regional utility really doesn’t care about me. Instead, chapter 20 crystallizes my vague sense of unease I’ve felt throughout the entire book. Risk communication as presented by Lundgren and McMakin is more about self and organization preservation than anything else. I know all the rationalizations as to why persuasion is legitimate, why social exchanges require competition in the marketplace of ideas, blah blah blah. But nevertheless, something seems disconcerting about studying what are certainly intensely real, authentic and personal responses that were successful in the past in order to provide a template to be practiced in the future, independent of authenticity. The implications of this approach are obvious, and yet the authors discuss them very little. Public trust will evaporate, cynicism will increase, and disengagement will amplify as various publics become sophisticated in the ways of crisis and emergency communications.
As I said before, Anderson Cooper wasting oxygen while trying to excoriate the Bush administration won’t make our fears go away, George Bush shouting into a bullhorn won’t male the terrorists go away, and no rhetor making empathetic, sympathetic, compassionate statements can lesson the angst associated with modern, anomic and alienated existence. In that milieu, Bellah was so prophetic it’s scary: he noted in Habits of the Heart that the coming ethos of utilitarian individualism coupled with therapeutic individualism would require the devolution of institutions into providers of therapy, as conduits for collective angst attenuation through an incessant collective public dialogue about what ails us. The realization of that concept in the discourse of emergency communications makes me shudder. To be blunt, when it comes to emergencies, my philosophy is “craps happens, deal with it!” There is no institution, no technique, to assuage public fear, to ameliorate public crisis, to excise public angst, in the absence of a sacred canopy of meaning that places all such emergencies under a greater, transcendent context.

CH20 Risk Communication Before, During and after emergencies

We can’t denied that we all live in a high emergency risk situation as we’ve discussed several cases on citrus canker, mad cow disease and avian influenza. Lots of unpredictable diseases become pandemic across the world more rapidly than ever. If the governments don’t handle the emergencies effectively, it leads to mistrust in the governments among general publics. Three examples in recent years underscore the importance of establishing trust in emergency risk communication: SARS in China (2003), mad cow disease in U.K. (2003) and anthrax in U.S. (2001). The SARS, mad cow, and anthrax examples demonstrate that it’s important to tell people what you know, what isn’t known and to correct misinformation as soon as it is discovered (p. 394). Thus, this chapter summarizing different strategies and tactics following the life circle of emergencies: before, during and after emergencies.

I am impressed by the example of former New York City Mayor when asked about the number of casualties just about hours after September 11 attacks. He simply said, “More than we can bear” to show his calmness as well as compassion. To crisis communication professionals, I guess it will be easier to stay calm than to reveal compassion because they already faced lots of crises. So, the author remind us that the first thing to keep in find is to deal with public’s emotions. Acknowledge and accept that the fear is legitimate.

The seven cardinal rules of risk communication, as identified by EPA, could highlight the core thinking of this chapter.
1.Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner.
2.Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.
3.Listen to the public's specific concerns.
4.Be honest, frank, and open.
5.Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
6.Meet the needs of the media.
7.Speak clearly and with compassion.

Based on step by step planning, I found some useful checklists and work sheets that can help us work on detail implementation of the communication process. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/riskcomm/tools/default.shtm

Also, the New York City’s West Nile Virus Response could be viewed as another case study. The first outbreak of West Nile virus in New York City occurred in late Summer 1999. By the following summer, the New York City Department of Health had developed a detailed response plan that included public education and outreach. The three objectives for public education and outreach plan were 1) to improve the public’s awareness of risk for disease; 2) to improve the public’s participation in eliminating potential breeding sites; and 3) to provide timely and accurate information related to insecticide spraying. Channels of communication included television and radio public service announcements; press releases, extensive media outreach, and announcements during the scheduled daily Mayoral press conferences; brochures and fact sheets, prepared in 10 to 15 languages; posters placed throughout the city; bill inserts mailed with the cooperation of city utilities, including the Consolidated Edison Company of New York and the Water Department; phone lines staffed and answered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at the height of the outbreak, including the handling of over 150,000 calls; a Web site that included general information, a question-and-answer section, forms for reporting standing water and dead birds, insecticide fact sheets, and press releases issued during the outbreak; and a limited number of town-hall public meetings.

The primary spokespersons were the New York City Health Commissioner and the Mayor. In the outer boroughs, the Borough President often assumed the Mayor’s role. The majority of the press releases addressed spraying and included telephone numbers to call for more information. Print materials, generally written at a high school reading level, contained information about personal protective behavior
(e.g., sheltering-in-place and protection against mosquitoes) and included a request that the public assist government agencies by eliminating sources of standing water where mosquitoes might breed.

In general, report suggested that the New York City risk communication effort related to the West NileVirus epidemic was far-reaching, resource intensive, competently handled, and effective.

For more information about this case, please see
http://www.centerforriskcommunication.com/pubs/crc-p1.pdf

Technology-assisted communication

The first posting already made on the blog on Chapter 18 has adequately synthesized key points presented in the chapter. Rather than outlining the same points again and risk boring each other with one and the same material, I will attempt to focus myself on a few key issues, developing themes and messages I have captured as I read through the chapter.

Pros and cons of using technology assisted communication

The rapid rise in the use of technology, mainly computer assisted technology such as the Internet and the WorldWideWeb offers opportunities for multi-mode approach to risk communication. New Web formats offer especially appealing possibilities. The graphics capabilities of HTML and Java Script permit more innovative interfaces than the limited options of paper based. Other tools and methods such as posters, fact sheets, information brochures, newspapers etc. can be used simultaneously when communicating risk as well as included in technology assisted applications. However, as Lundgren & McMakin (2004) stated, “technology applications are not always superior to other forms of communication” (p.337). Just like many technology based approaches, the challenges employing this form for communicating risk are that it is limited to those with access to the technology and may require some form of technological literacy. However, it has the potential of reaching large population and it can be low cost once developed.

Guiding principles in choice of technology based applications;

· Purpose and objectives – these should correspond to the application selected for use.
· Audience needs – ensure that the target audiences have access, software and hardware and the necessary literacy to employ the applications.
· Medium – application design should be compatible to the medium.

One key message under choice of technology based applications is that they should not “be relied upon as the primary source to communicate crisis information” for specified crisis moments such as hurricanes. This is so because most of the times these natural disasters have a tendency of disrupting electrical power that powers technological hardware. However, this is equally applicable to TVs during crisis mainly when power is cut. Radio may be useful depending on whether they are battery-powered or not. To this effects, Lundgren & McMakin (2004) correctly noted that “as much as we rely on technology in emergencies, it can be the first thing to fail” (p. 367).

Use of computers in the workplace

Computers in the work place have found application in computer based on-line training and through web-based distance education. However, noteworthy caution for this approach is to be aware of the potential to generate or increase hostility. More common use of computers is for informing employees about risks through e-mails, electronic newsletter. The greatest challenge in using e-mails and web-based approaches is competition with marketers and spammers on the internet for cooperation of the audience.

Tips for sending all staff messages:

· Keep message short – this is true mainly when staff hates reading long e-mails from the organization.
· Show the reason why one should care.
· Give directions.
· Leave a point of contact.

On key message which I see resonating throughout this chapter is the need to supplement technology based approaches with other forms of risk communication. This does not only enhance reach, it also guard against limitations that may be imposed by technology. For example, communicating risk within an organization through e-mail only is not effective as some staff members may not necessarily check their e-mails on that day. However, with supplemental forms such as notice boards messages, staff member may have the opportunity of knowing about the message. As already noted, complete reliance on technological approaches during crisis is not advisable, and that is why there is need for complementary forms of communication.

Chapter 16: NASA and Media Relations

Well, it seems to me that Liz did a nice job of summarizing Chapter 16, so I will use an of example instead. So....

How would you like to be NASA’s media relations expert right now? After the unfortunate and shocking incident of Lisa Nowak and her attempted kidnapping and murder, NASA had to engage in quite a bit of media relations. (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-02-07-nasa_x.htm) F.irst of all for the crisis of having one of their top astronauts engage in behavior that begs the media and everyone else on the planet to know exactly what is going on. NASA immediately released a statement expressing their regret about the situation, and that they were looking into the incidents further. (For the full transcript, click here: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/169028main_dale_nowak.pdf).

NASA is an organization used to crisis, but who would have thought of this problem? Because of the Nowak situation, a whole different can of worms has been opened in addition to the actual crisis, now the issue of all astronauts’ psychological well being and mental health will become more of a forefront issue. NASA did a good job in addressing this question in one of their first statements (this can also be found in the link above). They reiterated their normal psychological testing with this statement:

“One question relates to psychological testing of astronauts, clearing them for
flight, and assessing their mental health following their flights. All
astronauts are subjected to extensive medical and psychological testing in order
to be admitted to the astronaut corps. In addition to regular health checkups
throughout their time of service to NASA, astronauts receive extensive medical
examinations prior to each flight.”

After this statement, they followed it up by saying that they were in the process of revaluating the system, and seeing how it is related to the current situation.

What did NASA do correctly in this situation? In my opinion, it was that they answered the obvious questions that they could answer, and also addressed the inevitable question of the psychological risks to astronauts. Even though they really did not give any new information, they still gave answers to satisfy the media and got to the risk issue before the media could directly ask.

Even though this issue is not going to go away for NASA anytime soon, and the media relations because of it is not either, they have been able to push it aside enough to continue with regularly scheduled shuttle launches. This will help them continue to stay on their “regularly scheduled” message points about the launches. It will be interesting to see how they address this risk that has been called to the forefront again.

This incident is an example of how the chapter talks about the media being “event focused.” The stories on the news are reactive to certain events, and reporting what happened and how much is known (L&M). Without this event, would reporters or anything else be asking NASA about their psychological testing or debriefing procedures? Would anyone be asking whether or the strenuous job of being an astronaut causes mental collapses or other problems? Probably not.
On the other hand, the chapter also addresses the fact that the media is more concerned with risks that are likely to happen rather than ones that unlikely. Although this is a story that gets a lot of attention, the attention that the risk gets may only remain for the time that the story is still in the forefront of the public eye. Because most of do not go into space and have to undergo testing by NASA. However, the risk of mental illness and stress related illness effects many Americans, so this may raise the media’s interest in stories or communication related to this topic.

February 20 - L&M Chapter 18

February 20 – L&M Chapter 18 Technology-Assisted Communication

Besides your message, audience capabilities here are crucial

Can they access and process your message in a mediated environment?

Communicating to employees

computer-based – can disseminate information and test employee knowledge

distance education – employees obtain instruction at times and sites they prefer

hands-on/classroom – some information is best understood in face-to-face traditional classroom settings

Informing employees about risk in a computer-mediated environment

keep messages short, avoid making them scroll, tell them why they should care about this, call them to action, make contact information available

big companies=big databases=big communication (if they’re good)

don’t overload – evaluate and prioritize information

shared e-file folders – employees can pick and choose relevant information

if you’re in charge, no proprietary or sensitive information

Technology in care communication (risks have been determined and accepted)

if you administer a website, it should contain the following information:

^establish organization’s credibility – who, what, 3^rd party testimonials, provide contact information

^qualify information – how risk assessment prepared, makes sure sources cited can be accessed

^provide links to like credible organizations – confirm your company approves of linked organizations, ask those linked if they approve

Also:

^make sure technology works – cross platform

^remember guidelines for presenting visual information (Chapter 14)

^pages 347-349 list government, educational, professional websites with risk related information, along with selected databases

Stand-alone and web-delivered multimedia programs

consider your audience – techno savy? interactive CDs and online programs work

Interactive web and satellite multimedia

telebriefing – telephone call-ins (to what? L&M quite vague here)

webcasts – live programs, or archived for later on-demand viewing

satellite broadcasts – you know what these are (L&M call these broadcasts, but they’re really not, because they’re directed at a select, private audience at a downlink site. Broadcast? Think NBC)

guidelines for live computer-delivered multimedia programs:

^state user access instructions

^specify program duration

^list system requirements

^allow for technical assistance if problems arise

^provide alternative sources of information

Interactive multimedia programs in public places

kiosks are a great tool for communicating in areas where media access is limited

(I’ve seen this work effectively in China)

again - know your audience! what do they need to know?

Online discussion forums

e-mail lists, listservs and newsgroups provide chat-room opportunities, but:

^focus your topic to avoid being spam to your intended audience

^state rules – no personal info, advertisements, attachments

^indicate if forum is moderated

Technology in consensus communication (working toward group(s) consensus on how risk will be managed, prevented or mitigated)

communication among groups can take the form of:

^websites, LAN (local area networks), extranets (secured websites), bulletin boards (WebCt is a bulletin board)

^some types of information need to be made available to the (uh oh) general public – computers in public spaces (like libraries) satisfy this requirement

^risk communication when trying to reach consensus is improved if stakeholder comments and resulting organizational responses are aggregated and analyzed – software is available for this

^risk communication in consensus situations is also improved if computer- mediated brainstorming is combined with face-to-face decision making

Technology in crisis communication (in the face of potential or unfolding sudden danger)

depending on the type of crisis and what your organization does, most types of mediated communication might be available to you – tv, radio, internet, wireless systems

if a widespread power outage occurs and you’re an NGO, you’re pretty much screwed

mic brookshire

Chapter 16 gave an excellent overview of working with the media. It would be an excellent chapter to read even if one wasn’t going to be dealing with a risk/crisis situation. It offers a good summary and a number of guidelines that are reflected in the media.

The media are “Event focused” (p.276). Lundgren and McMakin paraphrased Greenberg et al’s (1989) findings that coverage is driven by “timeliness, geographic proximity, prominence, consequence, and human interest, along with the television criterion of visual impact” (p. 276).

They explain the types of risk that usually get coverage: “hazards that are catastrophic and violent in nature, new and associated with the United States…Drama, symbolism, and identifiable victims, particularly children or celebrities, make risk more memorable. Controversy ensures greater coverage” (p. 277).

Think: Anna Nicole Smith.

(No you can’t escape it.)

Don’t worry, I’ll focus on the TrimSpa side of it! The story of it has all the makings of a media maelstrom, which we have all been forced to stomach for the past week or so. Think about it from the crisis standpoint of TrimSpa. They lost their primary spokesperson amid an already frenzied media. The only precedent they have for such a high-profile set of events surrounding a female spokesperson is Martha Stewart – a bit differently. The following is a mini-case study surrounding TrimSpa and the death of its spokeswoman.

TrimSpa has put itself in full crisis mode as questions about the dietary supplement’s efficacy and dangers as the media and public continue to speculate about and scrutinize the drug. When you go to the TrimSpa site, you will see that the company took down all information about the supplement and simply put up a message from the CEO/Founder, Alex Goen. They have added a comments section that looks like they rifled through the crème de la crème of comments regarding her recent passing and connection to TrimSpa.

I recently saw an article in my PRSA e-news regarding her connection with TrimSpa, all the insanity surrounding her death and all the promotional material they have with her as a spokesperson.

• TrimSpa was just forced to pay a $25 million fine by the FTC for deceptive advertising (Jan. 5) according to the Washington Times
• Additional questioning of TrimSpa’s safety CNNMoney.com, The NJ Star-Ledger, as well as a discussion in Ad Week and Brandweek (check Lexis-Nexis).
• Feb 6: A class-action lawsuit (in Yahoo! News and TMZ.com’s court documents) has been filed against Anna Nicole Smith and TrimSpa.
• Bad enough, right? Then there are the photos of Anna Nicole Smith’s fridge that were leaked by TMZ.com after her death.

So what do you, as TrimSpa, do? You’ve just been admonished for deceptive advertising, your spokeswoman has been surrounded by controversy (death, drugs, etc) for the last few months, she has mysteriously died, there’s a huge paternity suit, her fridge was revealed to have a competitor’s product and methadone in it, and there is a lawsuit against the effectiveness of your product in the works.

Goen’s response is to go on to Court TV to discuss what it meant (link goes to TMZ copy of video) to her side of their contract. He carefully walks the line of being respectful and not saying what he is probably thinking since all this has happened. Finally, the company is moving on, as well. According to an associated press article released Feb 11, 2007 found on Lexis-Nexis they will be moving on with less-famous spokespeople, quoting TrimSpa President Tony Azzizzo, “your neighbors, friends and family members.”

It may not be the most prestigious or socially responsible company in the world…but how’d they do according to our book chapter? As discussed before this whole issue fits the bill and TrimSpa is rightly in the middle of the whole controversy. Based on what I’ve read, they knew where to draw the line with reporters and the questions that they have certainly been asking. I didn’t see anything about putting the risk into perspective besides simply saying that it was safe and effective. Goen was respectful of Smith’s death despite her possible breech of contract.

Oh, and don’t forget to go through table 16-1 for an excellent list of questions. I am continuously impressed by the tables they offer in this book.

Chpt 16 Working with the Media summary

Together they are the largest source of information to members of society. As risk communicators you will need to remember that every story is between the journalist and the source of information they talk to.

The role of the media can change from one risk issue to another. This role can be 1. report existing information, 2. influence portrayal of the issue, 3. independently bring the issue to the public’s attention, and 4. propose solutions to the risk at hand. Low-end involvement is an interview between reporter and risk communicator and high-end involvement may include an editor going on the record with a stated position.

Relationship building will be important at all levels of involvement. A good relationship between the media and the risk communicator increases the chance that information will be presented accurately and balanced. The risk communicator also has a greater opportunity to convey concerns when a disagreeable statement is published or aired.
A good relationship includes communicating on a regular basis and not only when a crisis occurs. Waiting for a crisis to communicate will appear as self serving.
Also a good relationship will help you know when you need to contact them and when they will contact you.

Mass media today includes television, newspapers, radio, magazines and the Internet. The difference between mass media and stakeholders is that mass media tends to be objective and balanced and stakeholders usually take a certain position about the issue.

Productive interaction with the media begins by understanding their goals and constraints. There are cultural differences between reporters and those being interviewed. If the interviewee understands that they need to be short and concise and speak in terms the audience understands than an effective interview will occur.

Understand that reporters are largely reactive in their approach to a story. They report the facts surrounding the event and possible risks associated with the occurrence. Because of this method of reporting risk communicators need to include other channels if communicating along with the mass media so that different audience members will be reached.

Be aware that certain types of risks get more coverage, such as risks to children, celebrities and controversy. Those in crisis communication may find it easier to get coverage over those in care and consensus communication.

Remember – independence and deadlines mean the risk communicator had little control on what is aired or published.

Condense Simplify and Personalize - sometimes when this is done the story gets watered down so much in order for the audience to understand without the scientific jargon that the real meaning gets lost. Be careful when translating the story into words the audience understands.

Be prepared to answer different types of questions for the different types of media. It is alright to answer “I don’t know” or refer the interviewer to someone who can answer the question. Know the limits of your authority and don’t feel like you need to answer every question asked. Use terms the audience understands, get to the bottom-line and use a press kit with back-up information for the reporter to take with them for future reference, put the risk in perspective, and respect the reporter’s deadline. Disclose proprietary interest and potential conflicts of interest up front failure to do so can damage credibility.
Follow-up when you feel misleading or inaccurate information has been stated.

There are many ways to get the word out, the Internet, subscription based web services video and audio releases and Public Service Announcements, telebriefings (fancy term for possibly a very large phone conference call).
In special cases public health campaigns are used to prompt long term changes. Sometimes they are paid placements in order to control the message and the time it is aired. Disadvantages to this are it is expensive and doesn’t always reach all members of the target audience.

Using research can add to the success of the campaign. Research to determine what the audience perceptions are and what messages and materials are will work more effectively are recommended.

Remember that mass media channels are awareness campaign tools that greater change comes from personal relationships so getting the community leader to deliver the message carries more weight with the members of that community and can lead to greater levels of changed behavior.

Evaluation is critical to measuring success and to determine what worked and what did not. It can help establish funding for future projects.

The check list was a nice summary and could be copied and used easily in daily activities on the job.
Thanks, Liz

Blogger requirements

Blogger now requires you to register with Google to both post and comment. You can use an existing email address for this and we are assured you will not get any spam mail. This is a security measure to reduce unwanted comments. If this is still uncomfortable for you, then please email me your reaction blogs and I will post them when I can. This was a very unexpected development and I apologize for any inconvenience. -Dr. Robinson

Week 7 Readings

Here are the reading assignments for this week. In addition, for case presentation teams 3-7, Ronnie and Gisele, you can focus on one case in-depth or proceed with two shorter cases when planning the 1-hour presentation. (Team 2 send me your power point)

Chapter 16- Katie, Paul, Soo Yeon, Catherine, Liz, Nadya, Giselle

Chapter 18- Mic, Minji, Hyunmin, Tolulope, OT, Jennifer, Ronnie

Chapter 20- Lauren, Wes, Ramon, Courtney, Emel, Jiun-yi, Meredith

Chapter 14: Visual representation of risks

There is a Korean saying which goes “A thousand hearings are not worth one seeing.” We know by experience, and also from the back-up explanation form our textbook that “visuals help people understand and remember content” better than text exclusively (p.213). This is no different in a risk situation. In fact, this can be the most strategic method not only to get the message out there, but also to increase the level of understanding concerning the risk. Emelo provided real life experience that highly stresses the effectiveness of a visual representation of risks, and Katie raises concern towards the not-so-convincing design elements of the visual aids. What I’m going to emphasis is the “dark side” of visual components. As OT stated in his blog, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take off a thousand words.

I remember us discussing the issue of uncertainty and probability last class. Out tentative conclusion was that communicate facts, not estimates. The book chapter gives a different opinion and set out examples such as human figures and bar charts (p.234) to communicate risk visually. This is rather contrasting with our discussion that estimates cause frustration and may even bring upon further risk situations. Since communicating uncertainty underlines the possibility of unexpected action, it is essential that the source at least be credible. This makes me scratch my head since proof of credibility seems more difficult for visuals. Of course when using illustrations, bar graphs and pie charts is rather free from this worry since they are simply “visualized” numbers and statistics. What about photographs of a smoker’s lung? How credible will that be when conditions can differ due to various reasons? How can we be so sure that the photos were not extreme examples and it will occur similarly to all of those who smoke? If you think further, the same issues raise for graphs and bars. Our textbook gives us an example how misinterpretation of visuals provides a false reality. The study conducted on 1994 to examine suicide rates among different age groups in Milwaukee was visualized via pie chart. According to the pie proportion, 28.5% of youths between 10-29 committed suicide while people aged 65 and older accounted nearly 20% of all suicides. While it seems like suicide rates are more common in younger generations, in reality senior rates were more of a problem. It turns out only 13% of total population is those of 65 years and older (p.220).

Another factor I personally think is important when communicating risk through visuals is that people tend to take text messages more seriously. It may be true that people perceive visuals six times better and remember pictures longer than words. However, the importance of text should never be ignored. The human society emphasize reading and writing for a reason: if visuals were the most appropriate method to learn and remember information, it would have been the dominant methodology to learn. Design can affect people’s decision, color pallets can influence people’s mood, and flashy picture can hinder people’s curiosity to seek further information. Visuals are additional content to enhance the understandings, not a single method to communicate solely. Too many perceptions and too much misinterpretation will occur if visuals become the dominant source to communicate risk.

Finally, there’s a factor regarding that people may block out further communication when the visuals appear to be too daunting and extreme. I’m sure all of you have seen the graffiti on the wall of a yellow brick building across Oaks mall. The wall shows a picture of a young teenager smoking on one side with a cool sort of smile on his face, and on the other half of the wall, the same kid is frowning and sitting in front of the doctor. Here, you see that his lungs are all grey and it seems pretty apparent that this kid’s lungs are going to fail him. Block letters along the picture said something about looking cool doesn’t mean that you’re staying cool. I am not sure what the exact words are. It was a message targeted towards youths to prevent smoking, and guess what. My brother, who happens to be fourteen, turns his head away from the picture whenever we wait for the traffic. He says the picture “grosses him out.” He got the message all right but he refused to see or hear further information about smoking. We see a study in mass communication that searches for the correlation between fear appeals and message intake. When the level of fear becomes too extreme, people walk away from the message. You have to be careful what you present in a risk situation. People are already scared: you don’t want to scare them away!

Visual representations of risks should be handled with text, after audience analysis has been done, and in the most accurate and objective level without any extreme pictures or other design components to drive people away.

Chapter 15: Face to Face Communication

As usual, I’m going to relate the material on Face to Face communication to my research interest: the equestrian industry. This past December, several horses were imported to the US from Europe. The animals arrived in New York, where they underwent the mandatory quarantine period. After being released from the quarantine facility, the animals were trucked down the East Coast to Wellington, FL. Soon after their arrival, a number of horses in the Wellington area became ill. They exhibited symptoms of fever, lethargy, loss of appetite, nasal discharge, and neurological abnormalities. Veterinarians quickly diagnosed the illness: Equine Herpes Virus (EHV). The local vets, with the help of veterinarians from the Florida Department of Agriculture and the USDA, realized that the virus was transported to the area by the imported animals. The horses from Europe passed the illness along to their stable mates after they arrived at their South Florida digs.

EHV is not new illness; it’s a strain of the more common (and far less fatal) Rhino virus. Outbreaks of EHV occur periodically in the US, but they are generally contained and limited in scope. The illness is highly contagious among horses, and is largely fatal once it begins affecting the neurological system.

Word of the disease spread quickly among the Wellington equestrian community. In addition to their concern for their animals’ health, people feared the illness would affect the Winter Equestrian Festival competition. The WEF is one of the most prestigious equestrian competitions in the nation. Many European riders ship their horses to the states to participate in the horse show. Beginning in January, the competitions run for ten weeks. The Wellington community depends on the business of the show horses and their entourages. Competitors rent stables and hotel rooms, frequent restaurants and tack shops and buy equine supplies. Trainers depend on the coaching fees they earn during the WEF.

The local equestrian community, in cooperation with the USDA and Florida Dept. of Agriculture held an open meeting on December 16 to inform concerned equestrians exactly what was occurring. They needed to stop the rumors, and make sure their public received the correct information about the outbreak. Over 600 people attended the press conference hosted by the company that organizes the Winter Equestrian Festival. A team of veterinarians, including representatives from the UF College of Veterinary Medicine, vets from the Florida Department of Agriculture, the USDA, the University of Kentucky (a credible, outside expert), and the Wellington veterinarian who first recognized the illness presented at the meeting. The vets explained the chronology of the outbreak and the source of the illness. They informed concerned equestrians about the quarantine procedure for stables with infected horses, and told stable managers how to monitor their animals for potential new cases. They reviewed precautionary procedures to help keep the illness from spreading further (such as strict sanitation procedures for people coming into contact with infected animals). Vets concluded that it was not necessary to restrict equine movement except for the animals in quarantined facilities. Only one weekend of competition was cancelled due to the illness.

From what I’ve read about the situation, it appears that the press conference achieved its goals of informing people about the status of the illness and how to prevent further spread of the disease. Press conferences were held on a regular basis throughout the course of the outbreak, and equestrian organizations posted daily updates and replays of the press conference on their web sites. The EHV outbreak was controlled quickly (within two weeks of diagnosis), and the equestrian community endured only minimal financial losses. All of the quarantines have since been lifted. At the last count, nine horses fell ill with EHV and five of them died of the disease. Considering the vast number of horses in the Wellington area for the competitions, this is a remarkably low incidence. This is one instance in which the equestrian community was successful in reaching its audience and thus managing a crisis situation largely through solid face to face communications skills.

http://www.floridahorse.com/2006EHVConf.html

Ch 12: Develop a Communication Plan

Chapter 11 was helpful, but uneventful in the realm of supplying me with thought-provoking statements. On the other hand, ch.12 included plenty of what to me felt like not-so-common common sense. For instance, the figure outlining the facets of a comprehensive communication plan advised the communicator to convey under what authority the risk being communicated. Frankly, as a public relations practitioner, I think that all risk should be communicated simply for the benefit of those at risk and the organization. The thought that a risk would be made public in response to a law was initially surprising, but eventually logical.
I liked the suggestion of including not only audience descriptions but an explanation of how audience information was gathered. After all, if any discrepancies occur in response to the audience summary, the methodology and results of the information-gathering process can be assessed. The same figure included a portion on gathering necessary approvals. This brought back painful memories writing a brochure and having to get approval from several layers of the organizational structure who were often so involved in their own responsibilities that eventual hounding for approval became a frustrating part of the process. This would of course delay the artistic layout of the piece. Unfortunately, the piece is not ready for printing once the layout is complete because the promotional piece requires approval once again. This is all tedious, but a sometimes inevitable part of the communicative process.
The section on using storyboarding as a planning tool contained a good description of how the process should work. My attention was caught by the sentence stating that “[t]he facilitator should let the ideas flow and not censor them, even if they are impractical or impossible” (p. 185) because it seems like in so many instances, during brainstorming sessions, people are likely to have the desire to discredit other’s ideas based on their lack of pragmatism. Including everyone’s ideas regardless of feasibility can lead people to thinking of ways in which something that initially seemed unrealistic can become a possibility. Furthermore, not making someone feel rejected is an essential part of team-building at any time.
The following statements provided me with a sad realization: “Dozier and his colleagues warn that organizations often focus communication efforts solely on the last group. Ignoring the other groups, however, can have serious consequences. By the time ignored members become active, their views are often negative, entrenched, and oppositional” (p. 189). Unfortunately, active publics often do arrive at their situation out of necessity in response to their frustration. This means, that once again, in communications, activist publics are seen as (or can actually be) something to be “dealt with” in a negative context.
The section on viewing audiences by what causes them to be interested in the risk, which lists the segments developed by the team of experts including Peter Sandman, was truly eye-opening because although every one of those segment descriptions are what communicators would consider common sense, addressing each of those audiences is something that is so often overlooked. For instance, perhaps because of my association of risk and crisis communications with affected area residents, so far I had not included the business community and how it would be affected into my mental image of potential audiences. Regardless, if people of a community are affected, of course businesses that serve those very residents can also be impacted. Next, not to say that I did not treasure the experiences that I gained at the organization that I used to work at, I’ve survived through instances in which the concept of informing your own organization’s staff about the details surrounding a project may as well have been foreign. Therefore, without an ounce of doubt know that I absolutely agree with the fact that there is a great need to keep the staff and management of an organization informed at all times—even over-informed if at all possible.
Keeping other involved organizations informed is once again, one of those logical, but sometimes cumbersome necessities. For instance, the organization where I interned this past summer joined with a similarly-scaled organization to promote spaying and neutering. The two organizations were nonprofit organizations whose goals were to tackle the problem of pet overpopulation. Before witnessing the complications associated with fighting through the politics of simply keeping the communication lines opened among the two organizations I would have thought that the entire concept was a no-brainer. Alas, that was not the case. In retrospect, I’ve realized that although I used to only associate aggressive competition with money-hungry corporate entities, money-needy nonprofit entities can be just as cut-throat with each other.

Chapter 15: Face-to-face communication

This chapter, serving as a subpart of chapter 10: Determine appropriate methods, discussed a wide range of face-to-face communication techniques. In a word, it’s all about choosing the right person to convey information with supplementary video presentations. After reading these chapters so far, it seems to me that face-to-face communication is more appropriate (or more commonly used) for consensus communication. It must be accomplished by good skills in public speaking and negotiation. In crisis communication, working with the media would be more suitable while interactive intervention programs are now becoming buzz words in terms of care and health communication.

Interactive Health Communication (IHC) applications, which aim to lead to better health status and healthy lifestyles, all seek to change individual behaviors and minimize the risk perceptions of audience. The goal of an IHC resource is to provide services that are informative, persuasive and useful to make a lasting contribution to the user’s ability to maintain and improve health. Many of behavior change theories have been developed and tested concepts of motivation, self-efficacy and social support. For instance, social cognitive theory suggests behavior change and maintenance are decided by two factors: outcome expectations and self-efficacy expectations referring to whether one is capable of successfully engaging in the behavior. In general, people with higher self-efficacy are more likely to initiate new behaviors, maintain changed behaviors and persist longer in their efforts.

Increasingly, discussion boards often serve as virtual communities to provide information exchange and emotional support in IHC programs and campaigns. A prime example of connection to other real people is CHESS’s bulletin-board style Discussion Group, which often accounts for two-thirds or more user of the system. It allows users to share information, experiences, hopes, and fears, give and receive support, and offer different perspectives on common issues. Through participating in online group discussion, patients build a sense of community that affects psychosocial health. Accordingly, research reflects a growing interest in determining the Internet ability to affect psychosocial well-beings among all kinds of diseases, especially among breast cancer survivors. Technology-based communication strategies attract more and more people to go for online heath information.

In terms of constructing face-to-face messages, credibility is the most important criterion regardless of whether the audience or the spokesperson will be doing most of the talking (p. 251). Traditional persuasion research revealed a long-standing interest in source credibility. Credibility has two primary concepts: trustworthiness and expertise. The two concepts affected acceptance of the message and changes in opinion. Needless to say, we all strive for having a spokesperson who are experts in a given industry and highly trusted source. However, being constrained by time and budget, we need to make a balance to determine the right person. If the spokesperson is affiliated with the organization, even thought he/she is a expertise, will they still be trustworthy to publics?

Risk/Crisis Communication

Risk/Crisis Communication Chapters 11 and 12

For an excellent and thorough review of Chapters 11 and 12, check out Giselle's post. I thought she did an excellent job. As always there are a number of things that I liked and a few things I thought the author glanced over.

Chapter 11 could definitely have been more helpful. It did an excellent job covering the necessary elements of setting a communication schedule. It missed covering techniques and ways that one could actually do it. While a lot of it seems like common sense, I think it’s important to note a few techniques for setting a schedule with deadlines that are attainable.

There are two ways to decide on a timeframe: Start from day 1 of the proposed preparations and move forward, or start with the final outcome you want to achieve and then move backwards. If you cannot have everyone (or their representative) that is involved in the schedule present at its creation, make sure to run it by them before it is okayed. This is where the signature sheet comes into play. It needs to be considerate of all for whom the schedule pertains.

Remember that there are always people involved, people aren’t perfect and they get distracted or are busy. While it’s nice to be able to rely on others, sometimes things get lost in the wash of whatever it is you’re communicating. For this reason, it is important to consider two things: One is to allow an extra day or two for every deadline. You need to build in wiggle room. The second is that, as the creator of the schedule it is your job that everyone sticks to it that needs to, or make it someone’s job to follow up with everyone involved with the schedule.

I thought the “Ongoing Activities” section (p. 173-4) was very important to highlight. There is nothing worse than competing for space when there are other huge events in the media, especially if you are attempting to communicate risk or information about a crisis. There is an excellent list of questions that as risk/crisis communicators we will need to answer on page 174.

I will reiterate them, b/c they are important:

“What happened?”

“How dangerous is it?”

“How could it affect me or the people or things I care about?”

“What can I do?”

My question to the class is: Are there any other questions that generally need to be taken into consideration? Obviously these will change and get more complex depending upon audience, but are there any other needs that information can more or less fulfill?

Finally, for Ch. 11, I wanted to point out that we are all living the dream according to the poor chap who wanted to get his house tested for radon gases. Following Coles’ 1993 “Birth of a Notion” perspective (See Giselle’s post), we are living in the state of someone’s wishful thinking: “’Maybe I could just sell the house and move to Florida’” (p.176). He was obviously worried and not logical, for he may end up having the new house he purchased in this state tested for structural soundness by a hurricane.

On to Ch. 12: Another excellent chapter. Very informative and it is basically a rehashing of how to write up a communications plan. Again, full of good advice and this time they gave some very useful examples. The storyboarding was great, but I was most impressed with the “onion diagram” developed by James Creighton on p. 188. I thought it was an excellent visual representation of how and where audiences fall in relation to the organization and the presenting risk/crisis. They can then be labeled according to Dozier, et al.’s (1995) audience assessment measures. As the publics in the onion diagram get closer to the center, they move up the list from nonpublic to active public.

Something the authors briefly touched on was SWOT analyses and essentially co-orientation theory for determining a public’s feelings towards an organization. As an audience analysis, co-orientation should definitely be done with the public and the organization to use as a starting point for developing communication materials. However, it can be adapted for risk and crisis communication, simply by putting the risk in column A instead of the organization. This way the audience’s understandings of the risk can be co-oriented against the organizations perception of the risk and communications materials can be further developed to directly meet the needs of the audience. See McLeod, J.M. & Chaffee, S.H. (1973). Interpersonal Approaches to Communication Research. The American Behavioral Scientist, 16 (4) pp. 469-499

Risk/Crisis Communication

Risk/Crisis Communication

Be Prepared

Chapter 11 and 12 were informative and filled with good things for public relations practitioners to know. Setting a schedule and developing a communication plan are both very important when it comes to communicating risk or during a crisis. It is also a good idea to have as much of this done in advance as possible because when a crisis comes, there will be many other things to worry about. Having a general schedule will allow practitioners to add to it during a crisis and having a communication plan will allow practitioners to know what needs to be done and when.

Chapter 14 was about how to use visuals to represent risks and crisis. While this is good for public relations practitioners to know, the chapter was a little mundane and drawn out. The chapter lists many different types of visuals that can be used and when it would be best to use them, but in reality, no public relations practitioner is going to remember all the visuals that can be used and when they should be used. To me, it would be best for practitioners to decide what information they want to disseminate to the public and then decide for themselves which visual will make the information most understandable. Looking at the book is a good way to start and to get some ideas, but I think that practitioners should not feel limited in the type of visuals they can use and practitioners should also feel free to be creative.

In addition, practitioners need to take into account how fast the information in the visuals need to be understood. If the visuals are on a billboard, people need to be able to understand what the visuals are telling them while they drive by. Because the time that the drivers will have to look at the billboard is quite short, the visuals need to be simple and straight forward. If the visuals are in a handout that people can take with them, they can be more complex and contain more information because people will be able to study them longer and will be able to all of the information contained in the visuals.

Chapter 15 dealt with face-to-face communication. I thought the list of things to consider when organizing speeches, video presentations, etc. were good because it broke down each thing into the essentials. When things are hectic during a crisis, it is easy to overlook important things. A list of considerations is a good way to ensure that important things are not overlooked.

The tips about how to choose a speaker are important because a good speaker grabs the attention of an audience therefore, they will be more likely to remember what was said. Some people are also better at speaking about certain topics or to certain types of audiences, so it is important that a speaker is matched with an audience that will understand them and listen to them. Having people already picked out to speak about certain topics will save time and effort during a crisis because practitioners do not have to spend a lot of time trying to find a speaker.

Chapter 15 Face-to-face communication

To construct face-to-face messages, the following guidelines are mentioned; choose the appropriate spokesperson, give the audience something to take away, reinforce your message with visual aids, speak in the language of the audience, and don’t promise what you can’t deliver. In every communication effort, to know your audience is the first responsibility for crisis managers. It is significantly emphasized all the time in Lundgren and McMakin’s (2004) book. In face-to-face communication, communication manager should be more concerned about audience than any other communications because it is a direct relationship with audiences. In choosing appropriate spokesperson, credibility is the most important issue because only “credibility” can give the audience the trust. “If their concerns are largely technical, a scientist or engineer is best. If they have management concerns, a manager with accountability for decision-making is best” (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, p. 251). Risk managers should have the insightful knowledge and views choosing the appropriate spokesperson in risk as a plan. Lundgren and McMakin’s (2004) indicated that one of the drawbacks of face-to-face communication is that audiences are possible to have nothing to take away from the presentation to help them to remember key points. They recommended the visual reinforcement to keep the audience remember key points. However, I believe if the audiences understand the objective of communication and are satisfied with the communication message, they absolutely remember the face-to-face communication as successful. In this sense, visual aids, themselves, are not the important matter to decide the face-to-face communication as successful. That is just one element of strategy in face-to-face communication. The most important role of risk managers is to have an eye to see the situation and to know how to approach to audiences. I believe in particularly face-to-face communication, risk managers should concern about the respectful and sincere attitude towards audiences.
As guidelines for specific types of face-to-face communication, speaking engagements, speakers bureaus, tours and demonstrations, video presentations, audience interviews, information fairs, and training were introduced in Lundgren and McMakin’s (2004). I regard Lundgren and McMakin’s guidelines are very practical and specific. Therefore, it would be helpful for risk managers in real world, not for researchers in academia. However, I’m doubtful how many or how widely risk managers get advice from this book. When I worked as a public relations professional in Seoul, Korea, the company and my boss never relied on academic book for acquiring useful information for their practice. They usually relied on their experience, their colleagues’ experience, and internet sources. If I have a chance to work as a professional in real world in the future, I’ll sometimes rely on academic books because I know that those guidelines can give the professional some new practical advices and new views as a bird eye. How can we make an effort for practitioners to adopt academic materials? The interactions between practitioners and researchers, and researchers’ practical advices are needed definitely.

Reaction Blog Chpt 15

Reaction Blog Chapter 15, Liz Felter

As I read Chapter 15 I couldn’t help but think that “knowing your audience” would simplify the whole situation. When you know the audience it makes selecting the right spokesperson easier and chances for success greater. Comments about credibility, responsiveness and acceptable to the audience, have surfaced for the past 6 weeks of class. Comments about speaking in terms the audience understands have been mentioned time and time again. Communicators that do not speak in a language understood by the audience and use unacceptable body language will be seen as smug and not genuine. The goal of the audience accepting the risk will be to no avail.

Knowing the audience can help determine how much face-to-face time will be needed. Again the statement “the farther away we get from individual contact, the more room there is for confusion and misunderstanding” This reminds me of a kid’s game “telephone”. One person whispered something into one person’s ear and that person tells another person whispers what they think they heard the first person say to another person.
When the last person in the circle is asked to say what they heard to compare it to what the statement was when the game started there is usually total confusion and misunderstanding. The statement is usually a completely different statement than what it started out as. The ironic thing here is that this game is done face-to face and there is still run for plenty of error. Proving that choosing the appropriate communicator is very important.

It would behoove the organization to choose someone that the audience can relate to but, lack of knowledge on their part does not always result is selecting the appropriate person. Unfortunately internal politics blinds the organization when making this important decision. They often feel that the expert in the area of a particular risk should also be the spokesperson. As discussed in the chapter that may work out well if that person can speak in terms the audience understands and their body language is viewed as acceptable to hat audience.

This person should also be able to build and maintain a relationship with the media that covers their organization. This will take more work than figuring out how to communicate with the many facets of the audience. Special care to stay in touch with this person during times when risk and crisis are NOT an issue is very important. The media can easily see if through the communicator if they only have contact during an emergency. It will be important for you to know how they media representatives in your area operate. What are they trying to accomplish. Remember that everything you say is on the record, whether you think it is or not.

The media can make or break your communications strategy. If you can build a partnership with the reporter or reporters that cover your organization they can strengthen your communication campaign. This will increase the impact of your message and possibly increase the number of people reached.

Working with the Media -- RL (Ronnie)

The media can be your best friend or your worst enemy when it comes to communicating risk and crisis information. In putting together Chapter 15, the authors are correct in emphasizing how important it is to maintain a good relationship with the media – at all levels – from the top, and in some ways more importantly, with the reporter who may actually be engaged in the hands-on coverage of your organization. More often than not, it is the beat reporter with whom the practitioner may have the most consistent and direct contact.

This is probably one of the better chapters in the book in terms of providing insights as well as the how-to-guide in handling the responsibilities of crisis communication. The media does take on different roles depending on the type of crisis that is perceived. It’s easy enough for the practitioner to work with the media when a “care communication” situation is what’s on hand. It’s more difficult when the media takes on an advocacy role.

Investigative journalism can provide real eye-openers for the community and be a real headache for the practitioner who has something to hide – or acts as if he or she has something to hide. For example, journalistic investigations into the tobacco industry painted a pretty dismal picture of what went on behind the scenes there – and the less than forthcoming responses of industry public relations representatives didn’t help.

Michael Moore’s investigation of gun usage and sales in “Bowling for Columbine,” his documentary about gun violence with a focus on the tragic killings at the Littleton, Colorado high school. As part of his recorded investigation, Moore goes to the K-Mart headquarters in Michigan with some of the Columbine victims. (The ammunition used in the attack was ostensibly purchased at K-Mart.) K-Mart public relations officials tried to evade Moore at first – but in an about-face company spokespeople later announced K-Mart would stop selling ammunition. Moore’s tactics were more extreme than most journalists would use -- but for the public relations people at K-Mart, it was still, for them, a part of working with the media.

Another extreme example is Morgan Spurlock’s movie “Supersize Me,” in which he documented his numerous attempts to contact the McDonald’s public relations team – which steadfastly ignored his calls. One of McDonald’s first responses to the movie was in Australia, according to information from a link on the Supersize Me website. (http://www.theage.com.au/ McDonald’s filmed three commercials, including one which was shown at movie theaters in Australia. According to the article, McDonald's Australia was “the first McDonald's in the world to use advertising to publicly attack the movie, a decision taken after “research from customers indicated that McDonald's silence might be taken as an admission of guilt.”

The examples given here could be viewed as examples of advocacy “journalism” in the extreme. But they do provide some food for thought about the importance the media has for anyone working in public relations – especially when a crisis looms or when a journalist or documentary filmmaker embarks on a crusade.

In Chapter 15, The authors make notes of some important distinctions in contrasting the mass media with other stakeholders – mission and representation. Most journalists still believe in the concept of objectivity and balance – and will make an honest effort to provide a report free of bias. That’s why it’s so important for the public relations communicator to work with the media to provide accurate information – especially when technical or scientific issues are involved that are not always easy for the lay person to understand.

The authors note that “working productively with reporters and journalists can lead to a more informed, empowered, solution-oriented public” providing as an example of the benefits of this approach the public awareness campaigns about the AIDS virus and the E-coli bacteria risk. I agree.

The authors note the “cultural differences” that exist between a journalist and experts engaged in risk communication – and how important it is for the subject of an interview to be aware of these differences when engaging in an interview. I would say it’s important to remember that it is “an interview” and NOT a conversation. It is also important to keep in mind the values that drive a journalist in covering a news event – timeliness, proximity, prominence, consequence, human interest – and in the case of television – visuals. That’s why “I’ll get back to you tomorrow” is NOT the correct response to give to a journalist who calls for comment for a story. The story will go with or without your response – so why not seize the moment to try to get your organization’s perspective included in the story.

One last thought, about working with the media that complicates things for any public relations practitioner these days is the blogosphere. There’s more blogs and bloggers out there every day – how to work with bloggers could be a topic for another blog so I won’t get into it here. All I’ll say for now is remember the bloggers are out there and (perhaps) keeping tabs on your organization and your issue.

Face-to-Face communication RL

Face-to-Face communication

Face to face communications serves as one of the most effective methods to communicate risk to an audience, through some form of oral presentation. There are many different tactics that encompass the area of face-to-face communications. These range from small group settings to one-to-one interactions as well as video presentations.

Face-to-Face communication seems very similar to the previously discussed stakeholder participation. Face-to-face differs from that of stakeholder participation in that “only one of the groups involved do most if not all of the talking” (one way communication) L&M 250.

Constructing the message

The first step must be to understand how to reach and communicate to your audience. Secondly the communicating organization must decide who will lead the face-to-face interaction. “The two key criteria in choosing the person who will lead the face-to-face interaction (the organizational spokesperson) are audience acceptability and organizational acceptability” (L&M 251)

In order to achieve audience acceptability it is important that the organizational spokesman have un-impeachable credibility. It is also important to furnish the audience with someone who can respond to the concerns of the audience, as well as respond to the audience in a way the group will find acceptable. “From the audience’s perspective, then, the best spokesperson is one who is credible, responsive to concerns and a believable speaker.

Many factors also go into meeting organizational acceptability as well. The authors point out in cases when the audience will be doing most of the talking, is the spokesperson a good listener? For cases when the spokesperson will be doing most of the talking does the person have the training to give speeches? Depending upon the organization there are other factors that will insure the success of the spokesperson from the organization’s point-of-view.

In order to be effective during face-to-face communication it is important to give the audience something to take away, (even if it is “duck tape and plastic sheeting to help guard against terrorism”), unless you reinforce the presentation with written materials such as fact sheets, the audience may not take away or retain the information you intended. That being said be sure to include visual aids whenever possible. (L&M 254-255).

Another principle to guide the face-to-face communication upon would be to never promise something you can not deliver. As one responds to an audience it is easy to promise to give information, knowing that you may not be held personally responsible for the information, if the information is not given out subsequent to that offer then that audience will remember the lapse and may let others know that the organization fails to live up to its promise thus depleting its credibility. (L&M 257)

Here is a check list of types of face-to-face communications

Speaking Engagements
Speakers Bureaus
Tours and Demonstrations
Video Presentations
Audience Interviews
Information Fairs
Training
(L&M 256-268)

Chapters 11 & 12

Chapter 11 emphasizes the need for setting a schedule when it comes to planning risk communications. Like with any type of communication/public relations, scheduling helps plan out the elements required and gives specific deadlines for meeting the objectives.

Legal requirements must be taken into account, especially for practitioners working at publicly held companies or government organizations. In cases (particularly crisis) when the situation is ongoing, there may be restrictions as to what you legally can and cannot say, in order to avoid any conflicts with pending litigation or to avoid revealing material information. Organizational requirements also fall under this category, especially in terms of the review process information must go through before being presented to the public. In organizations dealing with especially technical or scientific information, this is essential to ensure quality control, and the public relations practitioners must work with this group to present the information in a manner the general public can understand.

It is also essential to monitor the ongoing activities of the organization, the local area, and the nation as a whole, depending on what the risk or crisis is. As the story about the Superfund site in Alaska illustrates, it would be a shame to put a great deal of work into a public involvement campaign, only to hold it during a time when no one would be able to attend. Also appropriate (and timely, given that President Bush just presented the budget) is the quote from the authors stating that “if your organization is dependant on federal funding, and an election in which your funding is an issue is imminent, you should wait until after the election to promise funds to a citizens group to act as advisors in your risk assessment, management, and communication activities” (p.174). In an era of budgets being slashed left and right, this is an important consideration to keep in mind.

Cole’s 1993 “Birth of a Notion” perspective can be a useful one, especially within the mental models approach. This process goes through the process individuals often use when deciding how to react regarding a risk/crisis situation. The steps are:

• Dawning awareness (initial reaction)
• Sense of urgency (how does this affect me and what can I do about it?)
• Discovery of choices (looking at options available for action)
• Wishful thinking (often irrational thoughts on how to act)
• Intellectual stand (thoughts after reviewing information available)
• Responsible judgment (actions to take after weighing all information and options presented) (p.177-178).

Chapter 12 reinforces the need for a written communication plan, which is pretty obvious to us public relations folks. :-) Like a schedule (but much more comprehensive), this is your written game plan on how to proceed with risk communication, and assists you with all the necessary steps, tactics and other information. It’s easier to put together for risk communication, although crisis plans are certainly useful – you plan based on potential risks that could befall your organization (storyboarding is useful to brainstorm possible situations).

The plan’s introduction functions as an executive summary, discussing “why you are writing the plan (purpose), what kinds of activities are covered by the plan (scope), background material on the risk being communicated, the reason your organization is communicating about the risk (authority), and the purpose and objectives of your effort” (p.182).

One of the key sections of the plan is the audience profile section, in which you provide your research into all of the publics that may be affected by the risk/crisis. As there could be many different publics with differing characteristics, a range of tactics and methods may be needed in order to effectively get your message across. Thus, it may be practical to have a separate communications plan for each audience, to assist in scheduling and visualizing the tasks at hand. The audience focus also falls under this category, and I like the visual representation of the “onion diagram,” as presented on page 188. In addition, Grunig, Grunig & Dozier’s situational theory of publics (p.189) is useful in determining your communications strategy.