Larry D. Lauer

I was once told by a colleague that my problem was that I thought every problem was a communication problem. As I thought about it I found myself explaining how a significant number of problems are indeed communication problems, or at least have significant communication dimensions. So here are some thoughts that Mr. Comey might do well to keep in mind…

Recent media revolutions have changed how communication works:

1. Audiences today receive most of their information through many different digital devices, and choose the ones that appeal to them most.
2. But this same technology creates a vast amount of information clutter, and results in confusion about facts and truth.
3. In fact, this technology also creates a surprisingly new “media ecosystem,” one that allows repeated lies to eventually sound true, debating to polarize issues to the extreme, crude language to become commonplace, and celebrities to appear more knowledgeable than they are.
4. And this technology also created countless new news sources to choose from, many based on opinion. Some sources became extreme, requiring audiences to become their own editors. Also, many people choose only the sources that feed their biases.

Communicators therefore have new realities, and new rules, to consider:

1. Communication always breaks down. Most people can only remember about 50% of what they hear or read, and communicators can’t control which 50%. People hear selectively, and only what they want to hear.
2. More information isn’t always better. Too much adds more clutter to an already information cluttered and confused environment.
3. To compensate for this the communicator must begin with a simple framework. For example, first tell them what you know about them. In other words, empathize. Then give them only 4 or 5 major points selected to meet needs you know they have, with examples for each. Finally, summarize very succinctly.
4. You should use social media to talk to your most important audiences directly, over the heads of the news media and others. This will help cut through the clutter. But you must use the devices and platforms you know they prefer, and each audience will be using different ones. And know that younger audiences will be changing their preferred platforms often.
5. You must deal with the news media realistically. They will not tell your story your way. But you must still be prepared to respond when you become news. News media visibility establishes you as important, but news audiences will also only hear what they want to hear.
6. The only way to change minds is to raise questions that cause audiences to become a little uncertain. Conversion is a lengthy process, but eventually you might find opportunities in audience uncertainty to suggest new positions. But remember, a Democrat’s argument will only make a Republican a better Republican.
7. The more interactive your social media choices the more successful you can be in the long run. Successful communication is a process, not a one time sender to receiver event.

Mr Comey, I know there is a lot here to digest. But I think you will do well to incorporate what you can… especially insights about the new media world, how communication works, and especially what not to say. For example, I think you made a mistake referencing Mr. Trump’s hands, orange skin, and tanning lines. It should have been obvious that this is what adversaries would respond to as a cheap shot, and the news media would see as great headline material. You need now to go forward telling your story in a more straightforward manner, expecting people to hear only what they want, and using the right social media platforms to stay in interactive touch with your primary audiences, asking them to help tell your story. Word of mouth still works, but now it’s called buzz!

Good luck. The new media world is a complex and bewildering one. Believe me, I know. I learn the hard way too.

Read Full Post »

With extremely smart and articulate young people taking up the issue of safety in America’s schools, I am wondering if good people on both sides of the gun issue can now find a meeting of the minds.

A colleague of mine recently pointed out that several independent polls show as many as half of NRA members agree with some automatic gun restrictions. And I recently saw a television report showing a focus group of concerned citizens and NRA members agreeing on a surprising number of solutions.

Maybe extreme polarization over gun rights is mostly the reaction to official NRA television spots, lobbyists tactics, and the divisive rhetoric of executives… and not the feelings of many longtime NRA members.

In the past the NRA has mostly been about gun safety. Members also buy guns for hunting and family defense. And all of  this seems reasonable, and no doubt constitutional. But many gun-free citizens have become terrified of living around huge numbers people from all walks of life toting high-powered automatic weapons , often openly and dramatically.

So here is my question: Without the involvement of NRA executives, lobbyists, politicians, or activists, and with independent poll information in hand, should not all community governments appoint permanent commissions to find reasonable ways forward?

Read Full Post »