Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Lessons Learned’ Category

Lesson 264 Too Many Issues!

Posted in Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on April 2, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Government and institutional communicators often find themselves dealing with a large number of issues at the same time. For example, dealing with issues such as poverty, race, class, jobs, education simultaneously can become overwhelming.

Sometimes, however, it can be possible to group issues such as these under a general  category? For example, the issues listed above could be grouped under a category such as “equal opportunity,” and then a communication campaign can be designed for that category. Simple category themes have a better chance of getting through to multiple audiences, and then compelling stories about those issues can be effective examples.

Experience teaches that effective communication requires simple primary themes or messages. Here’s another example. Issues such as water, hunger, food, global warming, etc. could be clustered under a simple theme such as “saving the planet.”  Priority audiences,  and the media preferences for each one, can then be identified for that theme. The key is to repeat the theme or category over and over, and to use compelling examples based on the underlying issues.

This approach may not fit every situation. But it can be an effective strategy for institutions and governments finding themselves overwhelmed with too many complex issues all at once.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 263 The Power of Public Diplomacy

Posted in Higher Education, International, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on March 26, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Last week I discussed why government communication is destined to fail. People hear what they want to hear, adversaries are poised to attack. and the daily pressure of 24/7 journalism is relentless.

I  suggested that a simple message or theme repeated over and over again about individual freedom and opportunity might have a better chance of getting through. And in the long run, such a message might be the most important one.

This week I am suggesting that “public diplomacy” might be the best approach to this kind of “brand identity”communication. And nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s) are the best at doing it, especially if they are nonpolitical.

Public diplomacy is basically organized “people-to-people communication. People are brought together from different cultures to experience normal things. They come to appreciate their differences, their foods, and traditions. Even many kinds of international travel can accomplish this empathetic understanding.

Governments also conduct public diplomacy. But they cannot do it with the same credibility as NGO’s. Even so, they can add some legitimacy to their other foreign policy communication by sending academics, musicians, artists, writers, students, etc. abroad. In other words, Americans can convey “the idea of America, just by being “good Americans” in other countries.

My experience in international education has led me to also see international higher education as public diplomacy. In fact, it might be the purest form. Some prefer to call this soft power. But I believe the globalization of this industry has the potential to increase cultural understanding though student and faculty contacts and exchanges, while at the same time focusing research capabilities and expertise on solving the world’s most complex  problems.

Diplomacy is important. It is how governments deal with each other. But when it comes to genuine peace-making and real world problem-solving, I believe that effective soft power public diplomacy will be essential to saving our planet, and ourselves.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 262 Why Government Communication Fails

Posted in Integrated Marketing, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on March 19, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Effective organizational communication requires the source to be credible, the message to be simple, and those doing the communicating to be working with a coordinated and simple  bureaucratic structure. If the source is not credible communication will fail. And if the structure is too complex messages will not come through consistently.

Governments face a special dilemma. They usually only have credibility with those audiences already in agreement with their policies. And they are often too complex bureaucratically to achieve consistently.

Messages must be simple and sent simultaneously to multiple audiences. Media platforms  must be selected based on each audience’s primary use preferences. Communicating complex issues simply and using different platforms for different audiences are significant challenges, indeed.

What makes matters even more complicated for governments are the relentless demands of 24/7 journalists for something to report all day long. If no news is forthcoming some reporters will write that the administration is not responsive, or that the staff is indecisive, or that the president is just too “professorial.” On the other hand, when statements are made under constant pressure the result can be widespread misunderstanding.

And to add even more complications, foreign audiences and political adversaries are ready every day to actively misunderstand. So even efficiently managed messages are likely to breakdown.

All that said, my experience with institutions and nonprofits would suggest that if there is a  simple message about core values which defines an attractive and compelling identity, it just might be possible to get that message through by relentlessly repeating it over time. And in the long run, getting that message through might be the most lasting communication success a government of goodwill can have.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 261 Political Games Constantly Change

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 11, 2015| Leave a Comment »

The presidential primary election season is underway and I have been reflecting again on just how much the game has changed in recent years. What does it take today to win a primary, and then a general election? And what role does new technology play?

When television became a dominant medium more than 50 years ago it literally changed the game in fundamental ways. Suddenly a candidate had to look good on television, be able to afford to buy time, and present the image of a confident leader able to make everything better. The Kennedy-Nixon debate was the classic example of how one candidate could hold his own on the issues, but still lose out to the one who looked more presidential on camera.

Now we are in the age of digital media. Looking presidential on television still counts, but even more critical is the capacity to build a highly motivated “community-of-interest” among like-minded individuals using two-way interactive media platforms. Such communities are not limited by geography and can be sustained over time.  And this same technology has the power to inspire them to attend rallies and vote on election day.

Election districts are also shaped differently in this new media age. Today, districts are clusters of like-minded people with their boundaries drawn by the most powerful party. Representatives are expected to champion their district’s thinking. This generally results in taking extreme positions on issues. And the situation keeps getting worse.

In presidential and gubernatorial primary elections this same kind of extreme thinking will take place. Confusion then develops when the winners must adjust and broaden their appeal in general elections. Candidates are often driven to say things they can’t sustain after elected. Then, their popularity fades and the political pendulum can easily swing from one party to the other.

The intensity of 24/7 news and ongoing community-of-interest building activities can keep these ideology-driven issues hot long after elections. This requires year-round fundraising which continues daily. More and more money is needed, and it only comes with clear voting expectations. This is what has put wealthy individuals and corporations fully in charge.

A new media world would seem to have the power to reduce the cost of campaigning. But the opposite has actually occurred. It takes huge amounts of money to sustain this constantly changing political game, including to pay for the last-minute negative attacks which many consultants believe win elections.

It’s amazing to think that it’s television imagery and community-of-interest building technology that enabled all these changes and contributed to this mess. Time heals, to be sure. But let’s hope it does not run out before another promising society collapses. Lessons of history can be sobering.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 260 Media and the Balance of Power

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 4, 2015| Leave a Comment »

This week Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress at the invitation of the Speaker of the House without the concurrence of the President, breaking all established protocol for a state visit. This event had me thinking again about how the balance of power is supposed to work versus how media revolutions in the past have been able to significantly disrupt it. And the more I thought about it the more I could see media influences once again contributing to this disruption.

In the US we have a checks and balances system designed to balance the power between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. But with each media revolution, from print to TV to digital and Internet technology, the balance of power has shifted in favor of those branches and individuals who understand and use the new dominant medium most effectively.

For example, among the 425 members of the House of Representatives and the 100 members of the Senate, only those who know how to use television and digital media effectively are able to attain widespread visibility and influence. The executive branch, by virtue of its administrative importance, has greater media access and so the president has the advantage of his powerful “bully pulpit.” And the judiciary’s “court of last resort” function tended to diminish its media access and influence, although recent hot constitutional issues might be changing all that… producing more balance disruption.

The appearance of Netanyahu before the US Congress is still another development in this changing media dynamic. Was the US speaker of the House’s invitation to speak to Congress without consulting the US President a pure Republican political move?  Was Netanyahu’s interest in coming primarily influenced by his impending bid for re-election back home? Was this just a dramatic  example of an inevitable permanent shift in the balance of power? Or was it a horrible blunder with negative consequences for the Speaker and/or the Prime Minister?

Whatever the motives, television and digital media and the ability to use it clearly made this event possible. And yes it could change the protocols for conducting foreign affairs in the future. Are we better off? Only time will tell. Change is difficult no matter how it comes, and this is still another example of what I mean when I argue that “media revolutions change everything!”

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 259 Media Revolutions and Cities

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on February 24, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Cities cannot escape media revolutions, especially when those revolutions bring new technologies that intensify, multiply and expand both messages and relationships.

Neighborhood problems are exposed more dramatically. Poverty is more difficult to ignore. Frustrations of minorities come more to the surface. Management issues are scrutinized more consistently. News coverage changes from daily events reporting to intensive issues investigation. And these same new technologies help extend a city’s story far beyond its borders.

These dramatic changes in how individuals and communities communicate have had both good and bad consequences. The very technology that has the potential to bring people and neighborhoods together has often magnified their problems and exacerbated divisions. And while communities of interest can come together on-line, such virtual communities are often not geographically aligned and end up stimulating conflicts.

What seems to differentiate cities from nations, however, is that mayors and city managers tend to be less political and more pragmatic in dealing with these new problems. Issues related to neighborhoods, poverty, immigrants, water, energy, air quality, climate change, etc., are real and urgent but have little to do with political ideology or religion.

This reality has led some analysts to imagine groups of city managers and mayors from around the world meeting on a regular basis to address our recent and violent international problems. For example, the current crisis of immigrants joining ISIS and other extremists to bring terror to the world has become basically a city problem. Is it therefore not reasonable to think that groups of city leaders meeting from around the world might be able to find pragmatic solutions?

In short, countries have national identities, histories and borders to be concerned about. And world organizations get caught up in those politics. But cities have immediate problems to solve, and invariably address them pragmatically. Therefore, maybe cities really can lead the way to more effective international problem-solving.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 258 NGO’s, Public Diplomacy and Terrorism

Posted in International, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Strategic Communication on February 18, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Horrible atrocities are now multiplying from North Africa to the Middle East to Europe at warp speed. Has the time now come to focus on communicating that this is more of a world problem than a regional one… and that it will take the entire world coming together to do something about it?

If you have ever experienced the power of integrated communication, seen self-fulfilling prophesy work, and understand that repetitive persistence is effective, you might be able to imagine some communication initiatives worth trying.

I have been amazed to discover just how many individuals and organizations consider themselves to be working in the area of “foreign policy.” Over this past year I have been connecting to a group in Washington called Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). I expected that most members would be working in government. But I was surprised to learn that members come from countless NGO’s, associations, embassies, think-tanks, international monetary organizations, lobby groups, as well as from many different branches of government.

Gary Barnabo, president of YPFP, explains that “diplomacy is no longer just about governments and countries. It is about people and networks.”  That approach to people-to-people communication is usually called public diplomacy. And so as I thought more about this diverse group all working in foreign policy and having a common interest in public diplomacy, I wondered about the possibilities of their collectively addressing terrorism.

For example, as a public service project, would it be possible for many of the larger and well established of these organizations and government agencies to collectively adopt a set of common themes? Those themes would call for urgent world-wide action against terrorism and make clear that the only way to end this cancer once and for all is for the leading governments and organizations of the world to take the responsibility to get it done.

Armed with the right message themes it should be possible to flood the universe with them using a large-scale, carefully planned, multi-platform media campaign that is coordinated and implemented by these participating organizations and agencies. The key to success is sticking with the campaign and same simple themes until world leaders are moved to make the decisions necessary to fulfill the prophesy.

I have seen this work for individual institutions. And what works for them should also work for foreign policy projects where integrated communication and collaborative planning is possible. To be sure, it always takes talented leadership and endless persistence. But where there’s a will, there usually is a way.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 257 To Print or Not to Print?

Posted in Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Strategic Communication on February 12, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Some media experts argue that print cannot survive the digital revolution. They point out that books are too cumbersome and print in general is not efficient enough. They argue that new media does everything print can do, and with much more speed and efficiency. Why would anyone want to take the time to produce clumsy printed materials?

There are several reasons to challenge this argument:

1. In the entire history of communication no medium has ever gone completely away.

2. When a new medium becomes dominant, the other media platforms just change roles.

3. These new roles usually are based on their inherent strengths. And print has at least two inherent strengths.

First, print is effective for delivering clarity, structure, logic and brevity. These characteristics have already influenced the development of a concise and structured writing style for maximum effectiveness on the Internet.

Second, printed materials can be held in your hand and can function as a tangible and lasting symbol of a program or institution. Brochures, pamphlets, flyers, etc. will therefore continue to occupy an important place in the total mix of media options. When used properly they “physically” display an institution’s differentiating identity and competitive advantage. They have a long “shelf life” and reinforce credibility through their permanence.

The tangible and more permanent nature of print encourages day-to-day journalists to find time to write books. Even reporters who write for digital media outlets write printed books in order to advance their visibility and reputation. The permanent nature of printed books establishes authors as experts.

In fact, many people who abandoned books are reconsidering their decision. They have rediscovered that curling up in the corner with a “real” book allows them to escape into a private world of their own. Somehow new media experiences are not quite the same. This is especially true for lovers of fiction and poetry.

For readers of nonfiction a printed book can seem easier to work through, to underline, and to flip pages back and forth in order to reread portions. Admittedly all of this is possible with e-books. Even so, many readers have found e-books to be more cumbersome.

Increasing numbers of readers are also admitting they download the electronic version and if they like it they also buy the real book. If true, this is unanticipated good news for the publishing industry!

So is print going away? I think not. Rather it will be fine-tuned around its strengths and become a more precisely defined tool in an ever-expanding media toolbox.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 256 Want change? Create a crisis!

Posted in International, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on February 4, 2015| Leave a Comment »

The world seems to be coming apart with a new crisis every day in some part of the world. When you think about all of them collectively you can get a bit despondent. Is there any hope for survival, let alone progress?

Once in a while you might hear the advice that if you want to produce change you should manufacture a crisis! Crises create urgency and tend to pull people together with a new determination to take action. Crisis managers always ask how they can make something good from adversity, and it is often possible.

The recent terrorist attack on the French publication Charlie Hebdo is an interesting case in point. No one could ever argue that these senseless assassinations were a good thing. But the resulting visibility actually rallied more world-wide support for freedom of speech than one could have ever predicted. The result clearly was counter-productive to the terrorists’ cause and provides a new opportunity for communicators to use this situation to advance the cause of freedom.

The situation in Jordan this week may have provided still another unwanted opportunity to produce change. The horrible assassination of the Jordanian pilot may have triggered the needed public determination to persuade and activate the already formed coalition of nations to stop this cancer called ISIS once and for all. A widespread awareness that this problem is the Middle East’s problem to solve has been present for a while. But this event could finally be the necessary catalyst to motivate serious action.

The role of government, news media, and NGO communicators around the world now should be to siege this moment and make the most it. Multi-platform strategic  communication initiatives are the most effective when they can capitalize on an urgent and emotional event so as to keep that sense of urgency alive.

I must say it never seems ethical or even wise to create a crisis in order to produce change. That can backfire. But when you have a crisis handed to you, you certainly need to see it as an opportunity. And communicators have the perfect tools to help people see this opportunity, and then to keep them focused on the positive change possibilities.

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 255 Is it better? Or just different?

Posted in Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Strategic Communication on January 29, 2015| Leave a Comment »

This is a question I have often asked my book editors over the years.  Did your changes make my work better, or just different? Just different is always upsetting. Now I find myself asking the same question about changes in the way most of us receive information about the day’s events.

For example, when I follow my favorite reporters on Twitter I am getting observations about a variety of events all day long. But I also can go to the electronic or print version of their news publication or website, find their columns, and scan their best material. Granted, there might be a few more details embedded in their countless tweets, but at the end of the day did I really get more and better information? In other words, was “following” them  better, or just different?

Back in the day of the newspaper, if you had access to both a morning and evening newspaper, listened to a wrap-up on the radio in the car, and then watched the day’s summary on television, you could ask the same questions. Was it better? Or was it just different?

Conventional wisdom suggested that the digital world would provide information faster and more efficiently. And potentially it certainly can. But if you spend all day watching CNN; or tweeting, retweeting and following others on Twitter; or interacting with multiple followers on other digital media platforms; are you getting better informed, or are your methods just different?

I am convinced that somewhere in this deluge of media options there is a combination that can result in time saved and better information. But I am also convinced that few of us are managing our media engagement well enough for this to actually happen. In fact, I am betting that most of us are wasting too much time following too many people and organizations on too many media platforms. And then most of us proceed to make matters worse by choosing outlets that only reinforce our biases!

So when all is said and done, how are we really doing so far? Are we better informed… or is the digital world just different?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »