Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Strategic Communication’ Category

Here is a digital world question: Can experiencing a new place on-line be just as good as being there in person?

I remember reading film criticism in the 1960’s that asked the question: Why does film seem so real, when it isn’t?  The point was that film and TV news look real because you see real people doing real things. But in film and television there is someone pointing the camera, editing the scenes, and often adding sound and visual special effects. There is no way to know what is beyond what the camera is showing you. You are directed to the important action as defined by the director. And camera movements, angles, and other special effects are manipulating your emotions. In this way, film and television create their own reality.

If you were actually in that location you would be scanning the entire landscape, focusing your own attention, and selecting the objects and happenings you want to observe. You could breathe the air, smell the smells, and fully feel the moment. Searching the internet may come close, but it is just not the same..

For example, I am convinced that you cannot really know a city without actually being there. A documentary or internet search will provide an adequate orientation. They can give an overview, review the issues you might encounter, and give good advice about what to see and what to avoid.

But the digital world simply cannot substitute for the feelings you have wandering city streets, strolling through immigrant neighborhoods, cautiously tasting food from push carts, noticing textures and colors, and imagining life in this place in earlier times. When you are there you shape your own wide-shots and close-ups. And even when you have a guide pointing out things of special interest, you still determine your own “cut-a-ways,” “flashbacks,” and “fast forwards.” You write your own drama, and you are the lead actor.

The internet is great for making initial connections, and enlarging our perspectives. But knowing only a virtual world is not nearly the same as fully experiencing the real one. It’s not even close. In fact, everyone should study abroad!  It’s life changing, and there is no substitute for it.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Recently I met with several members of an association called Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). I was surprised to learn there are thousands of them in several cities around the world… and they are not all in government positions. Many work for professional associations, embassies, international banks, consulting firms, and countless NGO’s.

NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) range from disaster relief, to healthcare, to conservation and cause-promoting organizations. Most are non-profit and international in their outlook.

If “strategic communication” is defined as planning and implementing communication initiatives to achieve specific outcomes, and “public diplomacy” is defined as people communicating directly with people in other cultures the basic elements of their beliefs and values, then NGO’s are clearly using strategic communication tactics to carry out basic public diplomacy.

There are many varieties of public diplomacy carried out each day by thousands of governments and NGO’s. One would think we would be making much greater progress toward world peace. And while many of these organizations also have education programs, we might just have to call upon education institutions to complete the job.

Higher education potentially is the purest form of public diplomacy. People gather to learn about each other’s way of life, the elements of global leadership, and how to use research and knowledge skills to solve world problems.  Maybe as this industry becomes even more international, we will finally have the groundwork in place to achieve a true community of nations.

Read Full Post »

Culture is often defined as “how we do things around here!”  It influences what we purchase, how we think, and virtually everything that makes us feel safe and secure. It is the sum total of the beliefs we are taught as we grow up, the values that are embedded in us by our families and peers, as well as the traditions we celebrate with those who live around us.

For many, the teachings of their religious institutions also combine with these other cultural forces to become powerful drivers of attitudes and behavior. And when they build up over long periods of history and become associated with the land they live on, outspoken criticisms and disruptions are perceived as threatening. These can range from political changes in governments to individuals and groups attacking those things that are held dear. And when someone outside claims that their history and culture give them claim to the same land, hostilities inevitably arise, and can rapidly escalate into outright war.

Understanding culture provides needed context for analyzing the hostilities in the middle east, the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, the recent violent actions in London immigrant neighborhoods, as well as the polarized ideologies producing anger in various parts of the United States.

We all experience cultural tugs from the organizations and institutions in which we find ourselves studying or working, and the cities, regions, and nations from which we gain inspiration and pride. There is little doubt that culture shapes the context that defines what we choose to hear when others speak, and what we take into serious account when attempting persuade them.

To underestimate the influence of culture when trying to communicate is simply to insure failure. The more complicated and foreign the culture, the more difficult the challenge. In fact, not only will entire messages be lost, but the exact opposite of the intended response is likely to result.

This is why understanding and accommodating the culture of each audience or individual is a prerequisite to building working relationships. This takes time, as well as opportunities for experiences to overlap. Diplomats must experience the cultures where they work; journalists must spend time with those they seek to explain; and educators must answer the call to bring diverse cultures together and explore their unique opportunities to enable world peace.

 

Read Full Post »

Detailed strategic communication plans tend to sit unimplemented on shelves primarily because of their complexity. Daily events divert staff attention. Crises become priorities. Conditions quickly make many of the details irrelevant, or they are just too complicated. Textbook formats are good to know, but in practice they very rarely are carried out.

Hard lessons like this led me to a much simplified approach with institutions. At the executive level, I decided to set only simple communication goals, with the collaboration of key colleagues. Then, I asked each department to use its’ most talented staff to select the best tactics for each target audience. And finally, I made sure that the institution’s brand identity was deeply embedded in the goals.

I have been wondering lately if any of these institutional lessons would apply to government and foreign policy communication? Is it possible, for example, to improve the clarity of White House communication simply by focusing more on clear, simple goals?  Experienced communication experts in each country and city could then be empowered to make informed judgements about tactics selection and to take into account the many different cultures, values, and preconceived ideas involved. These experts would also be in a position to establish important steps in the process: interactive social media dialogues leading to face-to-face events aimed to stimulate old-fashioned word-of-mouth.

Foreign policy communication is complicated and too often ends in mass confusion. If the basic problem is the overwhelming complexity of events, issues and plans, maybe we should first try more simplicity.

Read Full Post »

If you try to change a Democrat’s mind with a strong Republican presentation you are likely to produce a more determined Democrat. Direct persuasive messages, no matter how carefully crafted, usually cause the other side to dig in even deeper. In fact, this is also true in communicating anything, but most especially foreign policy.

Changing minds requires finding facts and situations that make adversaries uncomfortable with their position. Eventually this unsettled state can lead them to seek a new point of view. But even in this state, people must hear potential mind-changing new ideas from people around them they trust. And what’s more, they must also have sufficient time to work those ideas into their personal thinking on their own.

Interestingly enough  I learned the power of “third-party advocates” from fund-raisers. They learn early on that they usually are not the best person to ask a donor for money. Rather the best person is someone close to the donor who has better credibility, and their trust. This same dynamic applies to changing people’s minds.

The credibility of the source of new ideas is absolutely essential. In the case of foreign policy, the US government will never have that credibility with adversaries. So opening people up to considering new ideas must be the first step in changing their minds. Then, engaging the guidance and help of sympathetic local third-parties with credibility is the best way to proceed.

Joseph Nye, Harvard Professor and Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Trustee, is credited with coining the term “soft power.”  His thinking is spelled out in his 2004 book, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. “Hard power” uses force and money to influence.  Soft power uses all the communication tools in the toolbox, along with cultural exchanges, economic development assistance, town halls, and other indirect initiatives using third parties. The concept is to “demonstrate’ the idea of America in foreign settings, rather than argue it.

New media tools are especially suited to soft power strategies. With sufficient numbers of skilled experts in target countries, website chat rooms can be monitored, Twitter can promote gatherings, Facebook  can serve as a hub of ideas and comments, and on-going dialogues can be facilitated. So when priority audiences are targeted, their preferred media platforms utilized, and all of Nye’s other initiatives employed, some success might be possible over time. And that just might be the best we can do.

Read Full Post »

Creating conditions for communication success can be discouraging. First, you must have your audience’s attention, and convince them you understand their needs. They must also be willing to receive your information. Then, you must have a simple message with no more than 3 to 5 points. Next, you must offer examples with which your audience can relate. Now, you must send your message using your audience’s media of choice… and then obtain their feedback. The most direct and interactive media are best because you must reply by responding to what has been misunderstood. And then an ongoing dialogue must begin to establish a receptive relationship.

So is it even possible to achieve foreign policy understanding with countless audiences inside many nations, especially when each has its’ own agenda? In such a world, is it necessary to have separate messages for each nation, and audience? Is it possible to know individual media preferences in remote places? And how can brand identity be maintained while responding daily to 24/7 “breaking news?”

And finally, with so many departments of government, NGO’s, think-tanks, and associations sending messages around the world every day, is coordination even possible?

Sharing a uniform “idea of America” statement and format for releasing daily news statements with all these entities, might be a place to start. And having enough interactive media specialists around the world to communicate with each priority audience is another critical step. And even then, maybe only a small measure of understanding may be achievable.

But some clarity is better than none. is it not? Otherwise, all we do is continue to contribute to clutter and confusion.

Read Full Post »

No communication medium ever totally disappears. When a new medium becomes dominant, the roles of the others change.  So in this day of new and social media, what is happening to print?

Over the past ten years the challenge for institutions has been to determine which new media are most effective, and what are the implications for continued large investments in print publications. Truthfully, there is little reliable data on social media effectiveness, mostly because use patterns appear to be changing every day. And there are also different use patterns for each audience.

Nonetheless, there are some generalizations we can make that might be useful:

1. With regard to digital technology, searching websites is clearly a preferred method for finding detailed information, and social media can be extremely effective in motivating widespread response.

2. With regard to print, publications are still effective as tangible symbols of institutional commitments… tangible because constituents can feel a visceral connection by holding them in their hands, and they can then display them on their coffee tables and elsewhere as a way to let others know the pride they feel in that connection.

For example, in the university world (or even corporate world), a colorful general brochure can still be an important tangible connection with, and commitment to, an institution. In this new media environment, however, what has changed is that a brochure’s art and design is almost more important  than its’ content. This is because compelling photography or illustration can stand in “virtual” place of the institution itself, and text now is best used to “drive” readers (or brochure “skimmers”) to the website for more in-depth information.

In addition, in our new media world a magazine can also serve as a regularly appearing tangible symbol of an audience’s identification with an organization. Cut-lines allow readers to skim content, and well-designed and illustrated covers reinforce the brand. And so, just as the four-color general brochure,  displaying that magazine becomes an additional continuing source of personal pride.

Generalizations certainly can be misleading. But my experience these days suggests that while print rarely can take a lead role in communicating institutions, it still functions as a powerful symbolic identity reinforcement for many people.

 

 

Read Full Post »

In a new technology driven and rapidly changing world, it is impossible to be certain about what various segments of the public actually know about extremely complicated world events. Each medium has its’ strengths and weaknesses, and each has different changing patterns of use.

Newspapers are effective when it comes to providing both context and today’s developments. But readership is declining in the U.S. and elsewhere, and literacy is a problem in many parts of the developing world.

Television favors fast paced dramatic images over details and context. Some outlets such as PBS and NPR provide more context than others, but those generally reach fewer people. When television became dominate in the 1960’s, the matter of emotional appeal vs. rational analysis became an increasing matter of concern.

Social media is even more difficult to analyze because its’ use patterns seem to be changing daily. This is not unusual in the history of media.  The new “big things” in media typically becomes fads for a while, and then overtime uses change as people learn about strengths and weaknesses. For example, recent reports about Facebook usage may be suggesting that it’s better for staying in touch with family and friends than it is for handling serious matters. And while some still try to convey serious ideas using Twitter, others are finding that constant following and tweeting is just taking too much time. Twitter clearly is an effective tool for mobilizing people, but many have come to think it’s very weak at providing context for understanding and following the developments of complex events.

All of this seems to reinforce a need for greater “media” literacy among media consumers, including a willingness to seek out various sources of information, and to take personal responsibility for separating fact from fiction.

Read Full Post »

If I say, “You are compromising your principles,” and repeat it over and over again, I might actually be setting into motion a redefinition of the word “compromise.”

‘Compromise” for many of us still might mean a “win-win” way to move a complicated project forward. It’s what governance meant in the past. It has been a positive word for many people. But that might now be changing.

The word “dog” brings me happy thoughts, while it might bring you grungy and smelly ones. The word “democracy” for me embraces individual freedom, but dictators today claim they have democracies because they hold periodic “orchestrated” elections. The word “friend” for me describes very close relationships, but now it means a large collection of names on Facebook. And on and on…

Meanings are in people. Even when it comes to single words, people must have the same meaning in their mind or communication will fail. Their prior experiences must overlap. And only over time can we interact enough to reach common understanding. And what’s worse, we can choose to reach out for understanding… or we can choose to shut it out.

In an already polarized world, it’s difficult to imagine the conditions under which communication can succeed. When it comes to individual, institutional, or even international understanding, maybe all we can do is chip away little-by-little at creating more shared experiences. That way we can at least hope for little pieces of understanding to appear, and maybe over time we can build on them.

Is there a plan in place anywhere to apply this kind of strategic communication understanding to Syria, Iran, Ukraine, North Korea, or China? Is this a matter of more effective diplomacy, or is it the future of international education? 

Read Full Post »

Frequent travelers these days complain that flying is no fun any more. Airline personnel  are grumpy,  passengers sit on top of each other, basic services are gone, security people are often rude, and on and on. But on a day when weather delays and cancellations could not be blamed on the airline, one special  flight attendant made the difference.

This is a testament to the power of body language shaped by a positive outlook. One face with one big smile, broadly and constantly displayed while walking up and down the aisle during a long wait on the tarmac, and an even longer flight, literally changed the mood of an overcrowded and gloomy cabin.

Suddenly there was hope again in the midst of an industry where customer service has become artificial, insincere and manipulative. We are now paying more for less. Basic services have become itemized with countless individual fees. What is claimed to be “customer service” now feels more like clever  manuevers designed to serve only the company. This is a one-time happy industry that is rapidly losing its’ soul.

But on this one flight on this one miserable day, one smile is what I now remember. It was big enough to light up the cabin, and contagious enough to overcome the intense frustration of endless delays. So I say “Thank you, Pam” for your smile on AA 1033 from Washington, DC to DFW.  Keep it up. You have no idea what a difference it made.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »