Feeds:
Posts
Comments

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.

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.

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.

 

 

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.

When television was clearly the dominant medium, a revolutionary group generally declared victory by taking over the main television station. In this age of 24/7 cable and social media, however, the situation is far more complex.

For example, in the Middle East there still are literally hundreds of newspapers, magazines and journals. Foreign newspapers also maintain bureaus. So print clearly is still an influencing factor, especially locally. Adding satellite communication and digital media to the mix is changing the game, but the change is not yet complete. How you receive news in Cairo is therefore likely to be quite different from how you receive it in the U.S. It’s content and tone are going to be different as well.

In addition to many news publications, in “Arab spring” countries there are also government-owned and privately owned television organizations. There are countless foreign networks and press services, including  CNN, BBC, Associated Press (AP), Independent Television News (ITN), Reuters, Agence France, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and more. Freelancers also cover these hot spots and sell reports to local and foreign outlets, many of which are in the U.S. Most western-based media organizations are facing budget cuts and have fewer reporters in the field. Therefore, the landscape, and the nature and quality of coverage, is constantly changing.

For example, the major U.S. television networks and newspapers have reduced the number of their news bureau locations around the world, and so their coverage is mostly provided by a very few constantly traveling correspondents, independent news services, or freelancers. Thus, the remaining  correspondents all tend to rush to the current hot spot (often referred to as “herding”), leaving many cities and entire regions of the world largely unreported.

Internet access varies, although we sometimes think everyone has it. For example, I am told that in Egypt only 21 percent of the population has access and that the actual literacy level of the population at large is quite low. So the reach and impact of websites, bloggers, and social media still remains a bit unclear. It therefore is assumed that Twitter and Facebook are used by smaller groups to stimulate on-the-street word-of-mouth, which in turn brings about demonstrations. In the final analysis, it seems word-of-mouth still remains the most effective medium, no matter how it is generated.

Fundamental questions become those of the “chicken and egg” variety: Does unrest due to unemployment, poverty, or government corruption inform media reporting, or does overly aggressive reporting bring about unrest? And once demonstrations begin, does television coverage primarily  inform, or primarily over-dramatize? My analysis suggests that each unrest situation is different.  Sometimes unrest comes first. Other times, it is media reporting.

Remaining questions for the news consumer: Do media organizations exercise adequate social responsiblity? Does competition for audience too often cause them to over dramatize? Can media become inappropriate participants in complex situations? What is the consumer’s role and responsibility?

Cutting through information clutter is the communication challenge of the new media age. In our  thoroughly saturated world, the more we see reports about changing and escalating events, the more confused we can become. Just when we thought we were beginning to understand, we get overwhelmed  and confused all over again.

A case in point is the 24/7 coverage of major conflicts. With non-stop reporting, new developments are always followed with rapid-fire, and often premature, efforts to interpret them. Relentless  determination to hold attention produces constant declarations of “breaking news!” Anchors end up over-dramatizing everything just to keep viewers from tuning away.

What’s even more troubling is that a breaking news-driven media can actually become a complicating factor in the event itself. They can become more of a player than observer. For example, when does a constant  presence of cameras draw diplomats and policy-makers into even deeper conflict? Can incessant stirrings of emotions make television drama out of serious situations that should require more thoughtful problem-solving and compromise? Would the public’s need to know be better served by reporting developments at appropriate intervals, and by providing more background and context?

This week’s focus on Ukraine is a good example. What do we really know from minute-by-minute 24/7 cable news that we would not know from periodic updates?  Has all the drama contributed to solving the problem, or is it just adding needless emotion to an already hostile situation? Does airing the rants of polarized politicians in the middle of such complex events serve any useful purpose?

How, then, do we more thoughtfully go about cutting through all this information clutter? When it’s all said and done, will it necessarily fall to educators and schools to explain the extent to which the digital media revolution is changing everything?

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? 

As I plan a new adventure in ideas about media revolutions for my honor students, it again has become an ideal time to rethink everything. I can honestly tell them that this is not the only time. In fact, I have never explained the same material in exactly the same way twice!

Each time there is a new insight, a better structure, a clearer explanation, or a whole new social or political context to consider. I re-write every handout and PowerPoint each and every time.

The fact is I have been living and developing a subject matter that has been constantly evolving. No yellowed lecture notes here. This is what is exciting about most lifelong teachers, and many of their students don’t fully realize it. How the teacher approached the topic today is not necessarily how the teacher approached it yesterday, or will tomorrow.

All this applies to this blog as well. It is an adventure in ideas that should never become static. My life’s work is a continuing journey. It has no certain destination. And that is good.

You should make note of the new blog tag line at the top of the homepage, as well as the “Lessons Learned” and “Globalization” links. I will be taking still another fresh look at what I have learned about communication, media and institutions in the months ahead. Our adventure continues.

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.

I imagine a world where a large number of innovative small colleges become the “boutique agencies” of higher education. They will use the advantage of their size to become quite nimble and highly innovative as they design totally new approaches to address the competitive realities of the future.

Such small, lean and highly creative boutique groups have emerged in the advertising and public relations industry to compete head-to-head with the well established, large, high-priced, high overhead  and cumbersome agencies. In response, small teams of professionals and creatives have come together  with little or no overhead to produce very innovative project and branding solutions, make compelling use of digital media, and serve clients with a price that makes sense.

The boutique college idea came to me at a recent conference as one president reported how she was able to align her tuition price directly with what it actually costs to deliver her college’s special kind of undergraduate education experience. Thus, she refreshingly will no longer be stating a higher tuition in order to maintain a high discount rate.

Discounting is the common practice in all of higher education that has enabled significant financial aid for some… which really amounts to a discount on the price. But the practice has evolved to where it confuses virtually everyone about what an education actually costs to deliver. Now there is at least one small college that is creatively addressing the problem.

Diversity of institutional type has been the hallmark of American higher education. Even so, in this age of intense competition and economic hardships, many have predicted the decline and fall of small colleges. “Boutique colleges,” however, with talented leaders who maximize the creative possibilities of their size, just might be able to show the rest of the world that American institutional diversity can and will  continue to lead higher education into the future.