Posts Tagged ‘pr’

Choose your words carefully, but it doesn’t always work

Friday, June 24th, 2011

Many may underestimate the powerful nuance of a word, and the profound effect it can have.  Choosing the wrong word can set the wrong tone, give the wrong meaning, or leave the wrong impression.  

In times of crisis choosing the right (or wrong) word can make a difference between keeping people calm or causing high anxiety.  Some may call this “spin”, or “managing the message”.  Whatever you call it, there is sheer power in the words we choose to use. 

I noticed this recently with the coverage of the extensive flooding in Manitoba.  When faced with the perceived need to do controlled flooding to a small area in order to manage the risk of worse damage to a much larger area, the language used was carefully chosen.  While the media (and general public) called it “controlled flooding”, the Government and other bodies involved were careful to choose their words and avoid the use of the word “flood”.  Instead, when quoted, they referred to “controlled spill”, “controlled flow”, “controlled release”, “intentional breach of the dike”, presumably all to manage the message, and hopefully the general public (especially those who were directly affected by the controlled whatever it was). 

Given the headlines I was reading, I don’t know that this worked, but it was interesting to see the stark contrast in language being used, depending on who was doing the talking!  

I’m sure the Government was given specific guidance from communications and PR experts, but in this case I don’t know that it made a difference, or had the desired impact of actually calming down the situation – simply because, to the general public (and particularly to those directly affected), this was a flood (whether controlled or not).  For them, there was no sugar-coating the situation with the nuances of language. 

I don’t know if others noticed this, but as a communications professional it sure caught my eye.  How about you, did you notice the attempt to manage the message with language that avoided the “F word” – flood?

“I’m eating my cookie” to be come the new “no comment”?

Friday, December 10th, 2010

Like many Canadians who heard and saw the “I’m eating my cookie” excuse of President and CEO of Alberta Health Services Dr.Stephen Duckett for refusing repeatedly to talk to reporters, I was shaking my head.  When asked about a serious issue that had been the focus of his day-long meeting (fixing the health system), he responded with a stupid and selfish line like that…not once, but repeatedly.  The words were bad enough, but his tone was even worse.  

What was he thinking?!?!?  Surely saying “no comment” would have served him better, even though the rules of PR would indicate otherwise.  Given a choice between the two, I think that “no comment” would have been the lesser of two evils. 

I have to say it is the most creative (and stupid) way of avoiding answering a reporter’s question that I’ve ever heard!  Will it become the new “no comment”?  Who knows, but I’m sure the political comedians north and south of the border now have some great material for their skits, thanks to Duckett. 

What do you think?  Is this the most creative (or stupid) “no comment” line you’ve ever heard?  Will it become the new “no comment”?!?

Do not-for-profits have more at risk when protecting brand reputation?

Friday, April 9th, 2010

What are you protecting when a crisis hits?  Ultimately its your reputation – your brand reputation.  Generally speaking, when your brand reputation takes a hit, so does your business.   But in the case of not-for-profit organizations, this goes even further, and can have an even more potentially devastating impact. 

Arguably, in the private/for profit sector, if one company (or product) falters another one will fill the gap.  Yes, jobs will be lost, but the product or service being provided to customers will most likely be replaced by a competitor or new market player – that’s simply the dynamic of the private sector at play. 

However, in the not-for-profit sector I would argue that the outcome and impact are different.   As a point of reference, Good to Great author Jim Collins states in Good to Great and the Social Sectors:  “The whole purpose of the social sectors is to meet social objectives, human needs and national priorities that cannot be priced at a profit.” If you agree with the premise that not-for-profits exist to do good for society, and fill a need that is not being met by the private sector, then you can understand how the impact would arguably be more “devastating”. I say devastating because if a not-for-profit’s reputation suffers as a result of a crisis, and the organization falters, donor dollars (and other types of support) – on which not-for-profits rely – could potentially dwindle.  In the end, who really suffers are those who benefit from the work of the cause – the impact of the cause is put at risk.  And, because unlike in the private sector, there are generally not other competitors or new market entrants who can easily jump in to replace the “good work” that has disappeared, society is left with a critical void in relation to what could be a significant unmet need. 

I think what this points out is that not-for-profits have a lot more at risk when protecting and promoting their brand reputations.  They have to be diligent in building, promoting and protecting their brands.  And that’s also why crisis management and communications (and simply good management) is so important for this sector.  These organizations have so much more to lose, because their cause suffers – and in the end that matters more than any old product or service, doesn’t it?