Posts Tagged ‘Communication’

1. Does end of the global Swine Flu Pandemic mean we’re better prepared for next time?

   Published on Friday, August 13th, 2010

   The World Health Organization (WHO) earlier this week officially declared an end to the pandemic concerning the influenza H1N1 virus, popularly known as swine flu. 

   However WHO Director-General Margaret Chan recognised that here in New Zealand we’re still experiencing the effects of a second wave of H1N1.
   “In the post-pandemic period, localised outbreaks of different magnitude may show significant levels of H1N1 transmission. This is the situation we are observing right now in New Zealand,” Mrs Chan said.

   The outcome of this for some has been particularly tragic.  However, as recently reported in NZ Dr, this year’s weekly rate of flu consults is well down on last year.

   Communications before, during and after were to my mind a great example of how to get it right.  Unfortunately not everyone has seen it that way.  As the predicted apocalypse did not occur, many people say the whole thing was a money-making venture by pharmaceutical companies.  While these theories make for great headlines they also significantly diminish the genuine efforts of public health protection teams globally, who potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

   We will never know how bad it could have been had the level of alarm not been raised.  After all only 450 people died in the UK compared to the predicted 65,000 which surely proves it all an unnecessary scaremongering exercise?  Shame on the health experts for saving some lives.  When dealing with statistics it is easy to forget that only one number matters to people – the one that affects them. 

   Closer to home our own public health protection specialists implemented a textbook case of how to effectively contain a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease.  You can read about it in the BMJ’s May 21st edition. 

   Dr Craig Thornley, Medical Officer of Health at Auckland Regional Public Health Service shared with us a brief overview (below) of the basics of the response in New Zealand which highlights the complexity behind some very simple messages.

   • The pandemic response in New Zealand had several partly-overlapping strategic phases, all of which had been previously laid out in the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Action Plan.
   • The first phase was termed ‘keep it out’, and was about delaying introduction of the virus into New Zealand to give healthcare services time to mobilise their plans. This initially seemed critically important as reports were being received from Mexico that suggested that the illness had a high mortality.
   • We were concurrently running a ‘stamp it out’ phase: when people with swine flu were diagnosed in the community we launched a rapid response to “ring-fence” spread by distributing antivirals (mainly Tamiflu) to those they had been in contact with. Again, this strategy was also intended to try to delay spread.
   • We moved into the ‘manage it’ phase when it became clear that swine flu was widespread in the community. During this phase a range of groups mobilised to support those who were unwell to ensure that those with mild-to-moderate illness could be managed away from the hospitals; hospitals re-allocated capacity to deal with the increased workload, particularly in intensive care units (who experienced high demand with sick young people requiring very aggressive life support); public health units focused attention on outbreaks in residential institutions; and a variety of strategies were applied in primary care to help cope with the influx of swine flu patients.
   • Throughout each of these phases, there were intensive health education campaigns on ways to prevent flu spread, protective equipment was distributed to healthcare workers (the healthcare workforce being one of the most-exposed groups), and systems for testing and making treatment available were streamlined.
   • All of this was designed to “flatten the curve” to try to delay the peak of the outbreak, reduce the overall number of cases and spread the caseload across a period of time instead of having a massive early epidemic peak that could have jeopardised provision of healthcare and many other services. As the nature of the illness caused by swine flu became clearer, strategies were tailored around protecting those that were most vulnerable.

   Communicating risk so people take action to protect themselves appropriately is a tricky thing, and when people are protected from the risk it can be tempting for people to think the risk wasn’t there in the first place.  Unfortunately even one untimely death is one too many though. Best we not get complacent about the next infectious threat that comes our way.

   

2. All associated with the BP oil spill are acting incomprehensibly

   Published on Friday, June 18th, 2010

   From a communication perspective, it’s impossible to make sense of what is taking place with the BP oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico.

   The BBC describes the issue as a ‘PR disaster’ for BP while international financial analysts talk about it undermining the competitive advantage of the world’s 5th largest company ‘into the foreseeable future’.

   It’s inconceivable that BP is not employing the best PR professionals in the business, so why on a daily basis are they staggering from one communications blunder to another? Why is there no belief BP has answers? Why the apparent indifference to its corporate reputation?

   For all his ‘tough talk’, President Obama is struggling. Political commentators from the left, middle and right are calling his performance inadequate and lacking leadership.

   Even American media is questioning why the American administration is not putting its national resources into working alongside BP to minimise the damage being done to people’s lives and the environment; why an administration that poured unlimited money into the American banking system during the financial meltdown is now insisting that it’s ‘BP’s problem to fix’.

   Perhaps it’s all about money. Remember, while Exxon was ordered to pay billions in compensation for the Exxon Valdez spill, American courts eventually capped the payout to $500,000 because ‘it was an accident’.

   Could it be that BP is gaming the US administration, with the lawyers running a strategy based around taking the heat on corporate reputation in the short term while preparing for the inevitable 15 to 20 years of litigation in the American courts as claimants try to get their hands on the $20 billion in the compensation fund.

   Given BP’s actions to date, it certainly hard to believe it’s the communications people that are in charge of strategy.
    
   As for President Obama, he may well be the ultimate loser if this adds to the belief that he is a talker rather than doer.

   Postscript. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is not the world’s largest – not yet anyway. That dubious honour is vied for by the 1910 Lakeview Gusher (USA) and the 1991 Gulf War. To take the number one spot the BP spill needs to eclipse 9 to 11 billion barrels.

   

3. Can Social Media Turn the Tide for the Obama Administration?

   Published on Thursday, June 17th, 2010

   Ariana Huffington, Editor in Chief and Co-Founder of the self-named Huffington Post, wrote an interesting piece last week on how the US government is looking to develop social media channels to enable the public to be more closely involved in the decision-making processes of government. 

   Possibly it’s part of the Obama Adminstration’ s move to address concerns that Pres. Obama is not hearing what the people want. But it is also a sign of their very real understanding of the need to integrate modern communication mechanisms into the traditional communications mix.  
    
   The Obama administration’s appointment of the first ever Chief Information Officer demonstrates its awareness that this space should be developed, managed and protected, just as any other major piece of the nations infrastructure needs to be handled. So perhaps this next move will in fact highlight some of the underlying traps that businesses currently face.

   Presumably with access to the best tech brains in the US to help refine and fashion social media as an effective communication channel, the outcomes should be very interesting.
    
   While the premise of public input into law making via the news channels is  refreshing, almost inevitably there is a high risk of issues being captured by lobby groups who may use such  anonymous forums as a way of promoting their version of what  real Jo Public thinks  – which may not be correct. On the other hand, any such attempts at manipulation may be so obvious as to not be an issue, and the forum will prove to be a more modern means of truly allowing public participation in government. 
    
   Delivery of, and access to information through technology is an area that potentially requires a whole new set of guidelines, regulations and laws. Undoubtedly they will come and offset the wild-west dimension to what some people continue say and do in the new media. Examples abound of rogue sites, blogs and facebook postings. Here’s hoping that an initiative by a really tech savvy government will create some outcomes that will prove beneficial for the rest of the world.

   

4. Probing whether the media is observer or creator

   Published on Thursday, June 10th, 2010

   A question those of us involved in communication often debate is whether the media reports news, or creates it. It’s one of those circular discussions, as we all have countless examples we can table that support our point of view.

   I was intrigued therefore when a report from Media Monitors* crossed my desk which sought to answer the question “what role the media played in creating or reinforcing” views around the global financial crisis.

   While the report drew no clear cut conclusion, what it did demonstrate was that media in different countries throughout the Asia/Pacific media put a different emphasis on the crisis during the critical months of April to August 2009.

   For example:

   • In New Zealand, 25% of our coverage focused on ‘excessive greed’ in proportioning blame for the crisis, compared to 5 percent for the Asia/Pacific region.

   • The Region saw the blame lying squarely at the feet of ‘weak regulations’ (close to 30 percent) whereas we rated it in second place, with 18%.

   • When focusing on the main indicator showing that the economic downturn was continuing, our measure was GDP (26%). The Region focused on exports (30%).

   • When looking for signs of recovery, our coverage focused on retail sales (18%), the Region on economic growth (22%).

   • Our media was the only one to that saw rebalancing the global economy as the main future challenge, whereas across the Region the main future challenge was seen as unemployment.

   My conclusion was that the report clearly shows that nationally the media collectively forms a view, and that its coverage then focuses on aspects that it believes are the most relevant.

   It would have been interesting if a parallel piece of research had run at the same time to measure whether the public bought into the media’s views, or held different opinions.

   Armed with that we would have been able to get closer to answering the question as to whether the media reports, or creates news.

   *The Global Financial Crisis Report, Media Monitors, v5, January 2010

   

5. Why do the words poo, boobs and underage drinking all have similar effect on young people?

   Published on Thursday, May 6th, 2010

   Communicating effectively with young people is considered a special skill, even a gift. They can be the harshest critics and their responses unpredictable.

   It was therefore a brave set of comedians who took to the stage in Auckland at the weekend at the Stand Up for Kids show as part of the international comedy festival programme.  Most began their sets with a reference to having thought specifically about what kids would find funny – given they usually entertain adults.

   And funny it was, to all of the audience no matter what their age with simple, old-fashioned humour that entertained without patronising.   One of the comedians began by reading out a list of words he had told himself to avoid, given their age.  You guessed it: bum, farts, boobs and the like were amongst them, and of course, the kids loved it.     

   It put into sharp relief what has been making me feel uneasy about the way we are communicating with older ‘kids’ around drinking alcohol.  It is an area that I think needs a serious rethink if we are to make any useful changes to teenage drinking habits.

   The way the ‘grown-ups’ are talking about how the ‘kids’ are, or rather are not, handling their alcohol intake will surely only add to the naughty factor and therefore its appeal.  Where is the communication that aims to teach our kids how to develop a healthier attitude towards a product that they can enjoy in moderation? 

   The debate in the media and around office water coolers is probably small fry compared to the debate that is likely being stirred amongst many young wannabe drinkers themselves, none of whom are likely to be supporting an increase.  Maybe we need some good comedians to get onto the job of helping build understanding amongst younger people that alcohol can be both good and bad depending on how you use it.   

   By the way, there are two more shows this weekend.  I highly recommend it for kids of all ages.

   

6. The email world – where waspish comment, voyeurism and freeloading flourishes

   Published on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

   “Whore” – the email response to a politely declined request for sponsorship is now part of email history. 

   Had I received such an email, I’m inclined to think I would have passed it on to a few colleagues. However, when  I received a copy for the third, or was it the fourth time, last week – under the heading how not to communicate in email – I asked myself why we are so quick to share someone else’s misspeak with everyone else when it is on-line. 
    
   We already know that this is not the way to communicate via email, so we can drop that as a reason for spreading it virally! The author ‘deserved it’ is another reason, but I have at the back of my mind that the ‘sender’ claimed someone else used his email address.

   When we communicate in the on-line space we sometimes forget to exercise common sense, and some fail to show basic good manners. 

   For some reason we treat mail-type communication totally differently.

   It is still regarded as bad form to open or read other people’s mail, and why when we pen ‘dear sir, madam, Jim or Jill’ at the start of a written communication do we tend to be more polite and more thoughtful in how we construct our sentences or what we want to say.

   Is it the instant speed with which email communicates that causes us to be more blunt, rude and forthright than we would be in a letter or on the telephone?

   If a person’s mail is accidentally delivered to our house or place of business we would make sure it got to the right person as soon as we could. Yet a recalled email message, or one sent to us inadvertently, is an invitation to check out what was sent before it is deleted. Why the difference? 

   Another area in the digital world where the norms of society have changed is the wireless ‘freeloader’. On Danny Watson’s Newstalk ZB show recently one chap announced he was entirely comfortable with using his neighbour’s wireless access as he only did it once a month to pay his bills.  Besides, if the neighbour didn’t want him to use it he should have had it password protected!

   I‘m wondering if I need to make sure my Sunday paper is put in a locked mail box as having it sitting there might suggest to people that I am offering it to them to read.

   

7. Government showing deft communication touch

   Published on Friday, February 12th, 2010

   The Government’s handling of the tax changes to be announced in the May budget show a masterly understanding of managing long term communications.

   Delegate the task of putting forward ideas to a third party (a commission) and then immediately reject the most controversial (phew, it’s not going to be as bad as it could be!); talk up some of the remaining unpalatable ideas, and then in the first formal statement of the year reject them too (saved again!).

   Now we have a pretty clear understanding of what will be in the budget some three months in advance, even if we don’t have the detail. By the time the announcements are made in May all the best emotional and rational condemnations from opponents will be out in the public domain, and Government can fine tune its final decisions to ease back on those that will upset us most.

   By the time the changes are finally introduced in October (10 months from raising the issue to their implementation) we will have mentally adjusted, and rather than outrage we will take them in our stride.

   It is good strategy, and the Government’s media managers are demonstrating a deft implementation touch.

   Cast your mind over some of the other contentious issues – mining in conservation reserves; fundamental economic reform to ‘catch up with Australia’ and even the national standards for primary schools have been on the agenda for months.

   When the going started to get tough over national standards, Key & Co showed their ability to up the game aggressively with a ministerial realignment, Key personally entering the confrontation, and outspoken challenges to the teacher’s union and boards of trustees.

   Labour will undoubtedly have the skills to win a few skirmishes as we move into the year, but they are going to need to be at the top of their game to outmanoeuvre National.

   

8. Fair Game – what’s thought in the real world can now be posted online

   Published on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

   Google’s Sidewiki, an application that appears as a browser sidebar where you can read and write entries along the side of a webpage, could become the ultimate platform for those who like to share their views and opinions. Brands and business had better sit up and take notice of this development.

   Sidewiki is a new way of allowing anyone to contribute information, comments, observations and criticisms right there on a webpage. Think about this for a second, with Sidewiki, any web based article can be transformed into a public space of unedited thoughts ranging from super insightful, through helpful and witty, to downright malicious.

   Many of us who are comfortable with the free-for-all of social networking spheres may not see this as a big deal because currently blogs, micro and otherwise, are the open forums in which people discuss all manner of things, including the performance of brands. 

   But Sidewiki will make these conversations mainstream. 

   It will now be impossible for brands to broadcast a message or to communicate in a one-way traffic style and not potentially be called to account.

   This new tool makes two- way communication the only communication option for brands as people now have the ultimate soapbox to express their views, right out there for all to see.

   For corporations, the Sidewiki forum drives home the importance of being able to stand up to scrutiny and being prepared to engage in robust discussion, with the added bonus of being able to defend your position too. Bring it on!

   

9. Will New Zealander’s need to rethink their stance on GE foods and Nuclear Power so we can keep up with the rest of the world?

   Published on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

   First off, I need to state that I am a complete fence sitter when it comes to GMOs and Nuclear power. The way I see it is that in an ideal world, we would enjoy the potential benefits while we fully manage the risks. But reality is always less simple.

   It has occurred to me of late that in the not too distant future, New Zealanders are going to have to think quite seriously about the potential of GMOs, nuclear power and other technologies that will enable us to meet our carbon emission targets, growing power demands and attempts to stay in the game, let alone keeping ahead of it.

   British scientist Dr Robert Winston has said that we need to be more open to new technologies so we can keep pace globally. He’s not wrong. Last week at the annual Food and Grocery Council conference, two of the keynote speakers highlighted changes that may need to take place if we are to feed the world and ensure human intelligence keeps pace with computers. 

   If GMOs are the only means of preventing billions of people starving to death, it will be pretty hard to keep it in the box. Then on the flip side, movies like Food Inc paint the food industry as giant manipulators of the world in order to reap the profits. Are we equipped to reconcile these positions and at the same time solve these very real problems?

   Honest and transparent communication will become even more critical, but often the truth is too boring. We truly need a media who report, not sensationalise the realities of these positions. With shrinking newsrooms under increasing commercial pressures and the more experienced journalists often being let go, this is sadly less likely to happen. Perhaps the emerging social media sphere will evolve into a forum based on true expertise?

   New technologies always raise new questions. Would a science that enabled a paraplegic to walk be halted because it breached our moral ethics? Currently there is already a scientist in Europe who uses himself as a human guinea pig – or should I say android, to test mind driven robotic implants. 

   The reality of new technologies being able to solve some very serious and imminent problems is upon us. And as clean, green nuclear free New Zealand, how well are we informed to be able to manage these dilemmas?

   As the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out, had we invented Viagra we would be sitting very pretty economically. But we didn’t! So what’s next? Which companies will have the intestinal fortitude to take on people power for causes that they believe are for the good of the people? This is an interesting dilemma but who is debating it?