Author: Jim

Maybe it’s the cynic in me, but I don’t think that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s hidden camera, cough47%cough, gaffe is that crazy.

I think that people looking to get elected listen to their campaign managers who tell them to say what it takes to get elected and then deal with the clean-up later. (Wow, that sounds much worse out loud.) Politics is rough and tumble and everyone wants something different for their vote. Those who believe that everything a candidate says publicly is exactly what they believe and will promise to do is an idealist of the worst stripe.

Candidates have feelings and biases and idiosyncrasies that they tamp down or focus, depending on who they think is listening to them. In short, they’re human. There is no grand machination or cover-up here, they’re just like you and me. And you don’t get elected by telling people that their pet concern isn’t the candidate’s favorite thing in the whole world.

I don’t think this is a gaffe. I don’t think most of the things our media calls gaffes these days are really the candidates’s fault. (Even President Obama had his famous YouTube moment four years ago.) Instead, these are failures of the campaign.

Any campaign manager who tells his or her candidate to scathingly rebuke and insult 47% of the public and assume that audio or video coverage of it won’t get out isn’t worth the price of their $500 shoes. It’s their job to anticipate problems and mitigate them. And to think that YouTube isn’t the biggest potential problem is a blindspot the size of the moon. Every one of the last few Presidential candidates have had hidden camera moments show up on YouTube, how have they not yet learned?

I take two lessons from this situation.

Personal thoughts first, it’s the job of the executive to put the very best people in the most important positions. If you’re running for the office of President and you put someone who has forgotten about YouTube in charge of your image, I wonder about your judge of character (which is a bigger deal than insulting potential voters).

What this means for us as emergency communicators is the second lesson. In a Presidential campaign, all communications are emergency communications. The season is too short; the media interest is too high; think of your worst comms day and that’s every day in a campaign. I equate our jobs to that of the campaign manager, in an emergency, we tell the executive what to say, who to say it to, when and where to say it, we manage the media and media environment and ensure that our executive doesn’t insult 47% of the country.

What do we need to learn from this? Don’t forget YouTube, simply. There are no more privileged communications. If we’re speaking in front of an audience, we should assume that someone–with an axe to grind–is recording that speech. We need to train our spokespeople to speak intelligently and cognizantly ALWAYS. Rambling answers are what leads to disasters like this. Unfocused thoughts lead to this. “Winging it,” leads to this. We need to get better at protecting our spokespeople from themselves, lest we feel the wrath of a pissed off 47%

I was given the extra special opportunity to write a blog post on the excellent Association of Public Health Laboratories’ Public Health Lablog for National Preparedness Month. As you know, I’ve worked with APHL in the past for an amazing series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) with their Executive Director Scott Becker, on his experiences during 9/11.

Given what we’ve been talking about this month, about not having an audience and about killing the campaign; the current that I find connects all of this is getting away from rigid planning. I don’t know what the hot topic of the day will be, so why try to force my chosen topic? I don’t know who’s listening to me today, so why shut out ninety percent of my audience? What happens when you get away from rigid, strict planning?

Luck. Kismet. Serendipity.

You meet people you would never think you’d meet. You learn deeply about things you never knew existed. You see the world with child’s eyes. You are awed again.

My post for the APHL Lablog today is about just that; about how, during National Preparedness Month, we should step outside our comfort zones and learn about new things. Meet new people. Experience life. Enjoy serendipity. Who knows, in those crisis moments, if some new experience or contact will be there to help save your bacon? If you don’t get out there, they certainly won’t be there.

When I started this Your Audience is a Lie thing, I was hoping to parlay it into a nice little series. Unfortunately, before I could finish it with my bold prediction of what your jobs as government communicators will look like in a few years, one of the smartest and most dedicated people I know in health communications beat me to the punch. Alex Bornkessel, who runs an amazing MS charity with her family, called for death to the campaign this past weekend and I couldn’t agree more.

This idea that campaign-focused communications actively works against our goals of affecting real change (whether it be health-focused, preparedness-focused, or some other goal) in two different ways. First, it assumes that our audience is there, available, placid and interested, during the time we decide they should hear our messages. If they are otherwise ready to lose weight, or set up a communications plan, or change the batteries in their smoke detectors, except for some family crisis that happens during our predefined “campaign time,” then they don’t get the message that they need to change their behavior. (This is a HUGE reason I despise days, weeks and months that celebrate or raise awareness for something; what, tuberculosis doesn’t matter the other 364 days of the year?)

The other reason only communicating through campaigns is harmful is, in my estimation, infinitely worse. Say your timing works out and you get lucky and actually find someone who was patiently waiting for your message. Not only that, but the message is specifically tailored to the group she self-identifies with (because you’re still marketing to audiences and not everyone), and she takes action on it. She’s moved from Contemplation to Preparation based solely on your messaging. Congratulations! But, what happens when you end your campaign? Specifically, what happens to this wonderful person that you’ve prepped to be ready to move forward and actually change her behavior? Does she not move to the Action stage? Does she resent your messaging for leaving her hanging, alone? Is she willing to wait another year for you to become interested in her problem again? Will she even listen next time?

Alex puts the problem into specific relief here, and even offers the solution we’ve been talking about:

Traditional mass media models that follow TV PSAs, direct mail, radio announcements and the like allow us to safely distance ourselves from the nitty-gritty hard work of transforming our world. It puts us a hands distance from actually interacting with and serving our people. It’s time to roll up our sleeves.

Our work is no longer about building a one-and-done campaign, but about creating shared experiences and building movements. To build bridges, we have to walk side-by-side with those we want to not only reach, but truly engage.

Her post is called Shifting from Campaign to Cause, which is sublime in it’s understanding of the problem. If we really want to affect change, we have to believe that our message is good enough for everyone, whenever they are ready to hear it, and understand that they’ll have questions and concerns and complaints and praise, and that it’s part of our job to find those comments and questions important and valid and respond to them.

Honestly, if we’re not invested enough in our work to do that, why are we even messaging?