If you did not catch this, listen to (or read) today's (May 28) story on NPR about how newspapers and traditional news media outlets are now starting to look at ways to charge readers to see their stories online.
Ironically, you can listen to this for free or read it for free. NPR simply asks for a donation. Hmmmm. What if the NY Times asked for donations?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Twitter and the Swine Flu
The still-active-story on the swine (oops, the H1N1 Virus) flu is creating much debate and discussion about a vital part of the public relations process - how to effectively communicate with the general public.
Scientists, especially those at the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization, are concerned that the significant attention (some argue it was needless "hype") given to the initial outbreak may have actually created a "cry wolf" scenario that will make it even more difficult to convey warnings and information when the flu is expected to make a strong comeback in the fall. (See today's Wall Street Journal about what we may be facing).
And if indeed we now have a general population who won't heed warnings and messages in a few months because they felt over-sold at the initial outbreak, how will public relations strategies be crafted to ensure an effective information campaign when it's really needed?
Let's start looking at this from the beginning.
It appears the public relations situation we now face is rooted in two phenomenons:
1. The "Body Count" and comparisons. The public is keeping track of how many have been "stricken" and how many have died. A low number of deaths (95 so far worldwide, 11 in the U.S.), seems to tell us that this flu is not all that bad - especially when you look at what other diseases are doing! (A few of my colleagues like to make these comparisons, and others like to make jokes about people wearing masks). We PR types sometime compete against one another, especially when it comes to health issues. For instance, it's difficult to conduct a swine flu informational campaign when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation receives a lot of worldwide public attention (rightfully so) for spending millions to prevent the nearly 900,000 annual deaths from malaria.
2. Speed of news and attention spans. Our concern for issues is now resembling the memory capacity of a goldfish. As we get news faster (from Twitter, especially), our capacity to maintain a focus on any story is diminished. If we begin to talk to a friend about a story that happened last week, we immediately get dismissed for bringing up something that is "old news." (My favorite line among my Twitter-savvy friends is "Yeah, I read this yesterday" as if I was being told to "move on" to a new topic.)
Did we over-react to the swine flu warning?
If you listen to various pundits or even some of my colleagues, their conclusion is: Yes.
If you can get some scientists to talk publicly about it, they would say: thank God we did over-react.
What some scientists and public health officials privately say is that their "heightened" attention and the level of concern publicly displayed at the start of the outbreak actually did its job. Because so many people took precautions and countries, like Mexico, took drastic measures - the flu was effectively contained. The low numbers of infection and death are the result of people actually taking steps - because they were warned to do so.
So now, these scientists and health officials say, they are being penalized for a job well done. The current discussion should be turned around from one of unnecessary hype to job well done and let's remain vigilant.
For my colleagues who are using Twitter for their marketing and product campaigns, take a look at the ongoing study by two Stanford researchers who are tracking Twitter responses to the flu. So far, this study provides a fascinating peak into what may be a momunental shift in public perceptions and behaviors.
Also, keep track of online surveys, such as the one Treehugger.com is conducting, begging the question: Are you afraid of the flu? (Spoiler alert: Most responses say "No" because they feel it's an over-reaction.)
Finally, to my PR colleagues who will be involved in developing and implementing flu-related information campaigns later this year, I envy the lead time you have to develop an effective strategy. It will be educational to watch the fall informational campaign and how you overcome the obstacles I mention here.
Scientists, especially those at the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization, are concerned that the significant attention (some argue it was needless "hype") given to the initial outbreak may have actually created a "cry wolf" scenario that will make it even more difficult to convey warnings and information when the flu is expected to make a strong comeback in the fall. (See today's Wall Street Journal about what we may be facing).
And if indeed we now have a general population who won't heed warnings and messages in a few months because they felt over-sold at the initial outbreak, how will public relations strategies be crafted to ensure an effective information campaign when it's really needed?
Let's start looking at this from the beginning.
It appears the public relations situation we now face is rooted in two phenomenons:
1. The "Body Count" and comparisons. The public is keeping track of how many have been "stricken" and how many have died. A low number of deaths (95 so far worldwide, 11 in the U.S.), seems to tell us that this flu is not all that bad - especially when you look at what other diseases are doing! (A few of my colleagues like to make these comparisons, and others like to make jokes about people wearing masks). We PR types sometime compete against one another, especially when it comes to health issues. For instance, it's difficult to conduct a swine flu informational campaign when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation receives a lot of worldwide public attention (rightfully so) for spending millions to prevent the nearly 900,000 annual deaths from malaria.
2. Speed of news and attention spans. Our concern for issues is now resembling the memory capacity of a goldfish. As we get news faster (from Twitter, especially), our capacity to maintain a focus on any story is diminished. If we begin to talk to a friend about a story that happened last week, we immediately get dismissed for bringing up something that is "old news." (My favorite line among my Twitter-savvy friends is "Yeah, I read this yesterday" as if I was being told to "move on" to a new topic.)
Did we over-react to the swine flu warning?
If you listen to various pundits or even some of my colleagues, their conclusion is: Yes.
If you can get some scientists to talk publicly about it, they would say: thank God we did over-react.
What some scientists and public health officials privately say is that their "heightened" attention and the level of concern publicly displayed at the start of the outbreak actually did its job. Because so many people took precautions and countries, like Mexico, took drastic measures - the flu was effectively contained. The low numbers of infection and death are the result of people actually taking steps - because they were warned to do so.
So now, these scientists and health officials say, they are being penalized for a job well done. The current discussion should be turned around from one of unnecessary hype to job well done and let's remain vigilant.
For my colleagues who are using Twitter for their marketing and product campaigns, take a look at the ongoing study by two Stanford researchers who are tracking Twitter responses to the flu. So far, this study provides a fascinating peak into what may be a momunental shift in public perceptions and behaviors.
Also, keep track of online surveys, such as the one Treehugger.com is conducting, begging the question: Are you afraid of the flu? (Spoiler alert: Most responses say "No" because they feel it's an over-reaction.)
Finally, to my PR colleagues who will be involved in developing and implementing flu-related information campaigns later this year, I envy the lead time you have to develop an effective strategy. It will be educational to watch the fall informational campaign and how you overcome the obstacles I mention here.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
More about water and public sentiment
Perhaps the San Jose State University survey was correct. (see earlier post).
A story in today's San Diego Union Tribune points out that consumers are snapping up water conservation rebates so fast, the program operated by my former employer is running out of cash.
According to the people quoted in the story, they want water-saving devices and products because (a) they understand the value of water conservation and (b) it saves money in the long run.
These were the two prime motivating factors among respondents to the San Jose State survey.
A story in today's San Diego Union Tribune points out that consumers are snapping up water conservation rebates so fast, the program operated by my former employer is running out of cash.
According to the people quoted in the story, they want water-saving devices and products because (a) they understand the value of water conservation and (b) it saves money in the long run.
These were the two prime motivating factors among respondents to the San Jose State survey.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Motivating the public to save water
Convincing Californians to save water is no easy task.
Ever since the state received a "wake up call" in the early 1990s about water supply and how to manage the state's periodic droughts, dozens if not hundreds of smart, experienced communicators and public relations professionals (me included) have developed and managed various programs to get the average resident and the typical business owner to use less water.
Success with these programs is varied, yet more outreach campaigns with various themes and messages are being launched this year. (What's your reaction to this one?)
Public outreach programs are critical to the success of water conservation programs because, like save energy, saving water is controlled largely by individual choice. With energy, we humans turn off the lights, make a conscious decision to buy CFL bulbs or turn up the thermostat and live with a warmer house or office. With water, we humans control water consumption by how often we water our lawns or replace lawns with native plants, the length of our showers and using a broom instead of a hose to sweep the driveway.
As with any public relations/public outreach campaign, research is critical to the process in terms of figuring out what will motivate people to change behavior, run to the home improvement store to buy drought-tolerant plants or take advantage of a rebate program to install low-flow toilets and other water-saving devices.
Today comes a study from San Jose State University's Survey and Policy Research Institute that suggests prime motivators to conserve water in 2009 are protecting the environment and saving money.
We'll see.
Right now, a handful of cities and water agencies are declaring water emergencies to force conservation. The list will grow as the impacts from the governor's drought declaration continue and our reservoirs dry up.
The state recently launched a "Save Our Water" program based on the success of the "Flex Your Power" program for energy (which was born from a statewide energy crisis). Behind the Save Our Water program are some fundamental issues about our state's water supply, how it is managed and the well-documented need to invest billions of dollars in water infrastructure improvements. It also is part of the state's response to the governor's executive order for a permanent 20% water-use reduction in urban areas by 2020.
So, it will be interesting to watch public reaction in 2009 and beyond. Will grand social experiments work? Will mandates be the answer?
In some regions, residents will change behavior because they are forced to (like in Long Beach and other cities with emergency declarations).
If we believe the San Jose State study, many of us will use less water because we are reducing our expenses, or because we are living a "green" life. Or, a combination.
And will water-saving behavior remain a permanent way of life? Or, like in the last drought that ended in 1992 - will we forgot all this as soon as the reservoirs are full again and the emergency declarations are removed?
Ever since the state received a "wake up call" in the early 1990s about water supply and how to manage the state's periodic droughts, dozens if not hundreds of smart, experienced communicators and public relations professionals (me included) have developed and managed various programs to get the average resident and the typical business owner to use less water.
Success with these programs is varied, yet more outreach campaigns with various themes and messages are being launched this year. (What's your reaction to this one?)
Public outreach programs are critical to the success of water conservation programs because, like save energy, saving water is controlled largely by individual choice. With energy, we humans turn off the lights, make a conscious decision to buy CFL bulbs or turn up the thermostat and live with a warmer house or office. With water, we humans control water consumption by how often we water our lawns or replace lawns with native plants, the length of our showers and using a broom instead of a hose to sweep the driveway.
As with any public relations/public outreach campaign, research is critical to the process in terms of figuring out what will motivate people to change behavior, run to the home improvement store to buy drought-tolerant plants or take advantage of a rebate program to install low-flow toilets and other water-saving devices.
Today comes a study from San Jose State University's Survey and Policy Research Institute that suggests prime motivators to conserve water in 2009 are protecting the environment and saving money.
We'll see.
Right now, a handful of cities and water agencies are declaring water emergencies to force conservation. The list will grow as the impacts from the governor's drought declaration continue and our reservoirs dry up.
The state recently launched a "Save Our Water" program based on the success of the "Flex Your Power" program for energy (which was born from a statewide energy crisis). Behind the Save Our Water program are some fundamental issues about our state's water supply, how it is managed and the well-documented need to invest billions of dollars in water infrastructure improvements. It also is part of the state's response to the governor's executive order for a permanent 20% water-use reduction in urban areas by 2020.
So, it will be interesting to watch public reaction in 2009 and beyond. Will grand social experiments work? Will mandates be the answer?
In some regions, residents will change behavior because they are forced to (like in Long Beach and other cities with emergency declarations).
If we believe the San Jose State study, many of us will use less water because we are reducing our expenses, or because we are living a "green" life. Or, a combination.
And will water-saving behavior remain a permanent way of life? Or, like in the last drought that ended in 1992 - will we forgot all this as soon as the reservoirs are full again and the emergency declarations are removed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)