More Effective Public Communication (City Hall PR and Public Media Speak)

Full Post

from Executive Strategy by Zuma Dogg

More Effective Public Communication (City Hall PR and Public Media Speak)
by Zuma Dogg ZumaTimes.com

Of course it is an elected officials job to put the best spin on the city at all times.

But City Council and the mayor is constantly making ZD’s head explode with terrible linguistics. These dear, sweet politicians are trying so hard to put the best foot forward, but they always end up putting it in their mouth, without even knowing.

The most important thing I learned from mi amigo Tony Robbins, that I am able to use on a day to day basis, is the stuff on language patterns.

For example, if a kid is going up to bat you can shout from the stands, "Don’t strike out!!!" Or, you can say, "Go get a hit!!!" Both exhortations are well-intended comments to try and produce the same result (success).

However, by saying, "Don’t strike out", all the kid does is get nervous, worry about striking out, imagines himself striking out and has a higher chance of striking out. By saying, "Get a hit", the mind sends a different picture, and therefore different signal to the body, and you increase the chances producing the desired outcome (of a hit).

Similarly, I know the mayor and City Council are always trying to put the best face on the city and try and prove to the constituents that a solution is on the way.
However, it’s all in how you frame the issue through proper wording.

And I’ll change the names to protect the offenders:

CM 1: "Los Angeles is the gang crime capital of the world." Now, I know the CM was trying to get people passionate about the issue to try and trigger the community into action. However, this "don’t strike out" version never should have been uttered. How about (and you have to make it a little negative/real sounding, can’t make it sound like Disneyland, or you lose credibility, so how about), "We all deserve the right to feel safe in our own neighborhoods." (And take it from there.)

CM 2: "I know we have some people who are very apprehensive in the Valley. "What does it mean for us?"

Don’t set up the positive things you are about to say, with a negative suggestion (embedded command). It makes people say, "Oh yeah, it’s bad for the Valley." The proper "framing" would be to simply say the good things it means for the Valley and the people who were asking the questions will know you are addressing their concerns – and all the less observant will simply feel good about what you are saying. That’s not to say you should hide the fact that a hospital is going to be built on toxic quicksand. But don’t embed a negative image when even ZD doesn’t think it is necessary.

CM 3: And one of the reasons that I support this and I am voting for this today, is not just on the project…I’m voting for this project because we need affordable housing in this City; and that is even a higher priority.

Uh oh…CM just embedded the message that something isn’t congruent in CM’s message…something is fishy…plus you are saying, "WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT IS EVEN A HIGHER PRIORITY" while approving a very expensive luxury project. There’s no need to say all that. How about, "The great thing about this project is that it includes some of the affordable housing that is such a high priority for the city, so this was one way to get some built."

CM 4: "You know, Downtown gets beat-up a lot". (Who paid you to say that, San Diego Chamber of Commerce?) There was no need to add that superlative.