Linstock Communications Associate John Maule, Professor of Human Decision Making at Leeds University, recently discussed the difficulties faced by the Government in delivering public communications on BBC Radio Leeds. He highlighted the important decision making processes government must understand to deliver effective messaging.
The public communications gaffe is a time honoured tradition within Britain's political elite. A tradition so respectfully observed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries that it was forced to reinvent itself as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra); the department for 'foot and mouth' had also gained a reputation as the department for 'foot in mouth.'
This week, Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office, made his own clanger when he advised drivers to consider filling up part-empty petrol tanks and keeping a jerrycan of fuel in their garage, following a vote by the Unite union for a possible strike by tanker drivers. Widespread condemnation of the comments followed, with Unite, the Labour Party and many drivers describing Maude's comments as an over-reaction and irresponsible. The Government moved quickly to downplay his comments, but this has arguably exacerbated the problem. While Government spokespeople confirmed that Maude's comments were misleading, the Energy Secretary Ed Davey has subsequently suggested that drivers should consider filling their petrol tanks to full when next visiting the pump.
The public has reacted to this lack of clarity with a predictable mixture of confusion and bewilderment, with reports of congestion at numerous petrol stations as drivers rush to fill up before an expected shortage. For the Government, it's a clear blunder, but it's easy to see how such a mistake comes about. Government officials regularly walk the tightrope, balancing the need to offer vital information to the public without causing adverse reactions or unforeseen behavioural changes. Often they pull it off, occasionally they don't. The Government's focus on 'nudge' techniques is proof of a more sophisticated approach to public communications, and may offer some clues as to how it can avoid similar difficulties in future.
Linstock Associate John Maule, Professor of Human Decision Making at Leeds University, recently discussed the difficulties faced by the Government in delivering public communications on BBC Radio Leeds. Professor Maule highlighted the different decision making systems people use when reacting to perceived threats. The first is an analytical approach, rational, conscious choices that effectively weigh up the pros and cons of a decision. The second is a gut instinct approach, a more intuitive system of decision making rooted in our prehistoric past. It is the second system that helps explain how the recent petrol pump queues have formed. Just as our ancestors responded to predatory threats by grouping together for safety, so today we often adopt a herd mentality to making choices. These basic forms of decision making still drive us, a fact acknowledged by the Government's move towards the auto-enrolment of employees onto pension schemes, a system that utilises gut-instinct decision making systems such as 'loss aversion' to encourage employees to save for retirement.
But it appears Government is still some way from fully understanding how to effectively use these systems of decision making, or indeed how to prevent them driving people into making poor decisions. Professor Maule offers advice that most within the PR world would acknowledge - provide clarity and consistency. A key problem with the Government's handling of the petrol issue is the conflicting advice it appears to have provided. When faced by a threat, people look for information to make sense of the situation. If that information is unclear, people's perception of the threat will increase as their trust for the provider of the information erodes. Perhaps the greatest problem for government will be the long-term implications of such public communications mistakes. As Professor Maule rightly states "Trust is hard to build but easy to lose".
John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com
5 March 2012
What’s in a number?
Did you read that us Brits have a spring in our step? The Office for National Statistics has published the first results of the ‘Happiness Index’. We did pretty well. Across the country, the average mark was 7.5. Well above average, and pretty encouraging considering the fragile state of the economy and the effects of the biggest spending cuts in generations starting to be felt. 7.5? It could have been a lot worse.
Hang on a minute. 7.5 out of 10 happy. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean we are nearly three quarters happy? Happy three quarters of the time? Happy with three quarters of the things we do? Three quarters of us are happy and a quarter of us are not?
I’m now confused. What am I supposed to think when the survey says 8.2 next time – or goes down to 6.2? In fact, the more I think about it, how exactly do you aggregate something as intangible and inherently personal as ‘happiness’? This figure now seems rather arbitrary.
This goes straight to the heart of some important communications considerations when publishing statistics. We’ve all become a bit cynical of the ‘eight out of ten cats’ headlines. But can we shine some light on this dense and confusing statistical fog? We can if we take some straightforward but vital steps. Provide a clear research method. Explain what you sought to measure - and why. Describe how you went about it – and why. Explain how you’ve calculated the outcomes.
To take the example above, what we know is that ONS asked people to score the following between 1 and 10: how satisfied with your life are you nowadays? To what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? How happy did you feel yesterday? How anxious did you feel yesterday? The combined totals told us that just over 75.5 per cent scored seven or more out of 10 for overall life satisfaction.
People like to hear something credible, and scientific sounding. To many, flicking through the morning paper or surfing the web on their lunch break, a quick scan of this methodology should suffice. And given the fact it is 7.5, rather than 2 or 3, there’s undoubtedly a feel-good factor created by it.
But, unless the methodology is sound and clearly explained, a communications campaign can become a communications nightmare. Once people see beyond the headline they can quickly become disillusioned and before you know it, opponents are pulling your methodology apart.
Remember those maths questions that ask you to ‘show your working’? The principle when publishing research is exactly the same. Unless there is absolute clarity over what you sought to measure, and how you went about it, the whole process can be fatally undermined further down the line. This weekend has already seen some comment pieces across the media picking holes in the Happiness Index. You’ll never please everyone, but you can help your chances by adhering to a few simple rules.
Tom Yazdi
Consultant
tom@linstockcommunications.com
Hang on a minute. 7.5 out of 10 happy. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean we are nearly three quarters happy? Happy three quarters of the time? Happy with three quarters of the things we do? Three quarters of us are happy and a quarter of us are not?
I’m now confused. What am I supposed to think when the survey says 8.2 next time – or goes down to 6.2? In fact, the more I think about it, how exactly do you aggregate something as intangible and inherently personal as ‘happiness’? This figure now seems rather arbitrary.
This goes straight to the heart of some important communications considerations when publishing statistics. We’ve all become a bit cynical of the ‘eight out of ten cats’ headlines. But can we shine some light on this dense and confusing statistical fog? We can if we take some straightforward but vital steps. Provide a clear research method. Explain what you sought to measure - and why. Describe how you went about it – and why. Explain how you’ve calculated the outcomes.
To take the example above, what we know is that ONS asked people to score the following between 1 and 10: how satisfied with your life are you nowadays? To what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? How happy did you feel yesterday? How anxious did you feel yesterday? The combined totals told us that just over 75.5 per cent scored seven or more out of 10 for overall life satisfaction.
People like to hear something credible, and scientific sounding. To many, flicking through the morning paper or surfing the web on their lunch break, a quick scan of this methodology should suffice. And given the fact it is 7.5, rather than 2 or 3, there’s undoubtedly a feel-good factor created by it.
But, unless the methodology is sound and clearly explained, a communications campaign can become a communications nightmare. Once people see beyond the headline they can quickly become disillusioned and before you know it, opponents are pulling your methodology apart.
Remember those maths questions that ask you to ‘show your working’? The principle when publishing research is exactly the same. Unless there is absolute clarity over what you sought to measure, and how you went about it, the whole process can be fatally undermined further down the line. This weekend has already seen some comment pieces across the media picking holes in the Happiness Index. You’ll never please everyone, but you can help your chances by adhering to a few simple rules.
Tom Yazdi
Consultant
tom@linstockcommunications.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
