|
|
|||||||||||||
Is Anyone Listening? by Anne Winter
Table of Contents
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: NEW APPROACHES AND EMERGING TRENDS
Rethinking communication strategies The current crisis in international cooperation is forcing organizations to rethink fundamentally both their activities and the ways in which they have been communicating with decision-makers and constituent communities in both South and North. Despite efforts made over many years to inform and educate public opinion, public support for aid still appears to stem largely from a humanitarian or charitable response, rather than from any real appreciation of the more fundamental issues at stake, or an understanding of the causes of underdevelopment. Although broad sympathy for development cooperation remains, this sympathy is fragile and tends to fade as competing concerns come to the fore. The challenge facing those advocating for greater international cooperation appears to be to systematically adopt a deliberately analytical and pedagogical approach in communications, to explain and interest people in the issues and their implications, and to promote a real public debate around them--while not of course ignoring the importance of the interplay between the emotional, moral and cognitive components in attitudinal change and opinion-forming. Related to this is the apparent need to specifically address the underlying concerns people have about aid in general and to challenge common misperceptions. It is necessary to clarify what people want to know, and to identify the attitudes impeding support for international cooperation. These attitudes must be overcome if agencies are to reach out beyond their ready-made constituencies. In the search to devise new ways of communicating more effectively, Daniel Yankelovich has identified five basic areas on which agencies might focus:38
Yankelovich and others have argued persuasively that conventional communication approaches that are expert-driven, information-based and designed to raise public awareness may often have the opposite effects of those intended. This is because they fail to take into account the public's profound resistance to many aspects of development assistance. To arrive at mature public judgement, as opposed to superficial or volatile opinion, a process of 'public deliberation' is required; through it, people deliberate on issues that concern them, weigh the pros and cons of different choices, and ultimately accept responsibility for the consequences of their views, and arrive at considered judgements.39 Speaking at a seminar on public knowledge and attitudes toward international development,40 Yankelovich argued: "An effective communication strategy for development assistance calls for a radically different relationship between leaders and the public. Leaders must be prepared to enter into dialogue with a worried citizenry on how to allocate limited resources. And they must discuss these matters with the public as equals, not as audiences to be manipulated nor as ignoramuses to whom leaders impart a small fraction of their superior knowledge... The techniques that work most poorly are... the undigested packages of policy-linked information whose consequences for the public are not clearly spelled out, and the media-based campaigns of public education that fail to take into account the public's need to reconcile conflicting values." In the process of rethinking their communication activities, many organizations have given greater emphasis to 'campaigning' approaches. These are broadly aimed at 'public education,' and usually include elements of lobbying or organized action that supporters can undertake within their local communities, giving them a sense of involvement and empowerment. The concepts of dialogue and public debate to engage public interest in issues are now, however, also increasingly coming to the fore as organizations place more emphasis on developing two-way and more open-ended methods of communication in their public advocacy strategies. This is in preference to the more traditional top-down methods based on elements of audience manipulation or persuasion. At the same time, many of those involved in agency communication are not only looking at how they can exploit mass media attention for their own ends but are also considering how they can counterbalance the inherent limitations of the mass media in raising the level of public interest in, and debate around, international concerns. For it is also being understood much more widely that attitudinal, behavioural and ultimately social change are long-term processes that require long-term planning, and the use of many different media within a mutually reinforcing strategy. Research into modern communication methods shows it is mistaken to regard attitudinal change merely as a shift along a continuum, as it inevitably involves a reordering of individuals' cognitive structures.41 To effect, then, any significant alterations in attitudes and values, or indeed to explicitly form them, requires the identification of both cognitive and affective objectives and the examination and exposure of beliefs and prejudices. This cannot be achieved through the mere imparting of information. Much recent research in social psychology has been dedicated to the question of how attitudes change in response to relevant thinking or behaviour. Under what circumstances do people avoid information that is inconsistent with their views? What aspects of a message affect its persuasiveness? Can distraction increase the impact of a message? To what extent do concerns regarding self-presentation play a part in attitude change? When and how do attitudes affect behaviour? As agencies rethink their communication strategies and adopt increasingly sophisticated approaches, their success may also depend on their ability to draw on selected expertise from other disciplines to assist them in developing broader and more effective methods of communication and discourse with their different target groups.
Restructuring communication departments Budget cuts, perceived inefficiencies, the need for new approaches, for creativity and agility are motivating a number of large organizations to dramatically restructure their communication departments.42 Traditionally, agencies have roughly categorized their communication activities into three areas: advocacy for development, corporate communication, and programme communication. Advocacy for development is understood as the generic promotion of development and humanitarian issues. This is in contrast, primarily, to activities aimed at promoting agencies' own corporate image and brand, described as corporate communication. Programme communication activities are either programme interventions in their own right, or complements to programmes. They are designed to promote and/or change knowledge, attitudes and practice at the individual, household and family levels. Over the years, these three distinct areas of communication have grown into veritable 'chimneys' of activity within many organizations. They have often been perceived as completely separate sectors, in which diversity rather than commonality has been stressed. However, as the development crisis has persisted, the aims of corporate communication have increasingly encroached on the territory reserved for advocacy for development. Many organizations, even governmental ones, are emphasizing the results of their own programmes and activities in their communications in an effort to be accountable to taxpayers and donors. To what extent organizations should be involved in public relations and promotion of their own activities is an issue that is ever more hotly debated among agency communication staff. So is the question of how this promotion should be conducted and the perceived level of confusion in specific communications between public relations and public advocacy. Another issue is the extent to which, on the one hand, advocacy and corporate communication activities, and, on the other, programme communication are essentially two sides of the same coin, at least as regards some of the skills required to undertake them. Previously, programme communication was considered largely a field-oriented activity, while advocacy for development and corporate communication took place in headquarters and in donor countries. This North-South divide in communication activities is being recognized as increasingly invalid. Field offices have taken on direct advocacy and corporate communication responsibilities in order to raise the local profile of their organization. Fundraising responsibilities are also being devolved to some extent to national levels. At the same time, corporate communication and advocacy for development in industrialized countries are increasingly adopting elements of social mobilization and empowerment. The traditional strategies used to provide information in industrialized countries seem to have failed to empower the public to make informed choices on issues of global concern. The concepts of dialogue and popular action to engage public interest and to influence a shift in opinion in support of international cooperation are gaining increasing ground. As the worlds of public advocacy, corporate communication, and programme support increasingly merge at the conceptual level, the structural divisions between them are being perceived by a number of agencies as more of a hindrance to, rather than a facilitator of, progress. The role of agency communication departments is thus shifting from service provider to the strategic planner of an integrated communication strategy. A highly efficient processor of information and mobilizer of resources, the role of the communication officer is becoming one of determining the communication challenge at hand--as expressed by the 'internal' client--and identifying, contracting and managing the provision of communication services by outside parties.
Communicators as catalysts The resources at the disposal of aid organizations to pursue communication goals are very modest compared to, for example, those of the private sector. But while modestly resourced, aid organizations are well placed to catalyze and cooperate with the many forces at work that can make a positive contribution to the achievement of their institutional objectives. Communication departments are broadening their support bases, seeking allies but also forming agents within their own agencies. Organizations such as Médecins sans Frontières, where communication and 'témoignage' dominate the spirit of the organization, are acutely aware of the power of employees as public relations and information agents and of the benefits to be gained by training them to be credible and skilled communicators. Agencies are also looking for new and creative ways to target individuals and groups who are themselves potential multipliers of the development message. These efforts include involving partners from other walks of life in the communication process to reach new publics beyond the already 'converted,' and using alternative communication channels to promote understanding of the objectives and concerns of international cooperation. Many of the broader forces at play can indeed be turned to the advantage of those pursuing these goals. For example, as the role of the state in most parts of the world contracts, the pressure on business to become good corporate citizens is increasing. Businesses are becoming more sensitive to their reputations as socially responsible entities. At the same time, fair trade, ethical investment, eco-tourism and many other 'alternative' business activities are likely to grow, and are already looking for inspiration from, and partnership with, aid organizations. Partnerships between the private communication sector and aid agencies are also increasing, fuelled by a growing awareness of the mutual benefits which both parties stand to gain. For their part, businesses cite the opportunity to undertake interesting and creative work as the prime motivation for their socially responsible, often pro bono efforts. These efforts are not only good for staff morale but offer the chance to win awards and raise the company's profile in the community. What was once seen only as 'goodwill' also promises the potential for future lucrative contracts through Board member networking, and as agencies themselves become increasingly sophisticated and more willing and able to pay for communication services. However, cultural gaps and a number of prejudices impede further interaction between the aid community and private sectors. They can make the idea of enlisting the private sector anathema to many aid organizations. They can also reinforce the private sector's impression that aid organizations lack professionalism. Aid agencies tend to question the ethical underpinnings of the private sector and its market-driven, results-oriented culture. They fear that the audience orientation, focused on impact, will lead to a distortion of the message. The recognition that business motivation is different and often opposed to the volunteer culture of organizations raises suspicions about the honesty and integrity of collaborative efforts. Conversely, despite the dovetail of benefits that the business sector enjoys from its relationship with social organizations, businesses often also grow frustrated in these relationships. They complain of the "dipping in and out" tendency, whereby aid agencies request ad hoc services on a short-term basis, within a relationship that is nurtured but not maintained or developed. Similarly, the perceived arrogance of the social sector is resented--a "we know best" attitude--and taints the relationship. Agencies sometimes appear unaware of the scope of expertise offered by business and can be seen as unskilled managers of external services. The structure, culture and consensual decision-making processes of the social sector are confusing to a business environment, accustomed to clear authority and executive decision-making. In short, business as a rule does not seem to understand some of the subtleties of aid agency functioning and vice-versa. This cultural gap, if uncared for, may foul even the best of intentions. Finally, some of the best efforts to broaden the communication outreach of global issues have taken place in cooperation with professional communicators outside the aid sector. Actors, film directors, animators, comedians, these are people who know how to reach and captivate people's attention. The use by agencies of special ambassadors from the entertainment world, techniques such as animation, the organization of popular global events, and the increasing use of 'docu-dramas' and soap operas to stimulate interest and convey messages to new publics are all examples of the recognition by agencies of the need for development to go more mainstream. While purists reel at such suggestions, others maintain that compromises need to be made in the interests of outreach. The more controversial question is perhaps not whether to popularize, but how to do so without falling into the trap of trivialization.
Going More Mainstream In the past, the aid community has tended to be largely self-referential rather than focused on its target audiences and on developing new outreach. Previously content to turn out large quantities of reports, newsletters, flyers or posters, aid agencies are sobering up to the need to be publicists, to target and dialogue with constituencies in a language they understand, through their media, and across media. At the same time, within the context of their work with the mass media themselves, the question of introducing their concerns through the most influential channels and of reaching mass audiences outside their ready-converted constituencies remains a formidable challenge. There is undeniably a body of opinion in media circles that supports the view, as expressed by one American editor, that audiences are more interested in what goes on at home that "in some dinky African or Central Asian country, where they are always fighting and starving anyway."43 However, a certain amount of mass communication research does show that there is a discrepancy between what editors and producers think their audiences want, and what these audiences actually do want. This debate was recently revived in the United Kingdom by the widely publicized statements of BBC newscaster Martyn Lewis, who somewhat recklessly as it turned out, suggested that the main criteria for selecting stories on the BBC news should not be their degree of violence, conflict, failure and disaster, but the extent to which they shape or change the country or world in which we live.44 Following Mr Lewis's initial statement, the newspaper The Independent on Sunday commented in an editorial: "Senior journalists and television producers are apt to believe that proper, grown-up (and, usually, male) reporters should be concerned only with 'hard' news, comprising war, disaster and crime... The rest of human life is for women and boys. Judging by newspaper correspondence columns, however, there is wide public sympathy for Mr Lewis. The professionals, instead of mocking, should be worried that they are so out of touch with readers and viewers... Journalists need to rethink their approach to news in two ways. First, they need a wider definition of what is important and interesting... Second, the media should take more trouble to put news in perspective."45 Can the news agenda be broadened? Will news editors accept to put more emphasis on explaining the context of events as they unfold? These subjects are highly controversial, even among members of the media. However, this fact reconfirms that there are many individuals in the media who are sympathetic to agency concerns, and that there are still opportunities to achieve more extensive coverage of them. But it can be argued that the chances of achieving a sustained impact on editorial policy is far greater if a lobby of influential organizations and individuals is created, rather than individual agencies going it alone. In addition to more systematic efforts to sensitize key media people to global issues, careful monitoring of media coverage and of what has been effective in stimulating public interest in development issues can be useful in constructing convincing arguments to influence media decision-making. Opportunities also exist to galvanize public concern around the sometimes drastic downward trends in international reporting. These kind of activities represent the basic groundwork that, if properly documented and publicized, might create a more favourable overall climate for agency work. Many editors and producers also point to the interests of local constituencies as important factors in their decisions about what coverage to give specific issues. For example, within the context of a survey commissioned by UNICEF46 the editors of an important regional newspaper in the US, The Miami Herald, said they had decided to improve the newspaper's coverage of Latin American and Caribbean affairs in response to the interests of Florida's large and outspoken Hispanic population. In contrast, other news reporters remarked on the surprising lack of public pressure in both North America and Europe by the potentially powerful African and black American lobbies. As Zeinab Badawi, a newscaster on Britain's Channel Four evening news, and herself of Sudanese origin, said: "We are constantly receiving letters from Estonians, Ukranians and Yugoslavs commenting on our coverage about Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, but we receive virtually nothing from Africans." There also appears to be a potential here for aid agencies to join forces with groups that have converging interests in order to lobby for more media attention of issues of common concern. With the concept of prime time network television being eroded by library approaches--whereby people can choose to watch football all the time or soap operas all the time--a further challenge for aid agencies is how to use popular channels to reach people that are not a priori interested in what they have to say. In light of declining public support for their concerns, agencies are increasingly experimenting with non-conventional media to reach out to new publics, and in particular to attract young people.
Networking and the North-South connection With the changing environment of international cooperation, the rapid economic growth of a number of developing countries and the strengthening of their own institutional capacities, a number of aid organizations in industrialized countries are shifting the focus of their interventions from programme implementation in the developing world to advocacy in their own countries on issues of international cooperation--with their own governments and with multinational entities based there. This transition poses many challenges. First, it requires the development of new skills in communication and information on the part of the organizations. Similarly new partnerships will have to be forged with other agencies and community networks both in the North and South. For example, the Danish agency MS helps communication professionals from recipient countries participate in advocacy campaigns and in lobbying and public information activities organized by the agency in Denmark. In this way, the Danish public is informed directly of the concerns and priorities of MS by nationals of the countries in which MS is operational. But perhaps the greatest challenge lies in communicating this shifted emphasis to the organization's stakeholders, particularly its own employees, supporters and governments. Here again, targeted and sophisticated communication with donors and governments will in some cases be required to explain and legitimate this changing role. With the increasing globalization of the media, new technologies, and the strengthening of partnerships and networks between agencies in the North and the South, there is more than ever the need, and the means, by which to create a real platform for the expression of more varied social and cultural perspectives on international issues. Furthermore, the capacity to bring cross-cultural and interactive communication literally into the homes of constituents in Northern and Southern countries is now at least a technical reality. However, a dominant concern of those involved in communication for development is the North-South gap in access to modern communications technologies and to the information they contain, as well as questions on such issues as the ownership of communication distribution systems. While a number of innovative networking systems have been initiated, there is still a recognized need to look for concrete ways to strengthen the participation of developing countries in corporate communication, advocacy, and in the mainstream media, as well as to reframe the debate and discussion around the use of imagery through these channels.
Collaboration and competition Many organizations consider the increasing competition between agencies, a phenomenon that has arisen largely as a result of the reduced availability of funds, to be 'healthy.' They feel the jostling among organizations in the consumer marketplace to gain the loyalty and commitment of supporters keeps them more focused and accountable. It is also believed that increased competition will force organizations to identify and specify their particular areas of competence more clearly. This will allow them to speak with greater credibility on their particular focal activities. But there are also those who fear that competition for limited funding will lead organizations to hone their marketing skills, looking for 'niche' rather than 'competence' in determining their organization's primary focus. There are innumerable examples where fundraising efforts have clashed with field programming, the debate over child sponsorship being one area that has drawn much attention over the years. Similarly, public support for emergency aid is enticing many aid organizations to undertake relief efforts, whether or not that is a particular area of competence for them. A number of organizations say their supporters are calling for their involvement in crisis situations such as Somalia and Rwanda. But organizations which do not have the capacity to manage efficient programmes in such situations might do better to manage their supporters' expectations instead. Clear delineation of the organization's areas of competence, and communication thereof, will facilitate this process. In a seemingly contradictory trend to this increased competition, strategic alliances among organizations are at the same time becoming increasingly evident. As a result of the decline in available funding, a number of organizations are tending not only towards partnership arrangements, undertaking joint activities and sharing services, but also towards full mergers with others working in the same field.
|
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
