When your message goes off course…
You could plead your case by insisting that the Central Bank is being high -handed and not acting in the spirit of collaboration thereby causing an undue public panic. You could criticise the media by suggesting that they have been distorting your messages and then turn around and utiliise the same medium to write an unsigned letter that accuses the opposing side of adopting an“ “unusually harsh stance". You could even forget to hold direct court with your distressed clients as they read headlines that fuel their panic in the same way as a match to a gas line. And, while you’re at it, challenge the fairness of the above named bank, and explain how a more fair and consensus based process would have educated the public, the very group who feel ignored.
As the man who many still respect you could sit down and get personal. You could forget the unsigned media letters and start to blog. You could use the web based platform to define your messages and state your case. You could write specific messages for your clients outlining the step-by-step reasons why their panic could create the very bomb they’re afraid of igniting. You could educate and inform and in so doing outline what you learned from the process and what you’ll be changing in the future. And you can approach the media frenzy with your own communications channel and begin writing with candour, urgency, timeliness, humility and yes, sometimes even, controversy.
1. Which tactic will generate more excitement, more buzz and be perceived as adding a valued voice to the messages already out there?
2. Which one will increase word-of-mouth while at the same time improve the morale of the people who still have to turn up for work day in and day out.
It’s real simple, I think. The tough part is wondering why the first has become so common.