Going Viral?
Learning From the Trends and Considerations for Communicating During Public Health Threats
When the next major outbreak strikes, it will most likely be accompanied
by an explosion of texts, tweets, photos and forwarded emails. Some of these
millions of words and pictures will have useful information; but many will be
filled with
rumour, misinformation, and sensationalised claims.
This repeated wave of messages will overwhelm traditional information
sources, including government agencies, global news media, and even first
responders. As a result, millions of people will receive unvetted and incorrect
assertions with unqualified guidance, all of which could ultimately endanger
their own health, damage their economies, and undermine the stability of society.
Communication by public authorities during a crisis situation is an
essential and indispensable part of any response to a situation that may
threaten both life and property. In our online-connected-world, possibilities
for such communication have grown exponentially through social media. As a
consequence, communication strategies have become a key plank of responses to
crises ranging from epidemics to terrorism to natural disaster.
The following (abridged) commentary from our
colleagues at Shift highlight some key learning points from this current
scenario, but also shed light on best-practice crisis management techniques;
something that applies well beyond the medical world and can be easily embraced
by brands and individuals too.
____________________
For communicators, managing the
razor-thin line between sharing important details and inciting widespread panic
requires a delicate balance. When there are often more questions than answers,
seemingly straightforward communications exercises can result in unexpected
consequences.
As the World
Health Organization just declared the virus a Public Health Emergency of
International Concern (PHEIC), the high-profile speculation and coverage of the
virus’ evolution bring back memories of past major global health issues like
the SARS outbreak in 2003 and H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009. The parallels
drawn between the Wuhan coronavirus and SARS prompted us to reflect on some
significant changes since these past threats in how our society consumes and
expects information.
Complexity
Demands Clarity
In the healthcare space, confusing
language, jargon, and acronyms reign supreme. Even the names of viruses can be
difficult to socialize with the general public—no, the coronavirus doesn’t have
anything to do with the beer—and the public isn’t always able to associate a
specific illness with its common symptoms.
To overcome
this, organizations and individuals must work together to ensure everybody is
using consistent terminology and talking about viruses like the Wuhan
coronavirus in the same, digestible way.
Transparency
Remains a Delicate, Yet Critical, Best-Practice
The public has a right to
information—especially when it comes to information that has health
implications. But with news spreading faster than ever before, containing an
update or message can quickly turn into a virtual impossibility. The balance
between sharing immediate updates and risking inaccurate information being
shared due to the speed of communications is delicate.
There’s a
certain responsibility that comes with sharing sensitive information. That
responsibility becomes even greater when the information could incite a
sensationalized public response. At the same time, remaining quiet may not be
the solution in these situations—the adage of no news is good news doesn’t
hold.
Organizations
can still be communicative without sharing groundbreaking information. Sharing
straightforward information about the immediate impact on your organization and
audiences can go a long way, and may be more appropriate than sharing
speculative information, or nothing at all.
Fake
News Flourishes in Society’s ‘Need for Speed’
The expectation of timeliness has
drastically changed thanks to the rise of different platforms for
communication.
When we look
back to SARS in 2003, only Friendster, LinkedIn and My Space were
online—traditional media was still the primary mode of information sharing,
which meant a longer news cycle and more time for teams and communicators to
prepare messaging.
Now, not only
do we have more channels and less time to respond, we must also consider the
kind of information that’s being shared, and how the public might be
influenced. A 2018 study conducted by MIT found that by every standard
measurement, fake news bests the truth: it reaches more people, dives deeper
into social networks, and spreads six times faster than its truthful
counterpart.
Communications
efforts should aim to stave the spread of fake news by feeding social channels
with reliable, truthful and evidence-based information—in as timely a way as
possible. Consistency in messaging is also a key consideration.
Conversations
are Accessible, But Authority to Communicate Should be Carefully Considered
With the demand for transparency,
speed, and information greater than ever before, it means there are also more
voices entering the conversation. When we look at past public health threats
like SARS and H1N1, official communications emanated from governments, public health
authorities, and for the most part, established, high-profile touchpoints.
Today, these
types of conversations are more accessible to a variety of consumer brands and
public facing organizations. In the case of the Wuhan coronavirus,
organizations with stakeholders directly or indirectly impacted—like airlines,
hotels, municipalities, tourism boards, and retail brands—must decide if and
how they will show up.
While being
active in current affairs and leveraging trending conversations can be tempting
for brand relevance, it may be more appropriate to leave the information
sharing to the real experts—health and government bodies.
Ultimately,
public health issues can be an important moment for organizations and brands to
show up for their audiences. However, there is a significant degree of
evaluation and expertise that should be applied in determining the appropriate
content, timing, and delivery of these communications.
No comments:
Post a Comment