.gif)
Why organisations make crass mistakes with written communication…
…and what PRs can do to stop it happening.
Writing is something that everyone thinks they can do. For those of us working in public relations it’s a core skill. We all know how to write press releases, articles, reports, web pages, social media content and much more. Or we should. Yet finding the right words, the appropriate tone of voice and the most suitable communication channels to reach our audiences is trickier than many people imagine.
Across the worlds of business, the public sector, not for profits and beyond there are shocking examples of communications that are numbingly inept, displaying a lack of compassion and a failure to understand the basics of clarity, simplicity and empathy.
Many of these have been written by people who probably don’t have a background in communications. They might be CEOs, lawyers, HR personnel, customer relations advisers or general admin staff.
Their organisations may well have a department devoted to PR and marketing, yet these communications experts are invariably perceived as the folks who bash out press releases, write company brochures, design posters, produce website content and manage social media channels. End of story.
As a result the communications teams are not involved in the content of emails, letters or social media (although that can be tracked) to external audiences, that is until the damage has been done.
Communication when working in silos
Take two examples. I once worked for a medical membership organisation. There were just four of us in the PR team covering media relations, publications, the newsletter, social media and the website. The membership department was on a different floor and didn’t often talk to us. After doing an audit of how the organisation was communicating with its members I discovered that the only communication some had received over the past year was when they were asked for money. Woops.
The other example was when I was working as a press officer for a large public sector body dealing with complaints. The website was very consumer friendly, written in plain English with lots of references to “you”. But letters to complainants were written in language that was formal, impersonal and brusque. By accident I came across one with the phrase “you are not an appropriate person”.
The intention was to explain that the complaint needed to be from the person experiencing the grievance, not a representative or proxy. Couldn’t this have been explained in more sensitive language?
My latest experience, as a consumer this time, has been with a large financial services company who invested some money from my late mother in an investment bond for her grandchildren.
After her death we wanted to cash in the bond. As a trustee I received a series of forms that had to be completed, asking me to supply the names of “the entity” (some mass of ectoplasm designed to suck the lifeblood out of anyone?), “controlling persons” (presumably me as a trustee – not the Stasi police) and “the organisation” (was my family an organisation?).
The forms were returned to me three times with a message saying they were “incomplete”. But when I called the customer relations department asking for help interpreting their gobbledegook they said, “Our staff are not trained to offer that kind of advice”.
After the money had finally been released – a process that took a torturous six months – I received a letter telling me that a “Chargeable Event” had occurred. In plain English this meant that I had to pay tax.
Language and tone matter
The language and tone that organisations use speaks volumes about how they care about their consumers, clients, stakeholders and staff. Get it right and it creates a warm fuzzy feeling. A recent letter from the DVLA transferring my late mother’s car into my name expressed their condolences for my loss. Admittedly it was a standard response, but at least they showed sensitivity.
Appropriate use of language needs to be a thread running throughout any organisation. In my sector – education and skills – many CEOs, school heads, college principles and senior university staff had to handle very sensitive communications during the pandemic. This involved telling people about closures, advising them on learning remotely and how teacher assessment would work.
In schools it was usually the head teacher who communicated these messages. In further education colleges it was likely to be the principal. In universities the task might fall to the head of student services or a director.
Not all of these people had a background in communications. Some possessed a natural aptitude for empathy and tone of voice, but I have come across examples of staff (many very senior) who fumbled through without any overall strategy, using language that was curt, vague and insensitive. Why didn’t they involve the communications professionals?
We learned a lot during the pandemic about clear and compassionate communication. But there are still many organisations that are tone deaf to how their messages are being received. Check through the weekly consumer champion columns in the national press to see examples.
Here’s one about Southern Rail. During prolonged periods of service disruptions in 2016-2017 due to industrial action, customers complained about a lack of timely updates, unclear information about alternative travel options and insufficient empathy for the inconvenience caused.
Why PR matters
The failure of organisations to involve PR professionals in their communications is something that Stephen Waddington has written about in his weekly newsletter.
“While management recognises the relationship perspective of an organisation it doesn’t necessarily view this as the expertise of public relations practice” he wrote recently. The challenge is how to shift mindsets so that communications professionals are involved in all organisational communications, not shunted off into a silo.
There are ways of dealing with this. Telling someone that they need to improve the tone and content of their writing may be seen as an afront so needs to be handled delicately.
Point out that you are there to help and make their job easier. Volunteer to look through official documents and forms to check that they are user friendly. But avoid policing the organisation or you will end up being accused of being intrusive.
Offer to run staff training in writing. This may not produce instant results but could raise awareness. Try to get the issue discussed at board level. Build trust. If people can see the results of your input then perceptions will start to shift.
As a postscript I have just received another missive from the finance company saying that “the envelope has expired” with no instructions about what I was to supposed to do. Lay it to rest? Pen a eulogy? Or just give up the ghost.
Anne Nicholls is a freelance PR/communications professional specialising in education, skills and careers. She is chair of the CIPR’s Education & Skills sector group.