Communicating the global financial crisis; a case study in bad language

The failure of the Bush finance rescue plan is a case study in poor communication and public affairs management. Also, in counting. Looks like no-one got the Congress vote numbers right.

Who is managing the issue at the White House, or anywhere for that matter? Firstly language. The communicators haven’t clearly outlined who their audiences are, and then crafted the language to appeal to them. At the moment it sounds like language designed for alienation all round.

Those demonstrating on the streets in Washington and New York have made it very clear that the idea of ‘bailing out’ Wall Street’s high flying greed merchants is untenable. Their posters and slogans are clear and concise; this is about greed and punishing gamblers. Somewhere lurking behind those vox pops and posters is the sniff of voters suspicious that the wool has been pulled over their eyes for too long.

They seem to be rejoicing that now is their day of reckoning with those smarty pants bankers and others who allowed the situation to get this bad in the first place – the legislators. From the beginning of this crisis nobody in the front line of the issue seems to have used language that counters that natural urge for punitive measures and embraces all of us by making it our own issue. We haven’t been convinced that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted to resolve or at least lesson all our suffering and ensure better control.

   It is such a failure of message crafting that their own party members of Congress have not been convinced that this type of spending is good for the nation.    No wonder the taxpayers of the US, who will reportedly be shelling out $5000 each for the deal, haven’t bought it either. That the issue has been allowed for so long to be termed a Wall Street problem is at the heart of the problem.

It has limited the cause of the crisis to a narrow street in New York that symbolizes all that is good and bad about capitalism.    These are the guys we all want to see suffer, not revive to come back and do it all again. And what about the deliverers of the message; President Bush and Treasury Secretary Poulson? Notwithstanding polls that have the President low on management ability (and even credibility) and media who note that Mr Poulson is from the dark side (that is to say, a veteran banker), they just don’t cut it communicating complex ideas in this emotional environment.

(After all, Bush hasn’t done at all well convincing Americans and the rest of the world that a war on terror and all that is evil to free thinkers is such a good idea. How on earth are we to expect he can communicate the message that spending government money on worthless loans that might never come good is the answer?) Then there is timing. This is an election year in the US, and nervous campaigners are listening to the mum and dad voters – the one’s marching in the streets and shouting slogans about punishing greed.

   They know this is about the only time in their four year election cycles when they can actually make a difference. Surely the public affairs professionals in the White House sat down and worked out a list of those most vulnerable to these constituents, and then lobbied them and locked in the votes? Apparently not. And it is not just about those who listen to the calls for punishing the greed merchants.

Don’t forget the special interest politicians, those who worry that such an intervention in the so called ‘free hand of the market’ is the death of capitalism and all that has made America great. I think it was Karl Marx who said that capitalism was all about privatizing profits and nationalizing debt. Sure, it’s a complex message, but it didn’t have to be so hard..

Wed Oct 2008 01:10 (3 months, 1 week ago)