I feel as though I’ll regret writing this post, but I feel the need anyway.
I’m seeing a lot of people who are saying they are communications experts judging the latest modifications to the Government’s advice communications and arguing that they are “bad comms”.
Ultimately, it’s easy to say they’re right. The messaging is vague, requires an explanation to make sense, and clearly moves from a direct “do as we say” type of message to a more suggestive “this is on you” kind of message.
But is this ‘bad comms’ or not?
Well, what is bad comms? It’s comms that doesn’t achieve its objectives. And the problem with making any judgements on this is that (unless I’m missing something) with the best intentions, we’re only guessing at the objectives that were set.
We are all talking about it. We are all paying attention. We are all aware of what the messages are and – because it is vague, and we’ve been talking about it – we’ve also been paying attention to the “complex multiple page explanation” – the nuance that is necessary for phase two.
And so I think it’s possible, possible, that the campaign is delivering exactly what those in charge wanted.
I’m sure we’ll have many conversations, thoughts and perhaps studies on this in the future, but that’s my contribution.