One sphere where the word “message” is thriving is PR. I was a bit of a late bloomer, so when I wandered into that industry 10 ½ years ago I was initially intrigued by the abundance of messages. The PR people tirelessly crafted and polished all kinds of messages. There were “key messages,” “top-tier messages,” “deep-dive messages” and so on and so forth. Usually, the messages were simply listed with bullet points, but that method quickly gave way to “the messaging framework,” which relied on lots of razzle dazzle in the form of boxes, charts, graphs and arrows. The crafting and finalizing of messages was followed, after the interview or the tradeshow speech or the “above-the-fold” story in a “biz pub” by a flurry of “recaps” in which the value of the strategic counsel provided by the PR people was highlighted. Sometimes an article or speech “reflected key messages” or “captured both key and secondary messages.” Sometimes, though rarely, “the messaging bubbled up” or, my all-time favorite, “the messaging really popped!”
I thought the messages themselves were limp. Let’s say a client had decided to shut down its manufacturing plant in Youngstown, Ohio. Invariably, and I do mean invariably, the first message would be: CLIENT NAME is deeply committed to the people and the economic viability of Youngstown, Ohio. At first I didn’t believe it was possible to put shit like that out into the world without getting your face dirty, but I soon learned that if you repeat the words enough times, with the same conviction shown, or faked, by those who tell us that government employees are to blame for budget deficits, or by politicians who preach about the moral imperative of fiscal responsibility without even mentioning defense spending, it becomes true.
This tactic answers to many names, including positioning, backgrounding and “putting a stake in the ground.” I call it lying, and it’s not cheap: Even at the most junior level, PR people are dramatically more expensive than government employees. And corporations and other organizations fork over millions of dollars for PR counsel – including messaging – for one simple reason: It works.
One place where it works quite well is on the news. I understand that reporters are at the mercy of the PR people, who have the money and the access to power and influence. I get that, I almost accept that. But what astounds me is how frequently and shamelessly the word “message” is used by people who I thought were supposed to at least pretend to be objective.
Over the past few days, there have been many, many messages. Several former members of U.S. Representative David Wu’s staff confessed on the pages of the Oregonian – anonymously – that the reason they quit en masse is that they had come to believe that their boss was having a psychiatric meltdown. They were so concerned that they staged an intervention, which did not go well. “The message here is that they’re getting off a sinking ship,” quipped one political analyst over the weekend. Problems abound in the Middle East, where, according to Charlie Rose and his friends, the real challenge is to have one message that “fits” both the countries themselves and the U.S. policies concerning them. Closer to home, friction continues in Wisconsin, but according to a guest on Washington Week, the real significance of the uproar in Madison is that it is a golden opportunity to test the messaging for 2012. A guest on a radio program said that what he wants to do is “put the hood back in neighborhood.” Wow, the announcer said. That’s a powerful message. And on the downside of Sunday afternoon, after playing the glorious Wade in the Water by the Staple Singers, the host of American Routes said, “That’s a message song.”
The tone for messages are set, of course, at the top: The White House. After meeting with as many billionaires as he could in California last week, the president came up to Oregon to do the same out at Intel, where there’s an executive he’s just appointed to some feel-good group to talk about innovation and all sorts of other cool stuff. Many messages were conveyed by a woman who, though she holds a fairly senior position at the White House, calls herself “Jen.” I’ve heard and read lots about the Democrats – and specifically Obama – not being very good at messaging, and after hearing Jen talk – I would not use the term “speak” to describe it – I tend to agree. She came on the local news the night before Obama’s visit to crow, as if in the midst of a pre-game locker room huddle, about how important the visit is, how important Oregon is and how hard she’s been working to make sure the message comes through. According to Jen, we’re going to “out-educate the world and win the future.” I cannot speak to the part about winning, but in terms of “out-educating the world,” that’s the exact, precise opposite of what we’re doing in Oregon, where we approach education as if it were excess calories. Jen concluded her interview with all the grace of a rabid college football fan at the end of the fourth quarter: She said, actually said, from the White House, “Woo hoo Oregon!” Before handing it back to the anchors, the reporter who did the story grinned into the camera and said, in case we’d missed it, “Woo hoo Oregon!”
I really hate to nit-pick every move the president makes, but here’s my problem with his visit to Oregon. In his State of the Union speech last month, Obama made some great points about light rail and high-speed trains. Whether any of it ever comes to fruition or not is secondary, I think, to the message: We need to develop other, more affordable, more environmentally responsible ways of moving ourselves and our stuff around. It’s a great message, and I for one celebrate the fact that we have a president who is willing to make it pop by mentioning it in his State of the Union address. It’s also a message that resonates well in Portland, home to one of the most efficient and forward-focused light-rail systems in the country. In fact, for $2.35 you can ride a train from the airport all the way to Intel’s front door in the town of Hillsboro ($4.75 buys an all-day, all-zone pass, covering both out and back.) My guess is that detailing security for the president makes my worst day about as significant as discovering an eyelash in the bathroom sink as I’m brushing my teeth, but still, imagine how powerful the images would have been of the president riding one of the best public transportation systems in the nation – one that is tirelessly bashed, of course, by conservatives – to go meet with the newest member of his big business posse.
Instead, he took not one helicopter, not two helicopters, but three. And although I’m sorry to rain on Jen’s woo hoo parade, that was totally off message.
