The Politics of Meaning

We all know that there’s PR speak. It is not used exclusively by PR practitioners, but by people over the world attempt to maximise the oversell of their statements, or worse still, to minimise the impact of a negative action. But, our audiences are wising up, and that PR speak will no longer solve the problem the way it used to. People read between the lines, and we as professionals have to stop taking our audiences for granted that they will accept our modified, “aligned” version of facts.

Words are political. By that, I mean, each and every word chosen in a dialogue or prose has a political slant – they take on a select and specific meaning in the context they are used, and are chosen to enhance or water-down the statement being made. The “Politics of Meaning” is a class I used to teach graduate students at the University of Auckland in the mid to late 90’s. It was about understanding words in their various perspectives – the obvious meanings, the hidden meanings, and the construed and constructed meanings that both authors and audiences take on them. It also includes the emotionality of words – the situation when we choose certain words to evoke emotion from a receptive audience, and use that emotion to sway their thinking.The problem here, as society and language develop, and with thanks to social media disseminating information so much faster on the time-space continuum than ever before, our audiences are beginning to see through the façade of PR speak, and realise the real meaning of the words being used – the terms “cover-up” or “whitewash” come to mind.

The problem here, as society and language develop, and with thanks to social media disseminating information so much faster on the time-space continuum than ever before, our audiences are beginning to see through the façade of PR speak, and realise the real meaning of the words being used – the terms “cover-up” or “whitewash” come to mind.

Lately, we have seen many examples of this. I won’t touch specifically on investment reports or the actions of some of those “voted” into a position of trust – there are a few PhD dissertations in there; I will instead touch on an example from the last week – courtesy of a well-known bread and cake chain from Singapore.

By now, we should all know about the “misaligned presentation” of soy milk affecting a popular brand in Singapore (with presence in Malaysia). In fact, the chain did well to respond to the issue quickly, and to effectively control it from getting too far out of hand. But the choice of words “misaligned presentation” is insincere PR speak, and as such, does little to reinforce their position or to reassure customers.

Here, the choice of words – slightly bombastic – in their delivery to the audience – may come back to bite them. We as professionals know what it really means – but so do our tech-savvy customers who see it as a bit of a slap on the face. Better terminology would have been to have admitted making the mistake; instead they chose to try and put it on the customer for not fully understanding.

Misaligned presentation is their fault – they packaged it wrongly, and did nothing to explain the reality. In using misaligned presentation, it suggests that the customer misunderstood the situation – but hey, the onus is not on the customer to question every product that is clearly labelled; it is on the organisation responsible to clearly spell out to the customer when something is not as it is presented. Misaligned also implies potentially by accident – we know this was not the case. They claim the empty bottles were left over stock to clear – no issue to make use of them – ethical presentation would have been to get a marker pen and cross out the offending “misaligned” words, and be sure to let the customer know when they hit the checkout.

So my point is – in dealing with the aftermath of an issue with the public, don’t try to outsmart your audience with big words or PR speak – be humble, down to earth, and admit the mistake. People appreciate honesty far more than being subtly told that they contributed to the misunderstanding (which really, is plainly a form of deceit).

The question now – will the brand recover? Some speculate that their response, reasonably swift as it may have been, is not quite enough. But, in my opinion, it will die down, and the brand in the medium to long term (anything past a month) will not be adversely affected. Customers have been going to this chain for years because of their core products, and I don’t think such an incident will affect this. It may, however, affect the consumption of beverages. The best solution; perhaps remove the particular beverage from the shelves, so as not to remind customers of this bump in the road.

And be careful with your words!

Image Source:
(1) ethicore.co.za
(2) contentequalsmoney.com
(3) grist.org

Craig J Selby | Craig is a long-time proponent of structured and measured change. His early career saw him teaching marketing and management at a variety of Universities and PTE’s in his native New Zealand, where he quickly climbed the management ladder to head several private sector institutes. Needing to do that little bit extra, Craig formed his own consultancy firm and was engaged by many in the sector as a trouble-shooter - responsible for internal auditing, restructuring and redevelopment of many departments and institutes in order to remain competitive in a highly contested market. This involvement motivated him to branch out and work with other industries - focussing on change and development as a core theme in business survival. When Craig moved to Malaysia, he went back into the Education sector to share his ideas with local private sector educational facilities. In 2009 Craig co-founded Orchan Consulting Asia, an award-winning Public Relations agency. His areas of specialisation are Crisis Management Communications and Change Management.