The language we use has always had a profound impact on how we think about an issue and how we tackle it. And nowhere is this truer than in the communication of climate change.

For example, the term ‘climate change’ itself can easily give the impression of something gradual and even natural, while ‘global warming’ can be confusing for communities more familiar with winter storms and flooding than drought and desertification. 

On top of this, communicating the uniqueness, urgency and complexity of what is happening to our planet is becoming increasingly difficult in an ever more polarised world.

New research suggests we may need to completely rethink the way we do it. 

Raising the linguistic stakes

One response to the increased urgency of tackling climate change has been to up the ante. Activists have begun adopting starker terms such as ‘climate emergency’, 'climate breakdown' and even ‘mass extinction’, and some of the media has followed suit. Last year, the Guardian newspaper recommended that its journalists start using terms such as ‘global heating’ and ‘climate crisis’.

Recent research has been partially supportive of such moves. For example, a neurological study in the US last year showed that ‘climate crisis’ and ‘environmental destruction’ got a far higher emotional response from participants than more traditional terminology, and especially among sceptical Republicans.

What is less clear is whether this intensified language does anything to change the understanding and beliefs of doubters. Making people’s blood boil may not be enough.

Experimenting with metaphors

One of the reasons is that we don’t have anything in our lived experience to help us grasp the enormity and complexity of climate change. In this respect, metaphors like the ‘greenhouse effect’ can play an important role. But what is less certain is whether such descriptive analogies actually motivate people to take action, and this is what more recent research has focused on.

For example, an online survey of 3,000 Americans carried out by US psychologists found that reading about the ‘war against global warming’ led respondents to perceive climate change as more of a risk and more urgent, and to express a greater willingness to reduce their carbon footprint.

Other psychological research has suggested that analogies between climate change and medical disease may be worth exploring. They argue that both are risks caused or aggravated by human behaviour; depend on treating the underlying problem instead of the symptoms; and are hard to reverse.

Shifting the time-frame

Another challenge is the time-frame of traditional climate change messages. They often require us to anticipate, understand and act on something in the future that we haven’t yet experienced.

Social psychologists from the universities of Florida and Cologne have instead suggested we should focus our climate change discourse on past effects rather than future projections. They surveyed 1,600 people including conservative climate sceptics and found this group in particular tended to become more pro-environmental after reading messages focused on returning to a more desirable past or seeing images of a currently dried up river bed next to the same river full of water several years earlier.

An image problem

Such imagery can certainly lend power to complex concepts like climate change. However, Adam Corner, Research Director of the Climate Outreach Communication Network, thinks that many of the climate change images currently used actually don’t work.

He cites studies showing that traditional images of polar bears and melting glaciers are often seen as too remote from people’s everyday lives to inspire action while images of politicians or celebrities are judged to be simply irrelevant. Worse still, images of stereotypical protesters and publicity stunts are often viewed as ideological and polarising.

Corner suggests that a greater focus on people directly affected by climate events and on the local impact of climate change  juxtaposed with practical solutions  may be more motivational.

De-polarising storytelling

Stories draw all these elements of communication together and have a particular power to help us understand our world. But even here, communications specialists like George Marshall think we may be getting it wrong when it comes to climate change.

Marshall believes that the classic hero/villain narrative is counterproductive. He warns that “Once unleashed, enemy narratives can take on a life of their own and come back to bite us.” Instead, we need to recognise that “We are all involved and we all have a stake in the outcome.” The story should be one of communities uniting, supporting each other and working together to meet an unprecedented challenge.

Having studied the attitudes to climate change of everyone from oil workers in Canada to local communities in India, Marshall also argues that it is important not to dismiss or disrespect the way people have lived their lives. The story should instead tap into communal pride and identity, and stress the continued pertinence of these communities’ values.

More listening, less talking

When it comes to motivating people to care about climate change, it is clear that facts are not enough. We need to frame people’s understanding through the words and images we use, the analogies we draw and the stories we tell,

And because reactions to any climate change communication will differ according to a person’s level of knowledge, political affiliation, identity and values, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
Instead, we need to listen more carefully to our audiences and adapt our communication accordingly.

​“Pretty soon we’re going to live in a world where everyone has the power to share and experience whole scenes as if you’re just there, right there in person”
 
This was Mark Zuckerberg, at last month’s Mobile World Congress (MWC 2016), explaining why Facebook is investing so much in virtual reality technology. Or at least, I’m told these were his words because although I was at the Barcelona Congress, like most attendees, I couldn’t actually afford the 2,000€-plus special pass to see him in person.

​However, the fact that hundreds of other attendees - or at least their companies - were willing to stump up the cash suggests that, when it comes to communication, the “real” still trumps the “virtual”.

Instead, here they all were wandering around an exhibition space the size of 15 football pitches, touching, feeling and trying out the new products and services. Just like the world outside, an awful lot of buying, selling and browsing was going on in a physical location.

Gaming and other entertainment will probably be the first application of this new VR technology but even here there are technical challenges to overcome. ​I say this because the most popular virtual reality exhibits in Barcelona included a heavy dose of distinctly non-virtual mechanisation. ​

​For the sake of the planet, I hope he’s right because according to the organisers 40% of MWC attendees come from outside Europe and that’s the equivalent carbon footprint of 80 fully-loaded 747s.
​

 taking part in virtual meetings, I didn’t even see many people on Skype (probably because the Congress’s Wi-fi service was abysmal).

No doubt virtual reality has amazing potential but it doesn’t just face technical challenges. It will surely take some time before the human brain itself fully embraces this brave new world of simulated physical intimacy. 

​“Simplifications and misunderstandings have damaged our perception of Munch’s work,” says the Thyssen’s Artistic Director Guillermo Solana. “We have been left with the characterisation, rather like Van Gogh, that he was some kind of tormented, alcoholic depressive and his most iconic work has been turned into an emoticon.”

The museum’s own shop could be accused of doing the same thing by selling bags and motorcycle helmets emblazoned with the panic-stricken effigy. But to be fair the exhibition itself is much more varied as I hope the video below illustrates.

​​

​The final room of the Thyssen exhibition features a tellingly philosophical quote from the artist himself:

"In my art I have tried to explain to myself life and its meaning I have also tried to help others to clarify their lives."
 
Edvard Munch – Archetypes runs until 17 January 2016 at the Thyssen Museum in Madrid and more information can be found on the museum’s English language website. The video is produced by Reportarte.

TV, radio, print and online news outlets still reach tens of thousands or even millions of people and, as much as they draw their news from social media, what they report also fuels and even sets the agenda for many online conversations.

The problem is that engaging journalists and their editors can be time-consuming and sometimes frustrating; so when is it worth making the effort?   

 As a journalist, I believe the simple answer is: when you have something novel, significant and relevant to offer them.  By novel, I mean something that is timely and original; by significant I mean something that affects many people or a prominent individual; by relevant, I mean something that connects with the media’s audience because of proximity, self-interest or empathy.

Based on those three criteria, I’d like to suggest ten questions that might help your organisation decide if it’s worth offering a story to the news media.

Novelty

1. Can you offer something that will be counter-intuitive or surprising to the media’s audience?
Look at the story you are about to offer the media. Is there is anything surprising about it, or that breaks apart conventional wisdom? If there is, the story is the news media’s equivalent of gold dust.

2. Is there something unique about the event or activity you are publicising?
News organisations receive hundreds of emails and calls about meetings, events and campaigns. They will only be interested in yours, if there is something unusual about it or different from all the others.  Think superlatives: biggest, longest, first…

3. Do you have new information or findings that the media’s audience does not already know about?
This is a fundamental question since, as the word implies, ‘news’ is something that is ‘new’. The media is only interested in things that have just happened, not things that happened yesterday or last week. Equally, if you have information, even if it’s about something that has already happened, it must be new or it won’t get covered.

4. Can you offer a unique or at least different analysis of existing information?
Apart from new information, the news media also welcomes fresh analysis or comment; especially if it conflicts with current interpretations. This is because news outlets look for things that push a story forward. Comments that simply repeat the opinion of others, or welcome their actions, are rarely covered.

Significance

5. Does your information, analysis or activity involve or seriously affect a lot of people?
This may be obvious to you but not necessarily to the media. So, make sure you include selected facts and figures in the information you offer to show the scale and gravity of the issue. Use context and superlatives to emphasise the impact of the problem or issue. (I.e. the largest, most serious, longest X in 10/20/50 years.) Equally, if you’re publicising a large event or campaign, be as specific as possible about numbers.

6. Does your information or activity affect or involve any prominent people?
Something is of interest to the media not just because of the number of people affected or involved but also because of who those people are. Having a prominent supporter, whether famous or powerful, willing to speak out about a concern will greatly increase media coverage of the issue.

Relevance

7. Does your issue affect or involve people who live among or near to the media’s audience?
Whether we like it or not, people are generally more concerned about things that happen near to them; hence the saying, ‘All news is local’. Even if your issue is global, it is always worth looking for, and highlighting, a local angle that will interest national or regional media.

8. Does your issue have implications for the wellbeing of the media’s audience?
The media will usually be interested, if you can show that your story has clear implications for the health, security or finances of its audience. Practical guidelines and tips that address this self interest are especially useful.

9. Can you connect the issue with the media’s audience on an emotional or psychological level?      
We are all human and share many of the same fears, needs and desires. ‘Human interest’ stories about something extraordinary happening to an individual appeal to our empathy and are often highly newsworthy. You can encourage media coverage by offering quotes, photos and an opportunity to interview the person in question.

10. Does your activity, information or analysis concern something already in the news?
If it does, you know that the media has already judged the subject as relevant. So, monitor the news every day for unexpected opportunities to contribute your expertise and offer comment to the media quickly. Alternatively, look ahead for inevitable news stories like anniversaries and perennial events that you can link your story to.

These are the questions I tend to ask myself but what about you? Any comments or suggestions are most welcome!

Popular folklore often has it that the PR profession is either made up of devious manipulators with more power than responsibility or self-styled gurus with more opinions than evidence. 

Last week’s World Public Relations Forum in Madrid did its best to dispel both stereotypes.

The 3-day event chose ‘Communications with Conscience’ as its main theme and kicked off with a one-day Research Colloquium to get at the facts.

Rhetorical questions
The use of a question to make a point rather than elicit a specific answer is particularly effective for appealing to shared interests or perceptions. Anti fracking campaigners might ask, ‘What part of turning water into toxic sludge makes sense?’ just as a Democrat poster campaign in the 1960 US Presidential election used the slogan ‘Would YOU buy a used car from this man?’ together with a photo of the Republican candidate Richard Nixon. But you had better be sure that the audience shares your answer or you might face the same problem as John Cleese in the film Life of Brian when he asks ‘What have the Roman’s ever done for us?’

The rule of 3
If the point you’re trying to get across includes a list, keeping it to three things will make it more memorable. The old construction industry safety slogan, ‘A fall, a slip, a hospital trip’, is still remembered because it rhymes and contains three elements. Including both ‘a fall’ and ‘a slip’ is perhaps a bit redundant but a list of two things is not enough; just as four is definitely too many. In the Second World War, Winston Churchill warned the British people that he could only offer ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat’ but he needn’t have bothered because today we only remember ‘blood, sweat and tears’.

The order of words is also important. If one element of the list is longer than the rest, it’s best to leave it to the end, as in ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ The same is true for any element of a list that breaks the pattern established by the other two. Left to the end, the element of surprise can add humour, as in ‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’ or urgency as in ‘One world, one future, one chance’.

Parallel phrases

If your aim is to point up similarities or differences, an effective way to do it is to use two clauses that are grammatically parallel. Whether it’s, ‘Have a break. Have a Kit-Kat’ or, ‘The future’s bright. The future’s Orange’, advertisers love to use the trick to imply some link between a desirable activity or quality and their own product.  However, the isocolon, as the Greeks called it, is just as useful for social campaigners.  ‘Think global. Act local’ is simple and memorable while who could argue with Susan B Anthony’s ‘isocolonic’ even handedness, ‘Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less’.

Furthermore, Chiasmus carries with it a sense of mutuality. In 1963, President Kennedy famously turned the battle cry of the Three Musketeers, ‘All for one and one for all’ into an argument for civil rights: ‘…the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened’

Of course, none of this is to suggest that how you say something is the only thing that counts.  Content matters. If you don’t have something to say in the first place, no amount of rhetorical tricks will save you from sounding like Rowan Atkinson’s Sir Marcus Browning

As I hope the video below illustrates, “Cézanne: site/non-site”, which opens on 4 February in Madrid, highlights a vital dialogue between Cézanne’s internal and external work. The crumpled tablecloths in his still lifes evoke the mountain slopes of Provence, while the structure of his landscapes sometimes look like tables on which houses and trees sit like fruit and crockery. (Video production by SpainTVNews)

By the way, that photo at the end of the video was taken just a year before Cézanne’s death; a tragedy that itself illustrates his very physical attachment to nature. The 67-year-old artist caught pneumonia while he was trying to capture a last view of his beloved Provence amidst a torrential downpour. He collapsed and was taken home by a passerby but died a few days later.

“Cézanne: site/non-site” is on at the Thyssen museum in Madrid until 18 May and further information can be found on the museum’s English website. If you’re passing through the Spanish capital, it’s well worth a visit.

Technical information
 The video can be used free-of-charge by any broadcaster, blogger or website provided reference is made to the Thyssen Museum’s activities. Further information including free download of the video, additional rushes, soundbites and stills are available at the SpainTVNews / Reportarte production and assistance services in Madrid

A recent study suggested that classical piano competition judges are more influenced by visual performance than the actual music. This clearly shocked a few musicians but it seems to me that the implications might be just as important for spokespeople. After all, if music is not just “the art of sound” then neither is verbal presentation just “the art of rhetoric”.

The research by psychologist and concert pianist Chia-Jung Tsay has been published by the US National Academy of Sciences but here are the essentials.

Tsay gave more than 1,000 volunteers samples of either audio, silent video or video with sound, and asked them to rate the top three finalists from 10 international classical music competitions. What she found was that the actual competition winners were far more likely to be correctly identified by those who were assigned the silent videos. The accuracy of those who viewed video with sound or just listened to the performance was no better than chance.

Of course, the overwhelming nature of visual information has long been accepted by communications professionals.  As far back as the 1970s Albert Mehrabian famously showed that, in verbal communication involving feelings and attitudes, more than half of the message is carried by the facial expression of the speaker.

However, Tsay’s study raises at least three additional factors worth considering.

1. Even experts get distracted
Firstly, the appeal of the visual to a general audience may be just as strong for an expert audience. In an interview with America’s NPR, Tsay made clear that the study was not just about the volunteers in her experiment. 

"What this suggests is that the original judges — the professional musicians — had actually heavily overweighted visual information at the expense of sound. That's why volunteers who only saw the performers were able to guess what the judges had decided”.

Furthermore, even Tsay’s participants included a large number of professional musicians and judges who should have been able to focus on sound. Yet they were no better at identifying the actual winners unless they had seen the silent video. The implication could be that even spokespeople addressing expert audiences or appearing on a high-brow TV programmes need to be just as careful about their visual performance. 

2. Gesture communicates more than attractiveness
Secondly, within the visual sphere, the performers’ movements and gestures appear to have far more impact on their audience than their physical attractiveness. When participants were asked to identify the most attractive contestant, their choices did not match the actual winners of the competitions. 

However, when participants were shown recordings distilled to simple outlines of motion they still managed to identify the winners. No one is suggesting that a spokesperson should fling themselves around like a concert pianist but the study certainly adds credence to the importance of gesture and posture appropriate to the context. At least, it suggests that less attractive spokespeople don’t need plastic surgery.

3. Gender and race are not so important
Finally, and most encouragingly, the race or gender of the performers had no impact on the way they were judged. Indeed, when participants were presented with still photographs of the contestants, they were not able to select the actual winners. Whether this would apply as much to spokespeople is open to doubt, but the study at least questions prevailing assumptions.

A word of caution
Of course, none of this suggests that music or words do not matter. After all, the participants were judging between finalists not amateurs. If you or I were to sit down at a piano, posture and gesture wouldn´t get us very far. Similarly, few spokespeople are likely to display confident behaviour if they don’t know what they want to say. 

The icing on a cake may be what grabs our attention but without the cake it’s a bit sickly. Any spokespeople seeking musical inspiration might be better off looking at the performances of Vladimir Horowitz than Liberace.

“Users of the internet are now being turned into its customers. It is becoming harder and harder to hide ourselves. In the era of hypervisability - promoted by social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Google - everything we do is being turned into profit. While wearable technology like Google Glass will tell Google who we see and meet, the internet of things will let objects track us. We are being packaged up as data and are losing what is most interesting about us; our mystery.”

With these words, Andrew Keen, author of “Digital Vertigo”, certainly got my attention at this year’s Safer Internet Forum in Brussels. 

Keen's keynote address to hundreds of academics, entrepreneurs, EU policy makers, parents, children and teenagers was an unabashed attack on Silicon Valley’s message of a sharing, transparent digital utopia.

Of course others, such as Jeff Jarvis, argue that there are many social and personal benefits to living a more public life on the internet. Which vision of our future is correct, if either, is obviously still up for debate but last week’s meeting in Brussels definitely included some interesting observations.

I was particularly struck by a new review of studies presented by Sonia Livingston and her EU Kids Online team at the London School of Economics. This showed a dramatic increase in very young children’s use of the internet over the last five years. In the UK, a third of 3 to 4 year olds now go online and 87% of 5-7 year olds. In Sweden and the Netherlands, the figures for pre-schoolers are 70% and 76% respectively.

Touchscreen tablets and smartphones, which don’t require typing or mouse skills, are behind much of the growth in early-age usage and the big providers of applications (apps) know it all too well.

The study observes that there are now thousands of apps available that are aimed directly at the early childhood market. Many of them do not disclose the company’s data collection and sharing practices nor do they provide easy-to-use opt-out options for parents and children.

In this respect, another session at the Forum, led by internet safety and security expert John Carr, offered an amusing anecdote. One leading technology company recently tried an experiment with its 60-page Terms and Conditions document. On page 57, the company gave a telephone number and offered $10,000 to anyone who had read that far. No one called.

The same session also made clear that the apps we download are not as free as they claim to be. In fact, around 70% of app provider’s revenue now comes from in-app purchases made though supposedly free apps. For example, recent figures suggest that in-app purchases made up 76 percent of revenue in the US Apple App Store for iPhone in January 2013, up from 53 percent the previous year. Parents with young children should certainly keep an eye on the bills.

There again, according Sonia Livingston’s study, parents may not be that responsible either. Four in five mothers on social networking sites already upload images of their under-two-year-old children and one in four does the same with their antenatal scans. 

These youngsters will be the first generation to experience the aggregated effect of living in a digital world over their whole lifetime. Whatever our take on the social media revolution, it’s a choice they will never have had.

Note to readers
I should make clear that I work with the organisers of the Safer Internet Forum as an independent communications adviser. However, I have no part in the selection of participants at the Forum and the views expressed here are entirely my own and in no way reflect those of the organisers or sponsors of this event. For those interested in further information, a full report of the 2013 Safer Internet Forum will soon be available at the saferinternet website.