Massaging the message

Sometimes I let my more curmudgeonly side have free rein. Tonight is one of those times.

I recently came into possession of two booklets by a consultancy called futerra (in lower case), who appear to have been commissioned by the UK government's Climate Change Communications Working Group to advise on how best to motivate the changes in behaviour that are needed if the worst effects of climate change are to be avoided. (I mean they want to motivate individuals, not the government itself, of course. That would be a complete waste of effort, as the recent decisions to expand Heathrow and Stansted airports have made perfectly clear).

The booklets are masterpieces in a number of ways. I was particularly struck by these paragraphs:

"Give something (even if it's small) and people feel beholden to do as you ask."

"Fairness is important and people hate it when others benefit from breaking the rules. Reassure people that there's a level playing field."

"Catch me when I'm open to change. There are times of big changes in our lives: getting married, moving house, starting a new job, having a baby or retiring. People are far more open to change in these 'transition zones', because their habits are all in flux."

"Partnered delivery of messages will be more successful. Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders

And best of all:

"Egg-headed scientists are important messengers: they have authority, and reassure people that someone understands the complicated issue of climate change. But we need common-sense and likeable intermediaries as well, to translate the opaque pronouncements of scientists into practical and obvious advice".

I have just e-mailed them, telling them how impressed I was by that last paragraph, and commenting:

Congratulations on packing four well-known shortcomings of scientists into one short paragraph. It is of course quite true that we are all bald (even the women), are incapable of clear communication, and by implication have no common sense or emotional warmth. You missed a few, though. As you can easily verify by watching Dr Who and the James Bond films, we invariably also have very poor dress sense, and a good number of us are mad and/or evil into the bargain.

Can I suggest that in the next edition you might word the case for a mix of skills the other way round? Something like this:

'Sharp-suited marketing and PR people are important messengers: they put things in simple, practical terms and make people feel good about their message. But we need sincere and serious technical specialists as well, to translate the glib oversimplifications of marketeers into authoritative and scientifically rigorous arguments.'

Actually, I'm not really serious in suggesting that. After all, it would never do to caricature a whole profession with a string of tired and inaccurate stereotypes, would it?

Yours...

P.S. What on earth is "partnered delivery" (paragraph 20 of "the rules of the game")? Is it connected to your suggestion in paragraph 24 of "new rules: new game" that people will be particularly open to messages about climate change when they're having a baby? If not, could you translate this no doubt practical and obvious phrase into an opaque pronouncement that I might have a chance of being able to understand?

I will await their reply with interest. But for now I can say that
if the task of bringing about the profound change of heart, attitude and behaviour required for us to have any chance of avoiding unmitigated climatic disaster is to be reduced to the level of a marketing campaign, complete with deliberate emotional manipulation ("give something...and people feel beholden") and dubious reassurances ("there's a level playing field" -- where? Wembley Stadium, maybe?), then I think my despair about our prospects is just about total.