Last week the White House announced that it was making changes to its communications strategy. The changes come amid administration concerns that the communications team had not taken the initiative often enough in policy debates. The changes are designed to revamp their operation from one that was more of a campaign-style approach to one that is more suitable for the demands of governance.
Which of the steps outlined in the article at the link do you think will be particularly effective? What challenges do they face in implementing this new strategy? Are there specific messaging strategies or tactics you recommend?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021403550.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I like how they are going public with the changes to their communication plan. It shows that someone is doing the evaluation of the plan and what made his campaign so successful. Having stronger control over messages should have been a given.
I think the second and third items of the plan will be the most effective of the new plan. Replying to news or responses from domestic or foreign issues in a faster way, via email or blog or Gibbs' twitter statement, will be good. I guess this also means that bloggers can too be journalists, if the WH reaches out to them for responses.
The third aspect, the human backdrop, is an interesting tactic. It will definitely make him seem more reachable, like he actually hears what the US population worries about. It also makes him seem less stogy and give the perception that he hasn't been taken over by Washington. He might turn gray faster with the extra traveling.
I am glad that he is getting back on message from his campaigning days. He should be an agent of change.
While I am not surprised that Obama is refocusing his communications strategy, I am a little cynical about how the changes will effect the general public's perception of the Administration.
The first tactic of the Administration ("ushering out unhelpful themes in favor of topics that advanced the candidate's goals") seems like an effective strategy only for candidates only - I am not sure that this approach will work for the President instead of a candidate. The public wants to hear about ALL the key issues, not just the ones that make the President look good, or the ones that advance his goals. The public may become resistant after some time and demand more information on all the topics, even (or perhaps, especially) the ones that put the President in a less than favorable light.
I think that a more aggressive strategy in responding to Republican criticism will be effective. Constructively engaging the Administration's opponents can help Obama control the dialogue and drive discussion instead of appearing like he is simply a passive participant.
I think that the Administration should be more willing to acknowledge shortcomings. If Obama or his Administration makes a mistake (or a misstep) in policy decisions or strategies, I think that the public would appreciate the change of seeing a human being at the helm. While it is a risky proposition, if Obama is able to acknowledge his miscalculations, I think that may pay off in public trust over the long run.
As far as positive changes go, the best one they are implementing is attacking GOP people right away. Enough with the defense, get on offense.
However, I see there being difficulty with "an increasingly selective use of the president's time" yet also having him debate more on television and have a more "honest, open debate." He will need to make sure he delegates carefully and effectively and makes sure that his staff stick to tight deadlines. Additionally, there may be difficulty being more aggressive against the GOP while allowing a more "honest, open debate." What change is there really then? Isn't it time to stop the debate and start the action?
Additionally, they feel that their success with the passage of the Recovery Act was due to good communications - perhaps it was successful because it dealt with the economy. I think the Obama administration may be putting too much emphasis on the importance of good communication and not enough on the actual substance. Perhaps the administration could re-analyze the effects of its past communications and re-visit why the Recovery Act can be passed but not the Health care Bill.
It is definitely good that off topic themes will be filtered out and the economy will be more focused on: "In the White House, they said, that will mean a tighter focus on Obama's commitment to the economy and jobs for average Americans." However, I think they are putting too much emphasis on how communications are developed when they go as far as aiming for "scenes of a more relaxed president in crowds." Not only is it an efficient use of time, it's contrary to looking more aggressive to have Obama appear relaxed.
My advice: Get Obama out there in a suit, let him be efficient with his time, and get something done. Don't worry about the pictures, worry about the substance containing the issues the American people care about.
I also agree with Angela about acknowledging the administration's shortcomings. I think it would be affective, especially in the spirit of bipartisanship, to actually things not done right and then move on, perhaps gaining more people on their side.
I agree with a lot of what has been said, but strongly disagree on one point. "A quicker, more aggressive response to GOP attacks" is definitely not the strongest communications adjustment the Administration is putting forth. It’s actually (in my opinion) the absolute least effective communications strategy the White House could employ at this point. If you have to work on your response, you’re not doing an effective job of controlling the dialogue.
This is an election year and Americans have iterated clearly and loudly that they are tired of hyper-partisanship in Washington. What is the Obama administration saying in this article? They're saying we're going to continue and elevate the partisanship by going after every remark that's said about them by Republicans. What's the going to do in turn? It's going to inspire Republicans to fire back. By fighting every battle, the administration is going to lose. They’re going to lose public support for the President (and for his party in Congress) and lost the focus on issues that they’re looking to gain.
The American public is ready for action that is going to fix the economy, put people back to work and make health care affordable, among other things. If I were advising the White House on communications, I would advise them to ignore it. Ignore the partisan comments and respond to the issues. Never use the word “Republican” or “conservative” in a speech or in comments to the press.
The first point in the Post article is the answer. Keep talking about the issues and keep putting forth specific messaging points. Exercise openness. Putting Gibbs on Twitter and having him send e-mails to the press is a good way to do this. The President needs to be put out there in similar ways. Engage him in two-way dialogue – or give the impression that you’re doing so. Have him take questions from reporters like he did after last week’s meeting with congressional leaders. Don’t give the impression that you’re handling the media (i.e. paragraph about Pfeiffer asking bloggers to post pro-Obama comments), engage them.
As for backdrop, it is what it is. It makes it very evident how much Obama has lost in terms of image for his team to be worrying about this. Getting the President out of Washington and into Middle America is a start, but keeping him here and strong is equally important. People are losing faith in his ability to govern. Having the President in Washington, rolling up his sleeves with Congress talking about jobs and the economy and staying focused on the issues is equally relevant.
I find the fact that they are announcing a new communications strategy very amusing. What is the administration hoping to achieve by announcing a new strategy? In my experience- you just start doing the new strategy, you don't tell people that you are going to do it and tell them each step. It's almost as if they are testing out what the public perception will be before they do it. That to me is a clear sign that they still don't understand how to move past partisanship or campaign style communications.
The first tactic they list I think is key to their success. Keeping the dialog going and informing the public is more important that showing images of POTUS in a casual setting outside of the "bubble." Separating themselves from the partisan bickering and focusing primarily on the issues will be their best opportunity.
I think that it's a good move for the Obama administration to announce changes to their communications strategy. Detailing their plans and outlining what specific changes will be made demonstrates their commitment to effective, open and honest communications.
I agree with Erin that "a quicker, more aggressive response to GOP attacks on the president and his policies" may not be an effective communication strategy. Primarily since this may lead to more hyper-partisanship. While they should not ignore the GOP, an aggressive response can give the perception of partisanship, arguing and non-consensus. Additionally, this tactic may also delay action on the important issues such as the economy and health-care. Despite the challenge, it's best if the parties reach a common ground to expedite the agenda.
While implementing their communication strategy changes, the administration should focus on their goals. In other words, what are they trying to achieve as a result of their efforts.
The major changes that I believe will be most effective are disciplined messaging that will filter out "unhelpful themes" and concentrate on the priorities of the administration. I also think that it will help to dedicate additional online resources. The use of Twitter, the White House blog, and online news sites will afford a timely response. Further, social networking was an effective tactic for the campaign.
Visuals can be a powerful tool, especially with the use of broadcast and electronic media. I think that more frequent showing of president Obama on the road and engaging the public is a positive change. This will encourage the personable, articulate, and charismatic nature that won the support of many Americans.
Finally, press secretary Robert Gibbs was on point when he said in the article that "this is an environment that calls for sharper communication" and the administration is ready, willing, and able to move forward with their realigned communications strategy.
One step that I think will be really effective is having a more aggressive response to GOP attacks. The administration needs to come out more and correct the myths that are being spread about its goals. I saw this a lot during the health care debate this summer. One of the biggest myths was that illegal immigrants would get health care, which was not true and there was a section in the bill that specifically address the issue. Obama didn't say too much on this issue until he address congress in a special joint session on health care. Being in the office that he is in, Obama can potentially shape a message better than any one else and he needs to take advantage of this more.
One thing that I have notice and is probably part of this new communications strategy is having Obama do more town hall meetings. I don't like this at all. He is not campaigning anymore and I think this gives the wrong impression. It makes him look like he isn't ready for the office he is in and doesn't have a strong enough opinion on an issue to not get the public's input.
Making an public announcement is an interesting way to advertise the White House’s new communication strategy. I think it will be effective because it shows that the President is acknowledging a mistake in how his staff handled communication and that he is being accountable and correcting the mistake.
The most effective policy of the three will be to control the topics. This will enable the President to focus on getting his message out to the public to gather support for his agenda instead of constantly replying to what others are saying off the subject at hand. The appointment of Gibbs and new policy of quickly replying electronically to criticism of the President will also help in keeping the facts straight and his critics somewhat at bay because of this rebuttal. Instead of showing the President reaching out and being part of the people with the change in backdrop, I think a more beneficial strategy would be showing a more focused working image to the people with the message,” I am here in Washington working for you.”
Post a Comment