Clarity Blog

If you want effective communications, be an authority first and foremost – not a cheerleader.

In this issue, let’s look at the peripheral canal debate to see how different communication styles can have a huge impact on behavior.

In July, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) published Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which concluded that a peripheral canal was the most promising strategy for saving the Delta and meeting the state’s demand for water. In September, the Pacific Institute countered with More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California that found that reduced water use by California agriculture could negate the need for a canal.

I’ll leave it to more qualified folks to compare the technical merits of the two studies; instead, let’s look at how the two groups presented their cases.

PPIC: The Trusted, Objective Source

PPIC, which maintains a scholarly, neutral persona, issued a rather dry press release about its study. Here’s the lead:

Building a peripheral canal to carry water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the most promising strategy to balance two critical policy goals: reviving a threatened ecosystem and ensuring a high-quality water supply for California’s residents. That is the central conclusion of a report released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).

There are some important words there that you might not have noticed, but that make a difference. “Most promising” and “balance” both tell us that PPIC is looking at all sides of the issue as an objective observer. This reinforces the PPIC image as scholarly and objective, and therefore also reinforces the believability of their study.

Pacific Institute: The Informed Advocate

Compare PPIC’s lead to that of the Pacific Institute’s news release:

California farmers can grow more food and fiber with less water, according to a new analysis released today by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California. The report … offers a comprehensive analysis of how to maintain a strong agricultural economy while improving the efficiency of water use and reducing groundwater overdraft and water withdrawals from the critically threatened Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The Pacific Institute news release offers the canal as the only solution needed, while PPIC, even though it strongly supports the canal, offers it as “the most promising strategy.” The Pacific Institute also is more declarative in its tone – “California farmers can,” for example – which is in keeping with its position as an advocacy group, not a neutral observer. And because it is an advocate, Pacific Institute uses the word “comprehensive” to sell its study in a way PPIC didn’t.

I don’t like unexplained adjectives like Pacific Institute’s “comprehensive” study. In fact, it makes me want to scream, “Just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so! Prove it; don’t just say it!” Here’s how to do that: Say what you’ve done and let the public judge it. For example, take the time to explain why your study is comprehensive … or why your district’s commitment to water quality is exceptional.

Takeaways

These differences in tone and delivery make the PPIC report more believable, and because believability builds trust, it should be the goal of any good communications program.

If you want your water agency to be trusted, don’t be a cheerleader, telling the world how trustworthy you are; just be trustworthy and report what you’re doing. If you want customers to conserve more water, be an authority on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of conservation first and foremost.

Finally, canal opponents were smart to counter PPIC’s study. In the battle for public opinion, you must give your publics something to hold onto, or they just might start believing the other side.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this subject, or your questions about any aspect of water communications. You can reach me at 949/599-1212 ext. 202, or laer@laer.com.

P.S.: The California Farm Bureau responded quickly to the Pacific Institute study, distributing a statement that has perfect pitch, beginning with a good headline: Farmers: Efficiency is one answer, not the answer.

The Bureau made it clear farmers are conserving water, and that all water users, not just farmers, should be part of the solution – statements that are easy to agree with. Here’s a sample:

“Improved efficiency of water use will certainly be a key in meeting California water needs. We favor continued efficiency improvements on farms and ranches, in homes and businesses, and in the use of water to meet environmental goals,” [Farm Bureau president Doug] Mosebar said.

But he said “a whole variety of strategies” will be needed to meet California water demands, including efficiency, water recycling and new water storage, adding, “by itself, improved efficiency just won’t do enough to meet the water needs of California’s growing population.”

Notice how “agricultural water efficiency” is never mentioned? Quite smart!

Tags: agriculture, communication, delta, public policy institute of california, Water, water crisis, water supply

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 25th, 2008 at 12:12 pm and is filed under Laer's Latest, Politics, Water. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.