Communicating an Unpalatable Message
Tyler Crossno
Communicating an Unpalatable Message
This “Brief Exchanges” feature was inspired by a story about a letter sent by a list of “Signers” to their financial ‘peers’ at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The message, while positive in intent, was pointed and critical. Yet tone matters, if effectiveness is important.
Sarah Finch talked about it in depth with Communication Intelligence.
The objective of the letter begs the question, how does a communicator successfully present important facts when they might be perceived as unpalatable and maybe hostile?
Tyler Crossno, a creative producer at Revel Energy has some ideas:
Pointed or offensive communication to an audience can have different effects depending on the audience, some could be turned off immediately by the messaging and others could be more inspired by content that is dealing with controversy in some way.
I believe the key to making this work is striking a balance, essentially using that controversy as a hook to intrigue, but follow it up by providing a clear and authentic perspective to persuade readers that have bought in enough, to continue reading.
That clear and authentic perspective requires due-diligence throughout the writing process to completely cover a topic from all available perspectives to give the most well-rounded solutions or answers to balance the poor taste in your mouth that unpalatable content leaves.
Can you elaborate on this: “I believe the key to making this work is striking a balance, essentially using that controversy as a hook to intrigue..."
Controversy can create intrigue, and often does. Some marketers use controversy as a topic to try and generate more of itself. While this could result in higher engagement potential, it leaves the reader with more complicated questions rather than the answers they might have been looking for.
Can you further define the meaning of, “... but follow it up by providing a clear and authentic perspective to persuade readers that have bought in enough to continue reading.” What would that look like with some level of detail?
Wield controversy carefully by sprinkling it into a title to attract initial attention, then following up by addressing it directly to make it clear to the reader all perspectives, even the controversial ones, are being covered to create authentic and comprehensive writing through due-diligence.
Will the communication in the letter at Davos, in your opinion, prove persuasive and if so, why and if not, what core element was, in your opinion, missing?
As I mentioned previously - authenticity is really the value here. Providing answers while trying to present all sides of a perspective may not be the most directly persuasive way of writing, but it gives the reader a framework to make a decision themselves rather than just accepting whatever easy answer may be presented.
A self-made decision is significantly stronger than a spoon-fed idea: conviction over persuasion.
Editor note: this interview was edited for clarity
