By DAVID A. CHAUVIN //
Brainstorming ideas for a column about the dynamic between government communications and public trust, I found myself down a rabbit hole of fascinating historical examples.
There’s Gary Hart’s yacht. The Pentagon Papers and the underreporting of the Vietnam War. Ambiguity regarding COVID vaccination guidance. I really could go on.
But when I came across a recent government-communications study from the Harvard Kennedy School, I found my worldview suddenly challenged.
The January 2023 study examined a phenomenon known as the Formality Effect, ultimately finding that formal government communications are more effective at influencing constituent behavior than informal government communications.
This, of course, flies in the face of popular prevailing opinions that casual messaging – social media, blogging, etc. – is the most effective tool to reach modern audiences.
Before we start canceling our TikToks, let’s consider what this study really means. First, it’s important to understand the difference between “formal” and “complex.”
Too often, corporate and government agencies lean on jargon and convoluted language in their public messaging, trying to sound more officious. This often has the opposite effect, leading to disengagement, frustration and distrust among constituents.
David Chauvin: Let me be clear.
Consider this common scenario: A public water provider issues a press release announcing a new treatment project. The release is full of technical terminology – language that is incomprehensible to 99 percent of the target audience. Instead of reassuring them, this almost certainly leaves residents unsure about the project’s purpose and its effects on their lives.
A more approachable and citizen-centric communication strategy would include plain language, visual aids and online platforms catering to modern communication preferences. Effective government communications should always strive to be clear, concise and empathetic – with a more human-centered approach, government agencies can break down barriers and build trust.
Thankfully, as public utilities go, most Long Island public-water providers are relative Rosetta Stones.
The Long Island Water Conference and its component districts, for example, have gone to great lengths to detail longstanding efforts to test and treat for the deadly contaminant 1,4-dioxane. District commissioners have consistently and transparently relayed information to the community about what 1,4-dioxane is and how water operations work, helping customers decipher what’s being reported and how the Advanced Oxidation Process treatment systems really work.
See also the Suffolk County Water Authority’s emerging contaminants webpage, which offers timelines, fact sheets, water-quality reports and strategic plans, all at curious residents’ fingertips.
To help regional entities do it right, the federal government offers guidelines on effective government communications, including lessons on organizing information, word selection and writing for target audiences, plus tips on keeping messages concise and conversational. The idea is to remove barriers to understanding complex communications.
That looks bad: Or … does it? Most casual readers don’t know (and therefore don’t care).
“Formal,” on the other hand, refers to a consistent aesthetic (official letterhead, appropriate fonts) and the use of clear, direct, intelligible language.
It’s a delicate balance. But plain language and formal aesthetics can coexist in tone and presentation, because plain language is about clarity and simplicity, not big words.
Politics aside, from a purely communications standpoint, Town of Hempstead Supervisor Don Clavin Jr.’s public letter opposing Gov. Kathy Hochul’s affordable-housing plan was incredibly powerful – the opposite of Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert’s Comic Sans rant opposing LeBron James leaving Cleveland in 2010, still ridiculed today.
Clavin’s letter included the town seal, his official signature and a clear explanation of his position. The Harvard Kennedy School study found that the way a communication looks more strongly influences perceptions of its formality than what it says.
The study also found a consistency between what respondents considered “formal” versus “informal” communications – and that even the slightest disparity in formal aesthetic or language was seen as a “significant” difference.
This demonstrates two things: People have a shared understanding of “formal” and “informal,” and official government communications can’t get away with cutting corners.
Of course, no matter how formal or clear or engaging a communication is, the most important variable is the agency’s perceived credibility. If the agency hasn’t built a foundation of trust, any communication is going to be received with skepticism. (Sorry, George Santos, but it doesn’t matter what font you use.)
Long Island’s future hinges on effective communications. The importance of clear messaging to regional challenges like housing, taxes, energy and the environment cannot be overstated.
David A. Chauvin is executive vice president of ZE Creative Communications.
