Between risk communications and crisis communications, the line is very fine. So fine than sometimes, even emergency professionals have difficulties distinguishing between the two. One is not the other. But if you didn’t invest in risk comms, making your crisis comms effective is going to be harder, for you as emergency managers or professionals and the public we serve.
We see and read a lot of articles about crisis communication and those are necessary tools for your planning efforts. But, risk communication is all about education and prevention. It's where the audiences that you're trying to reach, really get integrated in your planning and become stakeholders.
Our audiences want to be part of the process and are no longer content with just being spectators. So, risk communication is where you start engaging with your citizens or target audience and not just talking to them. It's a two way conversation. Communicate with means listen to what they need and want to know and how they desire to get that information and is about their perceptions. Communicate with means as well, being ready and open to change some of your plan to make sure you reach them.
Risk communication should be a completely integrated part of your emergency planning process and certainly not done just once! Step by step, once you've started, you must keep the dialogue on risks going and see it as an continual process which is always achievable.
With proper risk communications, people learn about risk and hazards that matter to them and how to get prepared to face these. The public has the opportunity to become part of your plan as emergency actors and contributors. If you don't engage before, then, during a crisis, you will spend time trying educating and explaining your plan. The fact is, that during an emergency, especially during a crisis, time runs out fast.
Many different segments of your audiences should be included in your risk communication plan. We often forget a critical audience, but emergency workers, the boots on the ground when accident occurs, should be near the top of your communications priorities. Don't forget to educate your own people about your plan, the risks and hazards identified and how you plan to respond to incidents. It is all about trust and if your own people don't trust your plan and they have fears about risk, that could permeate to other audiences.
I will address organizational or internal communications in another article soon, but in the meantime, I look forward to reading your opinions on the importance of investing in risk communication.
Special thank's to Patrice Cloutier for is help in my first English article!
4 Comments
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this question. Too much time, in fact. The distinction that makes the most sense to me is this:
Lots of people will tell you differently, but they are mostly either confused or they are trying to protect their own territory.
Soon I will post more on this question in my Risky Business series
By the way, having re-read your excellent contribution you are obviously neither confused nor territorial. Congratulations on your first english article.
Phil, thank you for your comments!
I would add on your crisis comm point, the need to plan it before must be a part of the prepardness.
You are correct, that is exactly why I wanted to started with this article : so many people, event in the emergency prepardness sector misunderstand or are miked up with the two comms. I can understand them, because as I said, the line is so thin.
Can't wait to read you soon!!
J'ai neglige le blog ces derniers jours; mais vous pouvez le trouver via mon site web www.beaumontcommunications.com Cherchez le Beaublog dans le menu. Maintenant, je cherche des liens aux autres blogs et Twitter feeds. Je veux que le blog parle plus directement aux interets de ceux qui travail sur le front line et au niveau regional.
.
Would you like to comment?
You must be a member. Sign In if you are already a member.