There have been a lot of thoughtful comments regarding Janice Reynold's
suggestion that breastfeeding advocates chose a different label.
The root of Janice's suggestion comes from her concern about the credibility
of the message. It is true that trusted, credible "third parties" can
deliver the most believable information.
There is a technique in public relations that uses the concept of
third-party credibility to place messages in news coverage that support an
organization's own messaging. This technique recognises that the public
places less faith in a message when the source is perceived to be biased.
More bias = less trust. It's a technique that capitalizes on the
journalist's desire to present balanced reporting.
The Chicago newspaper article contains a good example of technique at work.
To support the comments of Marsha Walker we have "Paula Meier, director for
clinical research and lactation at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical
Center, ... and Frank Greer, a professor of pediatrics and nutritional
sciences at the University of Wisconsin Medical School."
The comments by Susan Carlson, professor of nutrition at the University of
Kansas also somewhat support Marsha's messaging. (Qualified or less
enthusiastic expert comment is actually a positive because this adds to the
audience's perception of the expert's lack of bias an therefore boosts
credibility.)
The formula industry is supported in the article with third-party commentary
as well: "Dr. Richard J. Deckelbaum, director of the Institute of Human
Nutrition at Columbia University and chair of the Institute of Medicine
committee...(and) Dr. Timothy Wall, a Naperville pediatrician...and a member
of the executive committee of the Illinois Chapter of the American
Association of Pediatrics."
But, you don't get a chance to have third-party endorsement if you don't
have a solid message to begin with.
The breastfeeding advocate draws attention to the issue and delivers the
primary message. The label, which as noted is often applied by others,
provides clarity to the audience about the purpose of the message.
We also risk losing credibility by hiding behind a euphemism. When the
public successfully detects hidden bias it boosts the potential for outrage
and significantly diminishes the credibility of the messenger.
Valerie McClain wrote:
> Fighting fire with fire might seem like the logical answer to this problem.
> But frankly I don't think we have enough time or money to combat their level
> of misinformation. Our time and money would be better spent in educating our
> local communities on the risks of infant formula. Who benefits when a
> community of advocates falls silent out of fear of offending, out of desire
> to being acceptable?
It is true that the formula industry spends a fortune on marketing
communication. I agree that educating local communities is an important
effort. Information in the mass media about breastfeeding and infant formula
has a powerful impact that can do much to thwart local efforts, especially
since news coverage is perceived to be more credible than advertising or
many other forms of communication. (The concept of third-party credibility
comes into play here too, since the news outlet itself - the reporter, the
announcer, lend their credibility to the message.)
Efforts to impact messages in the mass media can be a good use of our time
because they generate "big bang for the buck." Of all of the marketing
communications techniques, the least expensive in terms of dollars is public
relations. It takes time, however, and it is not free.
Jodine Chase
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
