ColdCrisis.tv is about risk communication and its practical application for the business executive and the public relations professional.
Risk communication is a relatively young discipline that deals with how people respond to the various risks they confront in their lives.
In these presentations, I draw upon a wide range of thought leaders in the field. But I admit to leaning most heavily upon the ideas of Dr. Peter M. Sandman.
Sandman coined the basic formula that best helps to explain and to apply risk communication: Risk = Hazard + Outrage.
Hazard is the technical aspect of risk. That is, the side that deals with whether something can kill you, hurt you or cause great damage to property or the ecosystem. For most people, risk and hazard are the same thing.
Sandman's breakthrough was to realize that there is a second aspect to risk, which he calls "outrage." This is the cultural aspect of risk, the part that the experts generally miss. It is the perception of the hazard rather than the hazard itself.
The experts (meaning the subject matter experts, such as scientists, engineers, researchers or emergency managers) tend to focus on the hazard and to ignore the outrage. To them, Risk = Hazard.
But for the general public, risk is all about outrage: what makes them angry, or upset, or afraid.
Indeed, there is almost no correlation whatsoever between hazard and outrage. If you know something is dangerous, you know almost nothing about whether that hazard will upset the public. On the other hand, if you know something is upsetting, you know almost nothing about whether it is truly dangerous.
Sandman pinpointed this paradox when he said, "The things that kill people and the things that upset them are completely different."
The role of risk communication is to recognize this paradox, define it, and bring it into balance.
When the experts say the hazard is high, and yet the public is apathetic about the hazard, the task of risk communication is to practice "precaution advocacy." The job is to tell the public, "Watch out." The job is to upset the public enough so that it takes precautions against the hazard.
When the public is upset about a perceived threat, but the experts insist the hazard is very low, the task is to practice "outrage management." The job is to tell the public, "Calm down." Or rather, to communicate the messages and to take the actions that are most likely to calm the public's outrage.
When the experts say the hazard is indeed high, and the public is proportionately upset about the hazard, then the job becomes "crisis communication." The job is to help the public bear its outrage while taking the actions that are most likely to protect people without making the situation worse.
There you have them, the three forms of risk communication as defined by Peter Sandman:
The point of ColdCrisis.tv is to apply these fundamental concepts to situations that often confront and confound the business executive or the public relations professional.
For example, when a chemical company urges its employees to follow occupational safety regulations, that's precaution advocacy.
When an electric company attempts to persuade an angry neighborhood that high-power lines pose no threat to the health of homeowners, that's outrage management.
When a food company must recall a product because it contains a contaminant that will sicken or kill anyone who consumes it, and the public is upset about the situation, that's crisis communication.
I strongly recommend that you regularly visit Dr. Sandman's web site for his latest columns and posts, and that you purchase and study his book, "Responding to Community Outrage."
Risk communication is a relatively young discipline that deals with how people respond to the various risks they confront in their lives.
In these presentations, I draw upon a wide range of thought leaders in the field. But I admit to leaning most heavily upon the ideas of Dr. Peter M. Sandman.
Sandman coined the basic formula that best helps to explain and to apply risk communication: Risk = Hazard + Outrage.
Hazard is the technical aspect of risk. That is, the side that deals with whether something can kill you, hurt you or cause great damage to property or the ecosystem. For most people, risk and hazard are the same thing.
Sandman's breakthrough was to realize that there is a second aspect to risk, which he calls "outrage." This is the cultural aspect of risk, the part that the experts generally miss. It is the perception of the hazard rather than the hazard itself.
The experts (meaning the subject matter experts, such as scientists, engineers, researchers or emergency managers) tend to focus on the hazard and to ignore the outrage. To them, Risk = Hazard.
But for the general public, risk is all about outrage: what makes them angry, or upset, or afraid.
Indeed, there is almost no correlation whatsoever between hazard and outrage. If you know something is dangerous, you know almost nothing about whether that hazard will upset the public. On the other hand, if you know something is upsetting, you know almost nothing about whether it is truly dangerous.
Sandman pinpointed this paradox when he said, "The things that kill people and the things that upset them are completely different."
The role of risk communication is to recognize this paradox, define it, and bring it into balance.
When the experts say the hazard is high, and yet the public is apathetic about the hazard, the task of risk communication is to practice "precaution advocacy." The job is to tell the public, "Watch out." The job is to upset the public enough so that it takes precautions against the hazard.
When the public is upset about a perceived threat, but the experts insist the hazard is very low, the task is to practice "outrage management." The job is to tell the public, "Calm down." Or rather, to communicate the messages and to take the actions that are most likely to calm the public's outrage.
When the experts say the hazard is indeed high, and the public is proportionately upset about the hazard, then the job becomes "crisis communication." The job is to help the public bear its outrage while taking the actions that are most likely to protect people without making the situation worse.
There you have them, the three forms of risk communication as defined by Peter Sandman:
- Precaution advocacy: High hazard, low outrage, "watch out."
- Outrage management: Low hazard, high outrage, "calm down."
- Crisis communication: High hazard, high outrage, "let's get through this together."
The point of ColdCrisis.tv is to apply these fundamental concepts to situations that often confront and confound the business executive or the public relations professional.
For example, when a chemical company urges its employees to follow occupational safety regulations, that's precaution advocacy.
When an electric company attempts to persuade an angry neighborhood that high-power lines pose no threat to the health of homeowners, that's outrage management.
When a food company must recall a product because it contains a contaminant that will sicken or kill anyone who consumes it, and the public is upset about the situation, that's crisis communication.
I strongly recommend that you regularly visit Dr. Sandman's web site for his latest columns and posts, and that you purchase and study his book, "Responding to Community Outrage."
