Language of Conservation

Communications Issues Report Analysis

Lessons from this Report

The principal lesson from this report is that the specific language used to deliver a given message can make all of the difference between an effective message and one that is comparatively ineffective. Another lesson from this report is that the impact of terms used to convey ideas can be predicted in advance in a manner that is systematic and empirical. There are direct positive and negative consequences of using certain terms, based on the demonstrated response of focus groups to terminology.

That lesson is especially important precisely because they are, in so many cases, either synonymous or of seeming arbitrary or minor potential significance, but fore the focus-group data. Ultimately, this report demonstrates that constructing a meaningful message is only half of the battle to communicate ideas convincingly. To ensure that messages achieve their purpose, communicators must first understand how their particular audiences react to specific elements of form, completely irrespective of substance.

Areas of Surprise or Intrigue from this Report

It is both surprising and intriguing to see evidence of how much of a difference specific terminology can make, especially in connection with words and phrases that would not seem, intuitively, to make any difference to the recipients of communications initiatives. In principle, that is a traditional concern of experienced communicators (Locker, 2006); however, this report demonstrated that, in practice, applying that principle effectively requires a fundamental appreciation of the potential impact of specific phrases and terminology that would not necessarily be capable of being easily anticipated by communicators without some research mechanism such as the focus group process.

Usefulness of this Report

This report is obviously most useful to communicators charged with the responsibility of communicating concepts in the same field as that which the report concerned directly. Individuals and entities planning any communications initiatives in the field of environmental issues or urban planning would be able to use this report as a blueprint for constructing a message that is likely to be highly effective. More generally, all individuals and entities with the responsibility of constructing communications initiatives would be able to use this report to help identify potential areas of concern in relation to their choice of language. If they have the resources to do it, they would use this report as a model for how to employ the focus-group process in tailoring their substantive messages to specific audiences.

Importance of Findings