By Ishola Ayodele
“It is not what you say but what people hear that matters in communication’ Ishola Ayodele
Introduction
In the realm of public relations and communication, accurately gauging public sentiment is a paramount task. A recent incident involving CMC Connect, a prominent PR agency in Nigeria, highlights the complexities and challenges that arise when attempting to capture public opinion or sentiment through surveys and reports. The fallout from CMC Connect’s report underscores the intricate interplay between methodology, public perception, and the broader sociopolitical landscape.
The Controversial Report
CMC Connect, a Lagos-based renowned public perception consulting and strategic communication Agency conducted a survey in conjunction with Analysts Data Services and Resources (ADSR), a Data and research company. The outcome of this survey suggested that 62 percent of Nigerians believe the country moving forward under the administration of President Tinubu. The part of the report that actually shaped most of the media headlines reads, “38% do not see the country moving forward under the current administration, while 62% do,”.
Some of the media headlines reads;
“Survey: 62% of Nigerians see country moving forward under Tinubu despite economic hardship” TheCable
“Poll: 62% of Nigerians optimistic about Tinubu’s ability to lead Nigeria, despite hardship” Businessday
“CMC survey claims 62% of Nigerians see progress under Tinubu” Chronicle.ng
“Nigerian Tweeps Condemn Report Saying 62% Of Nigerians See Country Moving Forward Under Tinubu Despite Economic Hardship” Saharareporter
This seemingly optimistic conclusion elicited mixed reactions from the public. While some praised the agency’s efforts, others questioned the validity of the data and the methods employed to arrive at such a conclusion.
Public Backlash and Skepticism
The report’s release was followed by an outpouring of skepticism and critical commentary. Social media platform Sahara reporters highlighted dissenting opinions that cast doubt on the credibility of the survey. Critiques ranged from accusations of statistical insignificance due to the small sample size to allegations of manipulation and bias in the data collection process. These reactions unveiled a glaring gap between the agency’s intentions and the public’s perception of the survey’s legitimacy.
Some of the reactions from Nigerians according to Sahara reporters include:
“Let us be fearing God in all we do ehn. How can one conduct a survey using 1,714 people as sample size from an actual population of 200m or more and conclude that 62% of Nigerians are happy with the current happenings? A statistically dead survey is what was conducted,” another user, Seye C. Ogun said.
“it is obvious that the survey was rigged because 62% of the people interviewed could not all have agreed to deception. Let me also bring to your notice that the ‘so-called’ survey was rigged. 62% of Nigerians can’t be blind and foolish at the same time.” Ojadike
“62% of Nigerians is 124m, Deceptive,” Chukwuma Nwokoye claimed.
Social Media as a Battleground
One Twitter user, @jollynonny, embarked on his own survey to challenge the results presented by CMC Connect. This initiative, shared on the platform, quickly gained traction and garnered substantial participation. Within 24 hours, over 28,000 respondents weighed in, with an overwhelming 93% indicating that Nigeria was not progressing under the current administration. This online poll served as an embodiment of the public’s voice and a stark reminder of the power of social media in shaping and contesting narratives.
Perspectives of PR Experts: Insights from the School of Impactful Communication (TSIC)
As the storm of reactions swirled around CMC Connect’s controversial report, a group of seasoned PR experts hailing from the esteemed School of Impactful Communication stepped forward to offer their invaluable insights. This group, composed of prominent professionals and scholars in Africa, brought a diverse array of perspectives that shed light on the intricate layers of the situation. Their opinions touched upon the survey’s credibility, the timing of its release, and the key takeaways from the unfolding scenario.
Olutayo Irantiola: Highlighted the changing public vocal expression and suggested alternative ways to communicate stories effectively, acknowledging the need to adapt in light of current realities. READ ALSO:
- Daniel Regha Urges Dangote To Sell Fuel For N300
- Jarvis Calls Out Ex-boyfriend After Posting Their Old Loved-up Videos
- MURIC Hails NNPC, Dangote Partnership
- Aina Set To Sign New Bumper Contract At Nottingham Forest
- IPI Nigeria announces dates, venue for 2024 congress, election
Gabriel Ogunade: Defended the report’s legitimacy, emphasizing its role in understanding Nigeria’s democratic culture, while acknowledging the expected negative reactions due to ongoing economic challenges and court rulings.
Reuben Hopo: Emphasized the importance of diverse feedback representation across regions to enhance survey credibility. He also stressed the value of meticulous planning in national projects and the lessons inherent in public feedback.
Adebayo Ilupeju: Focused on the timing of the report’s release, highlighting the delicate balance PR professionals must strike when addressing sensitive topics, particularly ones that resonate with the public.
Ifekristi Ayo-Obiremi: Suggested that CMC Connect should have clarified if the report was a ‘mini’ representation and recommended transparency in language use. Advocated for a larger, more comprehensive survey to cover a broader demographic.
Austin O. Chijioke: Argued that diplomacy can be set aside to address core issues affecting the majority. Stressed the importance of understanding the public’s sentiment and effectively communicating outcomes, even if they are unfavorable.
Princewell Achor: Discussed the intricacies of conducting surveys, emphasizing the role of moderating and intervening variables in shaping outcomes. Highlighted the need for methodological precision and the potential for biases in results.
These PR experts’ perspectives collectively offered a comprehensive view of the incident. Their analyses encompassed credibility concerns, public sentiment dynamics, and the intricate interplay between timing, methodology, and public response. The opinions reflected the complexity of the communication landscape and the nuanced considerations that PR professionals must navigate in their pursuit of accurate representation and effective communication.
Extracting Valuable PR Lessons from the CMC Connect Case Study
In the dynamic world of public relations, real-world scenarios often serve as invaluable sources of insight and learning. The CMC Connect incident presents a compelling case study that unravels the intricate challenges associated with effectively communicating survey results. Within this case study lies a wealth of invaluable PR lessons, offering insights into the intricacies of language choice, contextual awareness, rigorous data gathering, and the critical role of timing. As we delve into the depths of this scenario, we unearth a reservoir of guidance that can empower PR practitioners to navigate the landscape of public perception and strategic communication with finesse and precision.
- The Impact of Word Choice on Interpretation
One of the striking revelations from this case is the immense influence that word choice can wield in framing the outcome of a report. The notion that word choice is more than just semantics has led to the recognition of “framing” in communication – a concept that emphasizes how words, phrases, and expressions can influence how information is perceived and understood.
Framing entails the strategic selection of words and phrases to present information in a particular light. It involves using language that directs the audience’s attention towards specific aspects while downplaying or omitting others. In the realm of survey communication, framing is a powerful tool that can shape the narrative, evoke emotions, and ultimately affect how people react to the information being presented.
For instance, the misinterpretation in the CMC Connect’s survey arose from the word “see,” which was interpreted in various ways by different media outlets. While the intention might have been to convey a sense of optimism, the choice of the word “see” left room for misinterpretation as seen in the media headlines above which actually shaped people’s perception about the survey. In hindsight, a more precise word such as “hopeful” or “looking forward” could have mitigated the confusion. This CMC Connect’s case serves as a compelling illustration of how framing, or the lack thereof, can significantly impact not just the interpretation of survey results but also public perception.
- Comprehensive Data Gathering and Inclusivity
Critically examining the survey’s sample size highlights, the importance of comprehensive data gathering. The use of a sample of 1,714 respondents to draw a conclusion on a highly sensitive national matter exposed the shortcomings of inadequate data representation. The need for inclusivity and diversity during data collection becomes evident when faced with the task of accurately reflecting the sentiments of an entire nation. A larger, more diverse sample would have lent greater credibility to the findings.
As Dr Achor had observed above, inclusivity and diversity during data collection are paramount when attempting to gauge public sentiment on a national scale. Every demographic, socioeconomic group, and geographic region should ideally be included in the sample to paint a comprehensive picture of the nation’s collective viewpoint. The absence of inclusivity can result in skewed findings that do not reflect the nuanced reality experienced by different segments of the population. Inclusivity enhances the legitimacy of survey results and contributes to a more
- Timing and Strategic Communication In the intricate dance of strategic communication, the interplay between message and timing holds an undeniable sway over the outcomes. Regardless of the quality of the report or the credibility of the source, releasing information at the wrong time can drastically diminish its impact.
Timing as a Catalyst for Perception:
The report’s timing converged with an intricate tapestry of ongoing events, economic challenges, and political dynamics. This convergence showcased the intricate relationship between communication and context. Regardless of the report’s quality, the broader sociopolitical climate actively shaped the lens through which it was perceived. This phenomenon isn’t unique to the CMC Connect case; it’s a testament to the power of timing in shaping public perception and reaction.
The Synchronization of Communication and Context:
Strategic communication, at its core, aims to deliver messages that resonate and create the desired impact. This resonance, however, is significantly influenced by the temporal fabric within which the message is woven. When crafting communication strategies, professionals must meticulously consider the context within which their messages will land. How will ongoing events, societal sentiments, or economic fluctuations frame the reception of the message? Timing is the conduit that allows communication to synchronize seamlessly with the prevailing context.
For instance, the CMC Connect’s report’s timing coincided with ongoing events and challenges, influencing the way it was received and interpreted by the public. This teaches us that even well-crafted communication efforts can fall short if the timing does not synchronize with the broader sociopolitical context.
Opportunities and Challenges in Timing:
Strategic communicators face both opportunities and challenges in mastering the art of timing. On one hand, the right timing can amplify the message’s resonance, leveraging prevailing sentiments to amplify the intended impact. On the other hand, mistimed communication can fall flat or even stir unintended backlash. As such, the ability to gauge the meeting point between communication and context is a hallmark of effective strategic communication.
The confluence of strategic communication and timing rests on a delicate balance and understanding this critical meeting point is one of the major challenges for PR professionals in this era of digital communication.
- Context Matters:
In the realm of communication, context serves as a crucial lens through which information is interpreted and understood. The sociopolitical and sociocultural climate can significantly influence public perception of a report or message for that matter. Factors such as ongoing events, economic conditions, and political developments should be carefully considered when interpreting survey results or drafting a message. Let us explore these factors a little.
a. Sociopolitical Climate: Unearthing Underlying Sentiments
The sociopolitical climate is the backdrop against which survey results are projected. It encompasses collective mood, sentiment, and prevailing issues. Communicating survey outcomes, especially on national matters, demands understanding underlying sentiments. Ignoring this can create a gap between findings and public realities. The CMC Connect incident underscores the intrinsic link between public opinion and sociopolitical context.
b. Economic Conditions: Focusing on Tangible Realities
Economic conditions influence public sentiment, as financial stability impacts outlook. A report implying progress during economic challenges can lead to skepticism. Acknowledging economic realities enhances survey communication’s authenticity, showing sensitivity to people’s experiences.
c. Political Developments: Catalysts for Change
Political shifts can significantly influence survey findings. Government actions and the political environment shape results. Accurate survey communication requires considering prevailing political dynamics. Neglecting this risks making communication tone-deaf or disconnected from a nation’s evolving narrative.
The case study of the CMC Connect incident vividly illustrates the paramount significance of contextual factors, particularly the sociopolitical climate and timing, in shaping public perception when presenting survey results. An exploration of these elements offers profound insights into the intricate interplay between external conditions and the reception of survey findings.
IN CONCLUSION:
The great George Bernard Shaw once said, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
The CMC Connect incident serves as a powerful reminder that effectively communicating a survey result or any other message requires not only a mastery of communication techniques but also an acute understanding of the nuances that can influence public perception. These nuances like mastering the art of words, context awareness, inclusive data collection, and strategic timing all play pivotal roles in shaping the narrative which influences the perception of a survey’s outcome or any other message.
Further, the incident highlights the need for continuous learning and adaptation in the dynamic landscape of public opinion. As the gap between perception and reality remains a pivotal challenge, this underscores the imperative to diligently bridge it through strategic training and workshop and ongoing education such as engaging in enlightening group case study discussions like the online PR case study sessions on the school of impactful communication (TSIC).
Finally, in the rapidly evolving communication landscape, collaboration between PR professionals and message engineering specialists is essential. Message engineers possess expertise in cognitive psychology, linguistics, and persuasion, ensuring messages resonate with audiences on a psychological level. They analyze data to identify preferences and emotional triggers, aiding PR professionals in crafting engaging messages. Platform adaptation is facilitated by message engineers, maintaining consistency across diverse channels. Insights into human behavior enable PR professionals to design influential messages that guide actions. Amidst information overload, message engineering carves concise, impactful messages for effective communication.
