A SPOTLIGHT ON THE COMMUNICATION APPROACHES OF THE VARIOUS ACTORS
The double role of the media
The media were undoubtedly – and unsurprisingly – one of the most ubiquitous actors. During times of crisis especially, they play a crucial role when it comes to providing information to citizens. It is consequently not surprising that the viewing figures of the evening news programmes ‘Het Journaal’ and ‘VTM Nieuws’ quickly soared when the crisis hit and the lockdown was announced. The media – and this also includes traditional players like TV and radio – closely monitored the situation and in doing so played a fundamental bridging role vis-à-vis the general public: they translated the situation and the rules in an accessible way and became thé public corona mouthpiece as it were. In short, the role that the media should in fact fulfil and that they sometimes lost sight of during pre-corona times, says Ivan De Vadder.
But to be able to objectively report the news as a media industry, it is not enough to simply provide translation. A critical eye – an essential element of journalism – was absent from the media coverage during the lockdown and was only applied during a later phase of the crisis. The most telling example of this is undoubtedly the tremendous media attention given to the opinions of medical experts as part of the coverage. To be clear, we are not debating the vital role played by these health experts in the response to COVID-19, but the platform offered to them by the media to communicate about this was disproportionate. So much so that virologists assumed the status of celebrities; that there was no escaping the Van Ranst memes and that the experts had an opinion about every dimension of society after a while. And lawmakers didn’t do a thing about it. Only much later during the crisis would there be a gradual realisation that the public debate should not only be led by medical experts, but also by lawmakers.
Missing: a strong political leader
As for lawmakers, they took a very government-led approach to communication. It is of course the case that lower levels of government are lifted during a pandemic and that they are replaced by a National Security Council. That, however, is not as obvious as it might sound in Belgium. The writing was consequently on the wall that this National Security Council, headed by a caretaker prime minister, would have a tough job ahead of it as a federal decision-making body whose makeup was based on the structure of a fragmented country. This situation created tangible sources of tension between the different government levels.
As inevitable as that tension was, it could have been managed by a strong figure. By having one source of information as it were, who acted as a reliable representative for the federal level. In France you have Macron; in Germany there is Merkel; and in the UK even the Queen got in front of a camera to deliver an inspiring speech; but in Flanders such a strong personality was missing.
Businesses in survival mode
Whereas the media and lawmakers took centre stage, the business community seemed to communicate less. Captains of the industry stayed remarkably quiet and did not make any big statements. This should not come as a surprise, given that companies had their own problems to wrangle. Some companies almost came to a complete standstill, while others went into overdrive to be able to meet the demand. They all had to rethink their operations – from making remote-working arrangements and offering furlough, to reinventing how they did business internationally. Internal communication – of critical importance to businesses during these times – came on top of all that. In short, they were busy surviving. It was moreover essential that unity of command be maintained. Business leaders, more than anyone else, realised that uniformity of message was needed with respect to the marching orders, and that they were not the ones who should be communicating openly. They moreover no longer found themselves in the comfortable position of being able to apply pressure on lawmakers, since they were now heavily dependent on the government’s financial support. In other words, aside from their instinct for survival, their decision not to actively participate in the COVID-19 communication also points to a certain strategical awareness.
That is not say that the professional community did not at all contribute to the corona response. Quite the contrary, businesses continuously gave political decision-makers advice based on their own experience behind the scenes, says Ivan De Vadder. The coordination cell of minister De Backer was in permanent contact with the Belgian economic world. So, although businesses were absent from the public forum, they did communicate at other levels.
The silence of the medical-scientific community
Finally, there was the voice of the medical-scientific community. Leaving aside the medical experts, who were everywhere, this group, too, did not engage in much communication with the outside world. According to Stefaan Fiers, this can be explained by the fact that the scientific sector on the whole does not like to communicate with everyone is watching. But they certainly also joined the battle; they were even at its forefront. As a sector, they played an important role in the response to the crisis. The medical-scientific and pharmaceutical industry could be counted on to supply and distribute the suddenly highly sought-after medicines; to participate in and speed up corona research together with their competitors; and to work with the government. The government also gave them credit for this. Little visible communication but a steady, behind-the-scenes force in this crisis.
A common thread in the communication: the absence of social psychology
All the actors played their own part in the communication on COVID-19 – some did so in the background, others out in the open. There were both successes and failures in every corner, and that is understandable during an unprecedented crisis of this magnitude. Although it might be possible now to say a lot of things about the communication approach of the different corona actors, let us not forget that this was a crisis that happened to all of us, with no right response or readymade scenario at our fingertips. So, it is important to apply some nuance. The corona response and the surrounding communication was an error-and-trial process for everybody – from ministers and experts, to businesses and citizens.
If we take stock of everything that has happened, it seems that the biggest challenge for the communication on COVID-19 was to build support among certain sub-target audiences. Not a single actor succeeded in doing so. Simply relying on a sense of civic duty is not enough; a certain level of empathy is needed. Yet all the communication on COVID-19 was marked by an absence of social psychology: the media, the government and the other actors fully focused on the corona rules instead of evaluating the particular risks for the different subgroups and their contribution to society as a whole. The target audience of elderly people – who experienced social isolation – comes to mind here, but so do young people. We did not succeed in making the impact of corona tangible for these target audiences, as a result of which there was barely any support among these groups for the hastily introduced measures. Young people experienced the lockdown as a prison sentence instead of as a necessary evil for the benefit of everyone’s health. To put it bluntly, we collectively failed to instil a sense of responsibility in this target audience, says Ivan De Vadder. The mass gathering of young partygoers at the Flageyplein square in Brussels in mid-June was a sad example of this. It is a painful conclusion, but one we need to make to be able to draw lessons for how we should communicate in the future.
THE CHALLENGES OF Covid-19 COMMUNICATION
The communication on COVID-19 from the beginning of the crisis up until now has had an impact on several levels, both nationally and internationally. What has the effect of the Flemish and Belgian communication on COVID-19 actually been?
Ease of online shopping wins out over #buylocal appeals
The advice of the federal health minister and the National Security Council was crystal-clear during the lockdown: blijf in uw kot, or stay home, as much as possible. This message ultimately became the slogan of the COVID-19 campaign and it did influence the consumer behaviour of Flemings as far as online shopping was concerned. To avoid store visits, many Belgians made their first online purchases during the lockdown. They not only purchased online staples like clothing but also items like food. Belgians moreover not only shopped online more than they previously did; they also bought more expensive products, says Sarah Steenhaut. In short, many locals bridged the digital gap during lockdown and we saw a real boost in online purchases during corona times. This will, however, not result in an increase in general online sales in Belgium this year. Quite the contrary, we are seeing a decrease because online sales in the services industry (travel, events, etc.) came to a complete halt. But a trend has irrevocably been set: consumers are embracing digitisation. This has created an enormous stress test for local businesses since corona has laid bare a key weakness – many Belgian companies are not yet ready to fully serve consumers online. Many of them now have no other choice but to quickly make the online switch if they wish to survive, and in doing so suddenly have to directly compete with the leading international online players. And they certainly know how to meet (online) consumer expectations. This is why a degree of creativity and, more than anything else, collaboration will be needed – Belgian businesses have to start working together with other local players specialised in digital services for consumers. A campaign like #buylocal can only make a difference when it responds to the needs of consumers.
Needed: a return to business sense
Aside from these changes in consumer behaviour and the accelerated digitisation process it has resulted in for businesses, communication on COVID-19 has also put great pressure on businesses’ internal operations. Physical distancing and workplace hygiene measures suddenly became a priority, and remote working the norm. Companies had to re-evaluate their complete operations and take huge HR and communication strides over a very short period since they had to observe the rules, while also offering employees a listening ear and reassurance. This process has certainly produced valuable lessons. After the complete lockdown, a new challenge arrived in the form of a gradual return to the workplace. How does one motivate employees to get back to work, especially in large companies? How does one handle the massive shift in working compared to the previous weeks, and how does one define the new normal of the working conditions? There is no readymade answer, but companies will need to find a way to stimulate a certain business sense in their employees, for example, by again focusing on individual contributions more.
Unsafe international image
It is easier to draw a conclusion about the impact the COVID-19 communication has had at the international level, albeit a negative one. The Belgian provision of information on the whole did not benefit international trade in our country. Consider, for instance, the method authorities used to count corona deaths. It bears little explanation that international businesses are bound to prioritise their activities in ‘safe’ parts of the world. The ‘perception is reality’ principle applies here – Belgium is at the very bottom of the list of safe regions. And this may become a problem for our international trade and our leading position in certain industries.
The good practices learned from the COVID-19 communication
All things taken into consideration, there are two sides to the story of the COVID-19 communication. Because there are also positive elements, with real, positive steps taken that can continue to offer inspiration post-corona.
As previously mentioned, the media were given the chance to go back to their bridging role. They became the information source of choice, the one Flemings and Belgians went back to time and again for the latest information around COVID-19. This also demonstrated that traditional media like radio and TV do still have a role to play when it comes to informing citizens: people still tune into the evenings news ‘Het Journaal’ and they continue to listen to their radio station’s news bulletins every hour. Corona has shown that completely replacing them with online media is going too far, says Ivan De Vadder.
As for businesses, the global corona pandemic resulted in renewed appreciation for local production. Faced with the shutdown of international trade, as well as with a degree of germaphobia, businesses realised that local and European production offer some certainties, Stefaan Fiers explains. A need developed for a return to more direct production with fewer middlemen, which also offers more control over the process. The result was that local production very quickly became a topic of discussion again and that it was added to European and Belgian policy agendas.
The approach to COVID-19 communication moreover sparked great levels of individual creativity and resilience in the business and academic community. The situation forced businesses and educational institutions to reinvent themselves and to take steps that they would have otherwise only taken years later. This shift has produced a rich learning experience and it also calls into question the way we currently work and learn: can things be done in a different but efficient way? One thing is certain: boundaries that no-one believed could be pushed back have indeed been pushed back, both at the individual and collective level, and this will continue to shape the future of the business and academic world.
Finally, the corona response reopened the dialogue between businesses and the government. During pre-corona times companies tended to quickly see the government as an obstacle and did not hesitate to place themselves in direct opposition to them. During the lockdown, on the other hand, we saw a return to an almost unified communication on both sides. The situation the business community found itself in – namely, of being dependent on the government – certainly played a role, but it does not take away from the end result, which is that businesses can again see the government as an ally.
A reflection worth remembering from the debate about the COVID-19 communication is the fact that there were successes but also mistakes, and that we should not evaluate the communication approaches too harshly, approaches that could not rely on readymade scenarios. Nobody could predict or prepare for the crisis; everyone was thrown into the deep end with no other option but to try to stay afloat, and with some going under a few times. What matters now is that lessons are learned from the communication approaches taken. It is important that the lessons learned are also applied to get the support of citizens, especially with a view to a potential second wave. It’s why the panel of experts that participated in the ‘The big corona communication debate’ offered some advice based on their expertise in ‘The big corona communication debate, Part II: a glance ahead’. Other than that, we will have to wait for what the virus will bring us next. In short, to be continued …
