Clarify your mandate and hold fast to it
By Leo Valiquette
In the world of corporate communications, maintaining brand integrity is of prime concern. Consumer loyalty, after all, is invariably tied to the perceptions and expectations that have been created in the marketplace. One need only revisit the classic boondoggle that was New Coke for a clear example of what happens when consumers come to expect one thing from a major brand and get another.
As a one-time museologist, I find it fascinating how these same group dynamics can manifest in a much more dramatic, even combative, form when applied to a hallowed institution such as a national museum or other historical venue. On today’s grim anniversary, the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York City, due to open in 2013, is defending its decision to display written quotations drawn from so-called “martyrdom” videos made by the hijackers who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, along with witness testimonials.
As reported by Reuters, museum president Joe Daniels told reporters the exhibit would present the facts, focusing on “what happened on that day, why it happened, what does it mean to live in a 9/11 world.”
“Let the perpetrators speak for themselves,” he said, adding, “That’s a powerful and important thing that visitors to this museum need to hear — bearing witness to the actual testimonials of those who committed the atrocities.”
Personally, I applaud the decision by museum officials to stick to their guns despite bitter opposition from victims’ families. But arguing the merits of why it is vitally important for such an important venue to present history in a manner that is as comprehensive, balanced and factual as possible is a little off topic for our purposes here.
What is important is that the museum is presenting a clear and strong message about what it is doing and why. Four years before it even opens, it is establishing in the public consciousness a clear idea of what it is, what purpose it will serve and how it intends to fulfill that mandate by openly acknowledging and addressing the concerns of critics and opponents. It would appear, on the surface at least, that somebody is doing something right in the museum’s PR department.
It is a far more admirable approach than the recent screw up that almost was the reenactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, in which an attempt to re-stage this crucial event in the history of the continent on its 250th anniversary died a messy death thanks to vehement opposition from Quebec’s sovereignist lobby.
Even those who thought that reenacting such a contentious event was never a good idea criticized the manner in which it died. As NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair told CTV in February, “I think that it was a mistake from the beginning and it’s a good thing that it was cancelled. But the problem is it’s being cancelled now for the wrong reasons, because of threats of violence. And it’s never a good reason to cancel something just because you’re afraid.”
A couple of years ago, the Canadian War Museum faced a controversy of its own over an exhibit about the actions of Allied Bomber Command during the Second World War. One particular display panel raised a quite valid point about the limited strategic benefits of a bombing campaign against targets in Germany that resulted in hundreds of thousands of fatalities. Though it was determined that the content of the exhibit was factually correct and simply misinterpreted, the museum nonetheless bowed to pressure from outraged veterans groups and changed the text.
When dealing with material of such a sensitive nature, some measure of controversy, and compromise, is inevitable. But going which ever way the wind blows runs the risk of eroding an organization’s credibility. It’s crucial for any course of action to have been put to an exhaustive test to ensure it fits within the organization’s mandate and has a rock solid defence ready for any PR storm that may arise before it is put into play.
While the ultimate consequences of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum’s decision to exhibit those martyrdom quotations are not yet known, the clear and strong message that museum staff have laboured to convey is certainly the right move.
