The High Cost of Poor Public Communication

And How to Get It Right

In times of crisis, clarity saves lives. In times of stability, it builds trust. History is rife with excellent (and problematic) examples of communication dissemination; from public health, to propaganda, and flood warnings to environmental awareness.

We’re learning as we go. We know poor messaging leads to confusion, skepticism, and resistance. We also know strong messaging creates understanding, trust, and action. The difference isn’t subtle—it’s measurable.  

Let’s examine two case studies.

The Failure: Early COVID-19 Messaging  

When the COVID-19 pandemic first emerged, governments worldwide scrambled to communicate with the public. Unfortunately, the messages were often inconsistent, contradictory, and confusing.  

Consider the guidance on masks. In the first months of the pandemic, health officials in the U.S. and UK initially discouraged mask-wearing, citing concerns about supply shortages and a lack of evidence. Only later did the guidance shift, advising that masks were, in fact, crucial to slowing the spread.  

This kind of backtracking had consequences:  

• Loss of Public Trust – When officials reversed their recommendations, many saw it as incompetence rather than evolving science.  
• Misinformation Spread – Conflicting messages created space for conspiracy theories to flourish.  
• Lower Compliance – People who were skeptical of initial guidance became even less likely to follow later recommendations.  

So, what’s the lesson here? Clarity, transparency, and consistency are non-negotiable in public messaging. If guidance must change due to new evidence, that shift should be clearly explained—not hidden or glossed over.  

The Success: The UK’s Anti-Smoking Campaign  

Contrast this with the UK’s long-term public health approach to smoking. Over the past several decades, the UK has steadily reduced smoking rates through a data-driven, clear, and persistent communication strategy.  

What worked?  

• Consistent Messaging – Unlike COVID-19 messaging, the UK’s anti-smoking efforts never wavered. From the dangers of secondhand smoke to the benefits of quitting, the core message stayed the same: smoking kills.  
• Strong Visuals – Campaigns like the “Smoking Kills” packaging and graphic images of diseased lungs made the risks of smoking undeniable.  
• Policy Backed by Communication – Bans on cigarette advertising and high taxation reinforced the public message that smoking was harmful and discouraged.  

The results speak for themselves: Since 1974, the percentage of adult smokers in the UK has dropped from 45% to just 13.3% as of 2023. This was not accidental, and it wasn’t luck. It was the product of a well-structured, evidence-based communication strategy.  

The Takeaway: The Three Pillars of Effective Public Communication  

So, what separates a failed campaign from a successful one? Three key factors:  

• 1. Consistency – Messages should not change arbitrarily. If they must evolve, explain why.  
• 2. Clarity – Simple, direct language is always more effective than complex or bureaucratic wording.  
• 3. Trust – Transparency matters. If the public believes you’re withholding information, they will find alternative (and often unreliable) sources.  

Public communication isn’t just about information. It’s about trust, behavior change, and long-term impact. When done well, it can transform public health, safety, and policy. When done poorly, it can cost lives.  

What public communication campaigns have stood out to you—either for their effectiveness or their failures? Let’s discuss.  

Viiision Is The Smarter Way to Connect. Viiision is a patented QR code platform that delivers real-time, multilingual, and secure engagement— without ads, competition, or distractions. Its the look and feel of an app, without the download. One scan. Instant connection.