PUBLIC- Relations and marketing communications professionals in the country have faulted the Federal Government communication strategy, which led to the removal of fuel subsidy protest that has paralyzed the economy.

PR analysts stated that Federal Government should have adopted holistic approach to communicate the removal rather than putting the cart before the horse as senior government officials have resorted to TV interviews to explain the FC's decision as industrial action stretches.

The Chief Executive Officer of Sesema PR, Ms. Alima Atta, while speaking with Daily Independent

 said, "In my opinion it has been poorly handled and what I am seeing now with those corning out to explain to those of us with TVs (many don't have and have no electricity) is what should have taken place prior to the removal. Any issue that will affect an entire nation (whether adversely or positively) should be handled strategically and methodologically. The government did not take time to explain or communicate carefully the reasons why the subsidy should be removed, when it would be removed and what will be put in place to help the citizens. Timing is also an issue - it really is not the way to start a new year in a period where the economy has not been at it best anyway."

She said, "Lack of communication with citizens has always been a problem in Nigeria which has led to mistrust of government over the years, which is making it even more difficult for us to accept this latest' edict'. We do not believe that the funds will be put to good use. The government should have known this would be a problem and should have already started work on some projects to demonstrate that they will do the right thing. Whatever happened to anticipation of a reaction, or knowing your audience," she queried.

Mr. Akonte Ekine, Lead Consultant, Absolute PR, who said government has always been a poor communicator, stated that communication is a combination of spoken, written and body language and asked if the government action is showing any of this.

"So, is the government body language showing anything to Nigerians prior to the subsidy removal? No is the big answer. He continued, "The government budget for 2012 is to commence in April but the subsidy removal carne in January is that not a 'clear show of deceit," Ekine queried.

He said "Government communication is always based on trust between the government and the governed but in this case the government is communicating not with objective of getting the trust of the public but rather forcing them to understand economics. Why is government personnel going· round media houses now, why are they wasting money advertising to the public on the benefit of subsidy, we know the benefit but the government is not sincere it has not been able to challenge the so called cabal nor arrest one."

Another marketing communications expert in the field of brand activation, Mr. Felix Eiremiokhae, CEO, Oracle Experience, pointed out that the communication approach of the government was narrow minded and too academic for the people who needed to be wooed to accept the subsidy removal. "I believe the government should have embarked on mass awareness campaign through town hall meetings using people who will speak the language these people will understand. However, this approach is not practical in this situation because of dishonesty on the part of government and the crude tactics they have used in removing the subsidy. If government had thought through this 'properly, the first campaign would have focused on the palliatives then the elders will make headway via town hall, But, when you go on TV with all the vocabulary how many people even have the power to hear you and connect with your message,” he queried.

Speaking on the same issue, Mr. John Ehiguese, CEO, Media craft Associates Limited said that" A strategic communication plan by the government should have foreseen and factored in these scenarios, and taken pre-emptive steps to contain them. Given what is currently unfolding, it does not appear that this is the case." He however mentioned three key factors that led to this situation. The current situation has been exacerbated by three issues, he said, "first, impolitic timing, especially in view of the current grave security situation. Secondly, widespread despair and frustration of the people, plus a deep-seated distrust of government (historically) and finally, a hijack of the protest by the political opposition, beneficiaries of the status quo and other opportunist elements."

When Rasheed Bolarinwa, brand strategist was asked if FG communication on removal was right, he said, “absolutely not! First, the timing was wrong, as many considered January 1 as symbolic and day to merry and the least they expect was a misery even the communication prior was not well coordinated as there discordant tunes of the effective date from the NNPC, Minister of Petroleum, Finance, PPPRA and the Presidency.

He further stated that the town hall meetings and engagement with stakeholders should have been far reaching and robust. The announcement should have been made at the end of the first quarter and well communicated with PPPRA and government aides owning it across the airwaves rather than leaving Nigerians in quandary as to the secrecy that the news of the January 1 was shrouded.

Senior Consultant and analysts at ThistlePraxis Consulting, Mrs. Emilia Asim - Ita said the Federal Government has certainly not communicated the Policy of Fuel Subsidy removal (FSR) professionally and appropriately.

She stressed that the National Orientation Agency (NOA) is saddled with the responsibility of orientation of the citizenry. What has been observed is the roll out of orientation programmes, messages and campaigns after the commencement of the mass protests across the nation. It should take about six (6) months to twelve (12) months to properly disseminate information to all nooks, crannies and strata of the Nigerian society before implementing a policy. The NOA did same for the 2011 elections where campaigns started from the Voter Registration Exercise and then during the months that preceded the elections.  18 months

Apart from the-work of the NOA, INEC and many other Civil Society Groups also carried out orientation campaigns to sanitize the public especially at the grass root level. From this case study, there may never be a case of too much information.

Also, the FG has not been able to respond to the begging questions posed by concerned Nigerians such as how much is actually spent on subsidy etc; this increase the level of distrust between the government and people. “Truth dispels Lack of Trust. With the truth being told at all times, irrespective of the consequences; Nigerians will learn and grow to trust out public officers and government officials, “she enthused.

For Franklin Ozekhome, a trendspotter and strategist with Insight Communications, the solution for this kind of challenge is engage, engage and engage. "Owing to the sensitivity of this issue, the Fed government should have put in place. a 12-18 month minimum - from introducing the rationale and  benefits thereof, of subsidy removal; aggressively engaging stakeholders across all geo-political zones; and implementation (if necessary) of this act. 

Engagement he said should be multi-dimensional as inputs are encouraged from the grassroots level, shared at the states level, and passed on to the federal level. All Nigerians must be carried along, and seen as having a stake on this topical issue; their occurrence for or against fuel subsidy is important, as petroleum is the life-source of the economy. Aside power, which is almost non-existent in most towns and cities pan Nigeria, everything we do revolve around thje use of petroleum- from powering generating sets for small businesses to fuelling privste and public vehicles for transportation purposes.

In what he described as enthuse, Ozekhome, said FG should, excite the populace with hard-driven facts on why subsidy removal is a sine qua non for Nigerian and Nigerians.

“What parameters does the government use when they compare Nigeria’s oil production and operating costs with other countries? Are these parameters based on existing infrastructure and social services, or are still being put in place? How really does Nigeria fare on provision of basic amenities and security for the citizenry in comparison with countries like Indonesia, UAE, China, Ghana, South Korea and South Africa, “Ozekhome queried.

However, he said the Federal Government must put in place a realistic timeline for execution; a timeframe which clearly shows the various stages of implementation – what is planned; how it will be executed; the result and impact of these action(s); and what Nigerians should expect as an outcome of these steps being taken at every level. An activity chart which incorporates a timeline of between 12 – 18 months will be ideal for Nigerians to get used to this idea, discuss it at different levels and brace themselves for the change.

“Carrying Nigerians at every stage of this 3-pronged communication strategy is crucial, as the FG will not only have properly justified its intentions, it will have staunch advocate for its new subsidy removal policy” the trend spotter noted.

• Login or register to post comments