July 6th, 2017 
admin 
When I write or speak about utility communications, I tend to focus on the “message” part of the communications process, i.e., which words should be used and which ones should be avoided in order to achieve a desired result. Like this post. And this post. Last month, when I spoke at the American Public Power Association’s National Conference, I focused on messengers, and I learned a lot.
I started my talk by reducing the communications process to its most elemental pieces, “message” and “messenger.” At a high level, everything about communications fits into one of those bins. Like the two interdependent pieces of the yin yang symbol (above),“message” and “messenger” fit together to form a whole. They can’t exist on their own. They gain strength from the other.
Think about it. A bad message can’t be effective regardless of the delivery system you select. And a bad message-delivery system will undermine even the best message.
Credit: Toby Sellier
In speaking to the APPA audience, my co-panelists and I focused on the messenger, specifically how utility retirees, employees and members of the community could be effective messengers for points a utility may want to make. The degree to which these messengers would succeed depended on their credibility and the quality or believability of the message.
