The Wall of Noise

Phil specter may have come up with the phrase Wall of Sound to describe his unique way of mixing music in the 1960s. In 21st century messaging, I see a variation -- the Wall of Noise -- and it has a very different meaning.

Instead of creating a distinct vision and sound like Spector, an organization deliberately generates so many messages that it becomes an overload of information flowing outward. This can satisfy many purposes. For the consumers of the organization that cannot get enough about the group - from a rock star to an athletic department - this is a modern miracle. As a strategic communication tool it will often dull the overall message, too much of a good thing, and lead to an inability to articulate a clear message.

Unless that exactly what you want to do.

The Wall of Noise can also serve as a masking agent for other issues. Just like audio engineering, by raising the background level -- injecting static -- it becomes harder to hear individual items. White noise, that roaring whoosh that once upon an analog time was accompanied by visual haze on the old television screen.

This becomes a variation on the hide in plain sight strategy. The answers were right there all along, but you didn't notice them. The Gorilla Effect on steroids.

Lots of organizations stumble into creating Walls of Noise. It's so easy with the digital tools at our disposal to crank out more and more content. In the past, one, maybe two, press releases a week. The occasional video update or audio file. Active real-time reporting tools can create that in half a day, much less a week. Without realizing, the organization has reset it's noise floor.

The downside becomes changes in that stream of information become alerts those who you don't want noticing something. The change in pattern alone by the organization is the trigger for even more attention. A group who is very limited in info that suddenly starts to churn out content like mad is revealing it is in trouble. It's like chaff, the bursts of aluminum shards spewed out to avoid anti-aircraft missiles.

Far more common is the opposite; the unit that suddenly goes quiet after being very open and accommodating. They become consumed with fear of saying or doing the wrong thing, and like the proverbial deer in the headlights, freezes; hoping by being still to avoid the on-rushing crisis.

It is the change in pattern, and it takes real discipline to not vary of the standard operating procedure.

A group that creates a ton of info is best served by finding ways to keep that flow moving during a crisis, and keeping it going in the area of concern. This will raise the least suspicion. Human nature is to clam up during a crisis. In extreme events, it may become necessary to do so - for example in the middle of a life safety event is no time to push out feature stories. Prepackaged stories that detail what to do during the crisis - absolutely.

One can certainly mask a negative event within a flow of other messages. It was a tool of "self-inoculation" against bad news that many politicians use; revealing something bad about themselves before the opponent gets the chance go do so and put their spin on it. The Clinton White House appeared to master the technique, and gain a large amount of message control as a result. After all, if given the opportunity, everyone would like to be the one telling their own bad news.