Two drug policy conferences days apart—one received significant media coverage; the other, barely registered on their radar. With that coverage came an opportunity to introduce an agnostic audience to new ideas, steer the narrative around a contentious issue, and persuade and win support.
The two conferences were the 6th Annual BC Substance Use Conference put on by the British Columbia Centre for Substance Use and the PROSPER Symposium hosted by the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions, a new recovery-centred organization headed by Kevin Sabet who is a former drug policy advisor to three US presidents. Both were scheduled to be in Vancouver.
The conference organized by the BC Centre for Substance Use should have received more media interest. It was larger, more well-established and better funded. But it was the PROSPER Symposium that stole the spotlight thanks to a protest by harm reduction activists who took issue with the event’s recovery-centred focus. The protest gave more oxygen and attention to the Symposium and amplified the views of its organizers through the resulting media coverage
What happened
Shortly before the Symposium began, organizers announced it was relocating from a Vancouver hotel to one in Richmond, Britich Columbia (BC) because of safety concerns related to the protest. This was timed with an exclusive story by the National Post revealing audio recording of an activist planning meeting that discussed infiltrating the Symposium, recording attendees, and spraying them with fire extinguishers.
Sparked by the controversy, the media quickly reported the story and some—including BC’s most-watched news station—positioned the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions as the victims and the activists as the aggressors—an example of framing theory at work, which argues the way a message or situation is initially presented (or framed) can affect how people understand and respond to it. Here, most would have viewed organizers of the conference as victims and protestors as aggressors because the former were forced to act in response to a provocation.
This was reflected through the reporting. In Global News’ coverage, the first glimpse of the protestors is of their spokesperson screaming into a microphone, which is in stark contrast to our introduction to the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions: Sabet articulated the organization’s vision for addressing BC’s overdose crisis in a well-crafted soundbite early in the story:
“We need a truly balanced drug policy that on the one hand doesn’t lock people up in prison and criminalize them, but on the other hand, just doesn’t let them do whatever they want and hope that we’re going to get different result.”
—Kevin Sabet, Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions
His points and delivery are measured, clear, and persuasive unlike the volume and tone of the activist’s preceding clip. This builds trust and support.
The lede of this story by CityNews frames the event as one in which drug-using activists harass organizers of an addictions treatment conference:
“A planned protest by drug user advocates forced a conference on drug policy and addictions treatment to relocate from downtown Vancouver to Richmond Thursday.”
—CityNews Vancouver
There is a subtle good-versus-bad framing here in which addictions treatment is inherently positive and organizers of the conference advocating it were “forced” to take some action in response to another. This framing sets the tone for the reader: a good victim juxtaposed to a drug-using aggressor. The latter is especially notable as drug use—justifiably or not—conjures images of violence, which few people support.
The conference’s name, presented in the next sentence, underscores this good-bad dichotomy: “The Policy Roundtable on Substance Prevention, Education and Recovery (PROSPER) Symposium”—all things that are uncontroversially positive and solutions focused.
Names and titles are also significant in the reporting: Sabet is “a three-time White House Office of National Drug Control Policy advisor,” a distinction imparting credibility and trust in contrast with VANDU, the “Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users”—a name which does the opposite. If I were advising the group in a public relations capacity, it would be the first thing to change. All of this was laid out in the first half of the story, the most read part that often determines a reader’s impression.
Public relations takeaways
Though the coverage was mixed and some framed the issue as protesters being unfairly kicked out of an event, the media attention nonetheless provided an opportunity for the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions to introduce their organization and brand to a large audience and articulate their vision for change. This vision was clear, solutions-focused, balanced, and delivered calmly—all of this making their message more persuasive. From a public relations standpoint, these are elements to consider when communicating with the public and trying to win support for a position. Yelling at an audience will not make your arguments more persuasive. Assume the audience is smart and informed (because they are), and rely on substance not volume.
Organizers of the PROSPER Symposium also used the media stage to publicly invite some of their detractors to the table to meet with them at a later date. This strategic decision made them seem conciliatory and willing to dialogue–another feature to include when messaging, especially when faced with controversy. Hostility and an unwillingness to compromise build a negative impression for an outside audience and undercut support.
Compare the level of media coverage the PROSPER Symposium received with that of the BC Centre on Substance Use and its event, which was the next day. At time of writing, there has not been a single story filed despite generous government funding and a longer history putting on the event in the province. If the goal was to introduce ideas to a new, persuadable audience, it failed on that account. The disparity in coverage is unsurprising: The forced relocation of the Symposium was the trigger event that made it newsworthy. As a former journalist, I can say with confidence that reporters are trained to look for what’s “happening” (i.e., action) versus what people say, feel, or think as the basis for a story. The former (action) will almost always be more newsworthy.
Overall, it was a public relations success for the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions and the PROSPER Symposium. Because of the protest-sparked media coverage, their brand and key messages reached a huge audience, which is even more critical for a new organization trying to get its name and brand out into the world.