By Steve Adubato, PhD

“Bailout.” It’s a word that communicates an awful lot. I file this column mid-week as the so-called “bailout” legislation hangs in the balance. Clearly, many of the problems and obstacles associated with selling this massive plan involve politics and ideology. Yet, much of this debate comes down to a question of communication and messaging. Like most challenges in life, how we communicate often dictates or greatly influences the outcome. So much of how we see the world and relate to others in business is a product of how we communicate or how our communication is perceived by others.

Consider the fact that from the beginning of this effort to sell this controversial plan to get America’s financial house in order, it was in big trouble. Forget about the pros and cons of the actual legislation for a moment. Just consider the following language; $700 BILLION BAILOUT. So much is communicated with this often-heard phrase. It was constantly in headlines and spread all over the internet. So what exactly is $700 billion anyway? It’s a number so awesome that the average person can’t relate to it.

Effective communication requires that numbers be put into some context or perspective. We have to be able to relate to, if not fully understand, their meaning. If not, the number doesn’t feel real, or in this case, seems way too big to make any sense. Financial pros and economists communicate in this fashion all the time. They use numbers that mean little if anything to people who live outside of their world. $700 billion is such a number.

But what about the “bailout” part of this communication equation? The term says nothing good. Who gets “bailed out?” People who screw up, right? A guy breaks the law, goes to jail and then calls his best friend to get “bailed out.” A gambler is in way over his head and gets a loan to “bail himself out.” Why would the average person want to “bailout” people on Wall Street who contributed big time to getting themselves into this mess?

I am not talking about simple semantics here. It is about how we frame an issue or debate. Instead of “bailing out” Wall Street, the message communicated from the start should have been “rescuing American consumers and businesses” so that our economy can get back on track. Effective selling is about giving a potential buyer a reason to get on board. From the beginning this should have been communicated as a “rescue plan” that would allow many businesses to make payroll and consumers to get credit from banks to buy cars or homes. The message communicated should have been about protecting retirees’ pension funds.

I’m not saying this plan could have been sold easily just by communicating a different message or by changing the language, but those responsible should have understood that dollar figures like “$700 billion” and terms like “bailout” were wrought with problems. Real leadership is about understanding how to communicate and frame difficult messages to an audience that is anxious, nervous and legitimately skeptical. This isn’t about spinning or being deceptive, but rather putting things into context for people who need to get on board.

Like it or not, language matters. Words matter. Numbers matter. Those who simply think that others should understand what is best for them without communicating in a clear, concise and compelling fashion often fail whether it is on Wall Street or Main Street; in the board room or on Capitol Hill. In the end, it is all about communication.