One of the paradoxes in communication today is that technological advancement has never been higher while capacity to communicate has never been lower. Communication has reached an unbelievable point of development. The printed word has never been produced more attractively. The spoken word can be heard around the world instantaneously. For that matter, it can be transmitted to the moon together with visuals.

At this moment, messages are being sent on the minute, by minute operations of unmanned spacecraft streaking toward other planets hundreds of millions of light years away, and they will continue to be sent for the several years it will take to reach the destination.

Yet here on earth we do not know how to communicate. Never has such marvelous technology been squandered so fruitlessly on such trivia.

The means of communication has been perfected and continues to baffle with incredible innovations.

The art of communication has been rejected. How to send the message is well-explored. Everybody knows how!

What message to send is confused. Nobody seems to know what the message should be. So much emphasis is placed on technique that no emphasis is placed on content. Graphics — acoustics — visuals and color harmonies — cute layouts — typography — photography — wireless receivers: These are the stylistic trends in communications.

Simple facts, sound ideas, inspiring ideals or clear-cut concepts atrophy from misuse. The most diversified devices to develop understanding are available. The highest degree of misunderstanding prevails. Why? What does this have to do with you? After all, you are in the communication business. Surely this would not be applicable to operators of the most sophisticated communications systems in existence. . . . OR WOULD IT?

Are you communicating facts about your own business as effectively as you need to do? If so, why is there so much consumer resistance to rate increases at a time when costs of operations are increasing exponentially due to factors beyond your management control? Why do 53% of the general public and 23% of congressional leaders believe that your telephone company profits are higher than industry averages? For example, higher than the auto, computer, or insurance industries? Why does the public understanding of your profits, your services, your policies, your practices, and your management efficiency continue to decline at the time that you need it most for favorable action by the Public Service Commission?

A Harris Poll in 1984 shows that the public confidence in telephone service decreased 10% between 1976 and 1984 — that 29% less people believe telephone companies are run well compared to beliefs in 1976 and that 18% less believe you have a good or excellent reputation in the respective communities in which you operate.

These and numerous other public opinion factors reveal a declining image during the past decade. Even though telephone companies rank higher than some other business classifications, can you afford such deterioration? You are regulated. Your capital needs are climbing. They can be met only if you have strong public support. Regulatory agencies are political entities. They react to public pressures more than to economic realities. Public mistrust, an obvious misunderstanding of the problems, purposes and methods of operations, is a luxury that no regulated industry can justify.

Business, not just telephone companies, generally has been ineffective in selling its system while most effective in selling its products. Business generally has failed miserably in articulating the basic concepts of competitive enterprise that make the products possible.

Surveys by the dozen show widespread criticism of our social and economic system. Business is blamed for most of the social, moral, economic, and imaginary ills of the universe. These attacks are, ironically, even more virulent during this period of economic uncertainty.

It seems to me there is overwhelming evidence to show that part of the blame can be attributed to failure to use our communication facilities productively in communicating the basic principles of competitive enterprise and, in so doing, to give understandable simple facts about the particular business involved.

Some time ago, in preparation for a discussion on economic education, I reviewed two editions of 25 different publications issued regularly by Michigan-based companies. I selected certain economic and political subjects that were the primary issues at that time. The subjects were:

• Minimum wages
• Cost of living trends
• Taxes
• Inflation
• Increase in social security benefits
• Wage and price controls
• Occupational Safety and Health
• Employment of minority workers
• National Health Care
• Workmen's Compensation benefits
• Unemployment Compensation for workers on strike
• Pensions

In only 3 copies out of the 50 examined was any mention made to any of these subjects. In one copy published by a national firm, a brief article gave tips for filling out income tax forms accompanied by a table showing the taxes increased over a 5-year period.

One copy of another company publication related stock values to business volume. Perhaps the article could be understood by a stockbroker or a certified public accountant, but in all candidness, I had great difficulty understanding its meaning.

One publication had a clear, hard-hitting editorial about the trends in unemployment compensation. Another publication did explain in simple, easy to read terms, the reason for company layoffs.

To get a comparison, I checked two issues of Solidarity, the U.A.W. publication. In just these two issues, ten well-written articles on the selected subjects appeared. Numerous other references were made to some of the issues in other articles. About 30% of the column inches were devoted to political news and viewpoints. Another 60% covered such subjects as public welfare, health legislation, education, housing, senior citizens, and similar gut issues that concern the workers. Frequent derogatory innuendos and sometimes outright criticism of business appeared.

Yet, the company publications going to the same workers made no mention of the issues involved!

Prior to this particular talk, I reviewed several current copies of telephone company publications that are issued to employees.

I read about a clerical employee winning a speech award in a night school class, and others about filing tax returns, alcoholism, safety, maintaining service in bad weather, and training programs.

I saw pictures galore about personalities in the respective companies on such things as weddings, promotions, retirements, and activities outside the company jobs. They were excellent for ego- boosting, which is a legitimate use of space for morale purposes. I saw 3 excellent articles interpreting company problems and conditions. One was titled "Confronting Problems of Change." Another was "Putting the Rate Case Together," and the third featured top company executives in a question and answer session designed to give understanding of some of the problems....

I am not criticizing the publications nor any subject matter in them. I am questioning whether more should be in them about the basic issues on which employees and the public should be informed. I am not critical of the contents. I am skeptical about what is left out. I am asking you, are you using your publication for economic education? Are you using your meetings, your communication facilities, your annual reports to explain your business, your problems, and the impact of these critical issues on each employee and each customer and each community in which you operate?

Are your annual reports understood by anyone except a CPA or a lawyer? Do you put out a simple report which says to employees here is how much we spent for wages and fringe benefits, here is how much was spent for equipment to keep people working, here is how much we had left for distribution to the stockholders who provide the money to keep us in business?

If you are not doing these things, why not?