An astute letter to the editor led me to go back and read a Feb. 9 San Francisco Chronicle article featuring this choice quote from a UC Berkeley spokesman: “We sacrificed clarity and detail for the sake of brevity.”

When I stopped laughing, it occurred to me that the problem is far more widespread than the university’s statements about a controversial personnel matter. Companies making green and sustainability claims—and even advocacy organizations pushing policies—are often guilty of the same communications crime. And consumers and watchdogs are increasingly seeing through it: four out of five scoring criteria for the Greenwashing Index relate to lack of clarity or detail with intent to mislead.

Where there is intent to mislead, the malefactors deserve our derision. The sad thing is, often there is no such intent—just a poor understanding of what makes communications credible. Organizations may mistakenly assume that everyone knows the background, so they can use shorthand. They may be so sold on the excellence of their product or program that they fail to realize that others need proof points. They may lack clarity themselves on the foundation for their claims. They may believe the false notion that slogans are sufficient to persuade. But whatever the real reason behind their communications vagueness, they’ll be perceived as misleaders.

The upshot: never sacrifice clarity or essential details for anything.

The current proliferation of polls and surveys—and the reporting on them, and the availability of seemingly everyone’s opinion everywhere—tends to invest what people say with great importance. But if you’re trying to change behavior, it pays to remember that people often don’t understand (or won’t admit) what motivates them.

Take energy conservation, for example. At the recent Behavior, Energy and Climate Change conference in Sacramento, Wesley Schultz, a professor of psychology at California State University, San Marcos, reported on research showing that messages about what other people do (“Most of your neighbors …”) were the only ones that produced behavior change—though in interviews people ranked them as least influential, and in surveys people rarely say they save energy because others do.

As part of his research, Schultz provided homeowners with information on their own energy usage as well as average energy usage in their area. After receiving the information, heavier-than-average users decreased their usage. Unfortunately, lower-than-average users increased theirs. Everyone reverted to the norm. Schultz did the experiment again, providing positive reinforcement for the low users—and that worked; they kept their usage low. (All it took was a happy face—seriously.)

People are not particularly good judges of their own behavior, Schultz observed.

That’s why communicators need to stay focused on what people do—and track responses to our messages. Otherwise, it’s all talk.

It may not be true that everything you need to know you learned in kindergarten, but the old fairy tale Goldilocks and the Three Bears does contain three key (and often violated) rules for well-targeted communications.

Test, Test, Test Like Goldilocks, we’re all striving for “just right” communications: not too complex and not too simple, not too much and not too little. But while most of us only assume (or hope) we’ve gotten it just right, the fussy home invader knew what was just right because she tested.

Real-world testing is ideal. Is your twice-yearly magazine optimal, or would a smaller quarterly publication serve you better? Test by sending one option to half your list and the other to the rest for a year, then tallying responses or donations for each group. (There are subtleties involved in this kind of testing; this is just a broad outline.)

Wonder if you’re communicating too frequently, or too little? Ask. One client worried that they sent too many e-mail bulletins and mailings. Good thing they surveyed their audience, because they found that if anything, they could be communicating more.

Audience testing isn’t practical for everything, of course. When it isn’t—or if you just don’t have the resources for it—you can set up a battery of internal test questions to find well-grounded answers to common dilemmas.

For instance: Is long or short copy better? (The format will guide you: people will read less on a Web page than on a print page.) What do we need to get across? (To convey a clear, high-level message, don’t clutter it with detail. If you need to make a nuanced case, don’t short your credibility by leaving out supporting facts.) What does our audience want to know? (Don’t tell them more than that. And don’t tell them less—vague, hyped copy designed to “pique interest” rarely does.)

‘Just Right’ Depends on Who’s Judging Answers to your internal test questions will always depend on who your audience is. If you’re selling an expensive, advanced-technology product to businesses, for example, you’ll usually have at least two audiences: nontechnical decision makers with budget authority, and technical staff with advisory authority. Don’t think you can communicate with both in the same way: Goldilocks rejected Papa Bear’s hot porridge; he would have snarled at her tepid choice.

Don’t Fall Asleep Often the biggest mistake communications teams make is failing to regularly evaluate their messages and materials. Alas, we can’t afford to relax—what’s just right now may miss the mark as situations change. When you start to think “I could do this in my sleep,” you are asleep. You could be in for a rude awakening if someone decides to measure your communications effectiveness. Or even worse, you’ll slumber on while your audience takes their business elsewhere.

Next up: What The Three Little Pigs has to teach us about clean tech and green building. (Just kidding.)