The economic climate hasn't just affected bank accounts and business prospects. One leading communications strategist says it has actually changed how we're talking—and this means huge opportunities for PR professionals who can tap into the right kind of messaging to lead their brands and clients out of recession and into recovery.

"The whole language of consumerism has changed," explains Michael Maslansky, president of Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research. "Frugality is in. Smart choices are in. Doing things that aren't flashy and that have purpose are in. From a PR messaging standpoint, you want to give your consumers another reason for spending beyond their own consumption. They want to do good for their families, or for a charity, for example."

Maslansky and his firm approach messaging by finding what they call "words that work," or messages that frame debate and generate support for the client based on words their customers use and speak themselves.

Indeed, the key to any messaging strategy, he says, is to "reflect the way people really feel. You can't change people's worldview. You can, however, give them messages consistent with where you want to take them—but also consistent with their own views."

For example: "In the case of selling healthcare reform to Republicans, you have to focus on choice," he says. "Republicans fear that care will be rationed and they won't be able to see their own doctors. Any messaging to them would have to stress right up front that no matter what, your choice will be protected. Then you can go on and talk about the other benefits you want to achieve in terms of healthcare reform."

Below, Maslansky talks more about the "words that work" in recession, and those that will drive the conversation as we move into recovery. PR professionals in the agency and corporate space should take note of the specific words, frames, dialogues and messages he outlines to capitalize on this new world of words:

What's the premise behind your approach to messaging and creating "words that work"?

The premise of our research is that, as a corporation or association, it's not what you say or how you say it, but what your audience hears. Companies often say what they want to say, or what their CEO wants to say, rather than think about how the audience will hear and interpret the message.

Whether it's individual words and phrases or the overall message, there's a difference in resonance between what companies say and how the audience interprets it. You might get the message right, but not articulate it right. For example, there's a lot of corporate speak or industry speak that goes over the heads of the audience. We try to translate what a company wants to say into language and a message that will resonate with the audience.

Can you give a real-life example of that?

Most people supported the estate tax at first because they felt, why not tax the rich guy? But we tried to make it resonate by calling it the "death tax." That makes it personal and changes the way people look at it. It's the same tax, but now there's a different outcome when the audience hears it.

Here's another example: We recently did some work for an energy utility company. The message we wanted to send was that the overall cost to rate payers was going down. But this was complicated by the fact that a small part of the price would actually go up at the same time. We found that if we started the message off with the fact that one price was going up, there would be a visceral response and people wouldn't listen to the whole message. So we started by saying that the overall price was going down—and it resonated.

What methodology do you use to figure out the "words that work"?

Our core technology is called "Instant Response." We put 30 members of the target audience in a room and track their reaction to messages on a moment-to-moment basis. Everyone in the room has a handheld dial, and they react favorably or unfavorably based on what they think of the messages. This allows us to gauge their emotional reaction to language.

That's very important because when people respond to communication, their response is emotional. We've seen it over and over again: People don't always listen to what's said. They take it off in different directions based on emotional responses.

Once you've identified your message, there are a number of frames and approaches: economic, political, short term and long term, to name a few. We develop a number of these approaches and go into instant response testing. From there, we can see which approaches elicit a favorable reaction. What it usually does is throw conventional thinking about messaging on its head. We'll have people representing products or brands, and the message they send doesn't work.

This is because there are two sides to the truth: One from the perspective of the company, and one from the perspective of the audience.

Can you give an example of this kind of messaging in action?

Take environmentally friendly companies. If I'm from a big company and I start pointing out all the things we're doing to protect the environment, such as increasing energy efficiency and reducing waste, I might put out a message that says "We're environmentally friendly." But members of the audience already think companies should do more for the environment. And if they hear a list of how my company changed all their light bulbs for energy efficiency and reduced waste in their offices, the audience will think it's not enough. They'll take that message and say that it's untrue.

However, instead of saying "We're environmentally friendly," the company should say, "We're committed to constantly improving the environment, and here's how." Your message is more credible if you show that you're moving toward a direction that you haven't achieved yet. My advice is to talk about an impressive goal you've set and the steps you're taking to achieve that goal.

What is responsible for some of the ineffective messaging you see out there now?

One of our key findings is that, when messages don't work, it's very often driven by lack of credibility on the part of the companies making the claims. Often, you have to find a softer way to make the claim so that it becomes more credible.

For example, we work for a client that has an online community of users. We found that when the company calls it "our community," people get insulted. The better way of saying it is, "the community that uses our website."

The audience told them, "We use you as a tool, but you don't get to take credit for the things we do."

Do you think any of the failures that led to the economic crisis were driven in part by messaging and language?

The language prior to the crisis reflected the attitudes of the audience at the time. People became more and more willing to take on risk, and it wasn't even perceived as risk. Mortgages were never marketed as risky instruments. It was a language that framed risk as a good word. We were in a period where people believed in the risk-and-reward tradeoff. It was perceived as a positive.

There was also the language of opportunity. Everything was a big opportunity, and there were huge proponents of the free market. That kind of language helped us get where we are today. And now, in a period of recession, it's a different calculation of risk and reward.

What have been the hot-button words and phrases since the recession hit?

There are three big areas where we see people's mindsets having changed that drive the language that will resonate today and in recovery. They are:

• Valuing what's important: ourselves and our families. The first is a shift in values. People are looking inward and are more focused on what's important to them. They can't afford what they want, so you must focus on what they need. There's a lot of language based around values. Companies should focus on language tied to getting back to the things that are important. That's what resonates: taking care of ourselves, our families and spending time with our families.

• Financial protection. That's another pendulum that swings among the American public. In good times, at the peak of the market, a majority of the people believe that financial freedom is better than security. But in markets like you see today, 80 percent believe that security is more important than financial freedom.

In a recession, you talk about living a comfortable retirement. In a boom, you shift more to a dream retirement. It's more aspirational. But today, people are more focused on protection. How do I ensure that I'm protected and that I won't lose money? I want to make sure my family is protected, as opposed to figuring out how I will make a lot of money.

• Smart choices. In the era of the educated consumer, language should speak to the idea that people are smart shoppers. We compare and save. We've seen an increase in comparative ads, and people want to shop around. The idea of comparative shopping is very important.

As the economy improves, what are the main dichotomies in language between recession and recovery? How should language shift as we move into recovery?

I think there are six key areas to focus on moving forward. They are:

• The language of inspiration vs. aspiration. In recession, you should focus on stories of everyday people and what they can achieve. Once we're in recovery, aspiration and social mobility is where consumers will want to take their lives.

• Responsibility vs. opportunity. Obama said we're in an era of responsibility. We expect the government to be responsible. We talk a lot about corporate responsibility and how we're responsible consumers. We want to know how we can be responsible with our money. In recovery, the language will shift to opportunity. Where are the opportunities? How can we think about opportunity and upward mobility?

• Stability vs. growth. Today the language of stability is very important. You have to emphasize your companies' stability and stable results in investment, whereas stressing growth will work more in recovery. People start looking for more growth in better economic times.

• Control vs. spontaneity. In a recession, it's about smart choices and control. How do I control my expenses? If I'm a company pitching a product or issue, I have to offer tools that give you control over finances and expenses. And include messaging like: "I hope you compare so that you make the right buying decision." However, recovery is more about spontaneity, the fun choice and the choices that make you feel good.

• Jobs vs. careers. One more point I want to make on this: In recession, people have jobs, while in recovery, they have careers. Right now, people are worried about whether they will have a job tomorrow. So you want to speak to them in that context. In recovery, they have a career, which is rewarding in ways a job never is.

What tips can you offer for incorporating "words that work" into corporate messaging, from speeches to press releases and other forms of communication?

The most important thing is to put yourself in the position of the audience. Many good communicators fail to do this, particularly now when brands are under a lot of stress. You have to ask: Is this really the message my audience wants to hear? And will they receive it the way they want to receive it?

It comes down to knowing your customers and thinking about what they think about. You should create personas of your ideal consumers and put their pictures up on your wall. Think about their demographics and psychographics. And create messages for them. A lot of companies create messages for the CEO—and that won't work.

How do you feel Obama's messages have been resonating with audiences?

Obama failed in his messaging during the first few weeks of his presidency when he kept emphasizing how big of a crisis we were in. He's been more positive recently and talking about the benefits of his new ideas. He's expressing cautious optimism and talking about the future, which is much better messaging than talking about the crisis and blame, as he did earlier.

How effectively have General Motors and other companies in distress used messaging in the recession?

Horrendously. Even the latest messaging related to GMReinvetion.com is horrendous. Who's going to believe that? Who's going to believe they will reinvent themselves? Show me something—actual, tangible progress—not just the same trite visuals they used the last time they were in trouble. They're totally missing the mark.

Are there any companies doing particularly well with their messaging right now?

Liberty Mutual has done a good job stressing messing that taps into values and responsibility. Wal-Mart has been phenomenal recently. Their "Save money, live better" message is the right message for the right time.

Who's better at messaging and framing the debate: Democrats or Republicans?

It's tough to judge in a general sense, but historically, the republicans have understood the power of message and the importance of framing issues much more than the democrats. Until Obama, the Democrats have had a tough time creating messages. Many Democrats want to have a policy discussion that taps the rational side of people's minds. But these are communications discussions—and you have to tap into the emotional side.

But what do you say to those of us who think politics should be a discussion of policies, rather than a competition for the best message?

Every time we open our mouths to talk about policy, we can choose to send our messages with optimal language, or with less than optimal language. Everything is a communications discussion. A lot of people try to say politics is about manipulating the debate, but that's ridiculous. Every choice of a word is designed to communicate. The democrats have failed at times in the past because they've been worse communicators.