Has the new media bubble burst?

Tim Berners Lee, creator of the internet, recently proclaimed that social networking sites are ruining the internet. What does he mean by this? Lee argues that social networks are becoming so closed off and guarded by stringent privacy settings that they are creating their own mini internets. Tim’s comments smack of old man ‘things were better in my day’ rhetoric, there’s also a suspicion he’s still kicking himself for not patenting the greatest invention of the 20th century.

But Tim does have a valid point. Virtual monopolies like Facebook have an incredible amount of influence on the future direction of the internet. The fact is half a billion people have Facebook accounts, which means Zuckerberg and co have access to half a billion peoples’ personal details, interests and habits – an advertisers dream. However with new privacy settings guarding that information and the invention of tools like Facebook email, a rival to established email programs Gmail and Hotmail, users are encouraged to stay within the facebook network and never venture out into cyber space.

Two problems arise from this, firstly it stifles innovation – new ideas are based around adding to established existing social networks such as Facebook, twitter and Myspace rather than creating new ways of communicating. Secondly, from a marketing prospective, communicating with social networkers will become increasingly difficult.

The new privacy settings mean that advertisers and marketing professionals won’t be able to access as much information as before and the invention of @facebook.com email addresses means that users will be able to automatically deflect non Facebook email addresses away from their inbox and into a specific folder. Most likely spam.

These are good ideas from the Facebook team but another step towards closing off a previously open market. Communications companies are cautious, maybe even apprehensive about social networking, possibly because due to a lack of understanding. But there is no doubt they see the potential benefits of a solid new media campaign – endless new media ‘master classes’ prove that. However, tactics will have to change if a bitter battle for user time supremacy ensues between the leading online players. Maintaining a loyal user base will be essential to stay competitive, which means offering as wide a range of services as possible and protecting your users from threats of rival services. Thus closing down communication channels and eliminating what made social networking so popular in the first place – free open communication.

Jay McGregor, Linstock Consultant

http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Linstock hires NLGN news supremo - as seen in PR week 2 December 2010

Linstock Communications has recruited James Hulme from the public policy think-tank to head its newly created ‘local government futures’ unit.

Hulme, who has headed the think-tank’s branding, comms and external relations since 2006, is joining Linstock to set up the new unit.

The Local Government futures team will advise clients on developing relationships with local authorities and their partners and how to interpret and work with the Government’s localism agenda.

Hulme said: ‘The localism agenda is dominating politics in Westminster and beyond, and huge changes are imminent in areas such as housing, planning, economic development and service delivery.’

He added: ‘Organisations working with the public sector need to get to grips with these fundamental reforms.

‘I look forward to using my experience and expertise within the local government world to support Linstock’s clients.’

Previously, Hulme was parliamentary and government relations manager at Citizens Advice.

PR week

Cable breaks ties with party policy – the communications challenge of policy U-turns

So the Browne Report has finally arrived, and depending on what side of the fence you sit on, it’s likely to be a lot better or worse than you predicted. While a raising of the cap on fees was always likely, the possibility of unlimited fees will undoubtedly cause a few raised eyebrows also. The report will be pored over in greater detail over the coming days, and particularly after the Comprehensive Spending Review, but two issues are immediately apparent.

Firstly, the report, if implemented along the lines set out by Vince Cable, will see a genuinely fundamental shift in the funding of students, with the burden moving most sharply from government to students. In the long-term of course, unlimited fees, or significantly higher fees, are likely to result in a tiered system of higher education. This ‘marketisation’, it is hoped, will ultimately increase competition and ultimately, perhaps, drive down costs. In the meantime however, how will prospective students react to increased fees and an uncertain graduate jobs market? Although it is quite possible measures to ensure access for disadvantaged students are successful, there is no real way of knowing whether poorer students in particular will be put off entering higher education by these higher fees. Equally, Browne’s recommendations may result in a more fundamental shift in how students choose to study – could we see an explosion in part-time/stay-at-home students for example? Channel 4’s Factcheck blog has provided an interesting account of the progressiveness of Lord Browne’s recommendations, but what is of most interest is how these measures are perceived. 

This brings us neatly onto the second issue raised by the Report; how will audiences respond to recent announcements and how should the Coalition, and the Lib Dems in particular react. Vince Cable’s broad support of the Report provides himself and the party leadership with the agonising challenge of selling a policy U-turn to the electorate and to the Lib Dem party faithful. There are suggestions of the communications angle the Lib Dems will take, with Cable arguing that the party’s previous position was unfeasible as a result of the finances left by the previous Labour administration. The dangers of this approach are as obvious as its attractions. There are already signs that the electorate is growing tired of the Coalition’s insistence that irresponsible Labour spending is to blame for future spending cuts, irrespective of whether they broadly agree with the statement. If the Lib Dems are to successfully navigate this difficult period, it is vital they do not fall into an obvious mud-slinging match.

Lib Dems equally must not be constrained by an overestimation of the policy’s importance. Committing to abolish tuition feed was politically popular, but nowhere near the vote winner it was made out to be. Cable and the Lib Dem leadership must reject the urge to blame Labour and instead focus on making the economic argument relevant to middle class voters. Spelling out the cost of degrees and the size of the deficit will not be enough, messaging must discuss improved life chances and securing a higher education system that allows people’s children to compete for future jobs. Of course, cutting off the media’s creeping estimation that the Browne Report will hit middle-class families hardest will not be easy. After the child benefits fiasco at Conservative conference, the Coalition can ill afford such headlines.

Perhaps the greatest danger, but the one most within the party’s control, will be how it deals with rebellious backbenchers. A number of former heavyweights have committed to rebel and Greg Mulholland MP has already blogged on the issue. Cutting off such a rebellion is essential if the party is not to descend into opposing camps and risk appearing weak and divided.

Undoubtedly, the Lib Dems will be harmed by offering support for the Browne Report recommendations, but there is already a suggestion that the common sense of the policy has been accepted by the media, the Times already running a leader in support. If the Coalition can ride out this period of unrest and prove raised fees do not limit social mobility; it could cause more problems for the Labour party. Even with Lib Dem rebellions the Coalition should gain a small majority on a vote. In this scenario, attention would switch back to the Labour Party.

The Lib Dem’s policy of abolishment was politically popular but economically and logistically unsound. Ed Miliband’s support for a graduate tax is likely to be equally difficult to implement. Just as the Lib Dems may struggle to deflect criticism in the coming months, support of a graduate tax could similarly store problems for the Labour leadership in the future.

John Hood, Linstock Consultant
 
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Local Authorities: Are they too big to fail?

Last week we had a positive announcement from Nick Clegg on increased borrowing freedoms for local authorities and the planned introduction of Tax Increment Financing schemes, which was broadly welcomed across local government and the private sector.
Debate at the Conservative conference has now turned to its implementation.

How much freedom will local authorities really be given? How loose will the Treasury allow its purse strings to go?

One interesting question raised at a Respublica fringe event today is what happens if a local authority borrows to much? Of course, the rhetoric from councils is that it will only ever be 'prudential' borrowing. But this can mean different things to different people and no investment is ever 100 per cent secure.

So what would happen if a local authority was allowed to borrow what it liked and left itself overstretched? Will local government then be left with the potentially painful result of its freedoms and flexibilities? Or is it too big too fail?

We need to debate these issues not just at a national level but at a local level too. There is a vital role for communication between councils, business and local people about the risks that should be taken. Otherwise they may be left to foot the bill for a debt they knew nothing about it. And we know where that has left trust in the financial services sector.


Tony Cox - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Ed Miliband’s ‘New Generation’ offers Labour renewal

From a communications perspective Ed Miliband’s inaugural speech as Labour leader provided a number of unique challenges. The need to appease members yet reach out to the wider public; to celebrate the achievements of New Labour while demonstrating an understanding of why the electorate turned away from the party; and the balancing act of showing consistent values while offering a new vision and a sense of renewal.

In this regard, his speech ticked most boxes. Opening with the time-honoured political back story and introduction to his political education, this was of course of greater importance given his relative anonymity among the electorate. Tribute was paid to the way New Labour challenged established thinking but there was also recognition of the movement’s stagnation, with a line skilfully drawn under the contributions and legacies of both Brown and Blair. Popular left of centre policies were mentioned both explicitly and in passing, including an increased bank levy and the aspiration to introduce a living wage. Predictably such statements were met with rapturous applause and followed a simple conference rule – it is hard for the wider public to react well to a conference speech if the audience present is not sufficiently enthused.

Floating left-of-centre voters and disillusioned Lib Dem voters were targeted with Miliband’s confirmation he would vote for the Alternative Vote system and his rejection of the Iraq War as a mistake the party should be honest about. Of course, doorstep issue politics weren’t missed altogether, and Miliband was at pains to demonstrate an understanding of the concerns of the electorate. This included the issue of immigration and the need to be honest with the public over its affects on communities.

Perhaps the most significant term used throughout the speech was “new generation”. Ed Milband regularly spoke of belonging to this new generation, and peppered his speech with the phrase to variously demonstrate a break from New Labour, a youthfulness and a distinction between the so called pessimism of the Coalition Government and the optimism of a rejuvenated Labour party.

Even more fundamental however was the speech’s skill in delivering an absolute essential of political communications, that is ‘Define your enemy before he defines himself’. David Cameron was described as a pessimist, using the economic climate as an excuse to deliver ideologically driven cuts to public services. Although an obvious criticism, it was tempered with a previous recognition that Miliband would not oppose cuts for the sake of it. Describing himself and the Labour party as optimists, Miliband moved into the territory Cameron seemed to originally fix on when he became leader of the Conservatives. Since then of course, the Coalition has been at pains to soften the public to the necessity of funding cuts. Importantly, Ed Miliband also moved to prevent himself from being defined as part of the ‘looney-left’. His almost scornful dismissal of his newest press moniker ‘Red Ed’ could point to a willingness to address the media with a more confrontational approach in future.

So where will this leave the party and its audiences. There’s little doubt that it was a largely popular speech among members and that voters inclined to move away from the Lib Dems will have been impressed. The trade unions and far left may have been less pleased with comments on preventing “irresponsible waves of strikes”. Financial services will have delivered a collective shudder at some fairly robust language discussing wages in the City while the higher education sector will no doubt follow with interest Miliband’s support of a graduate tax. The issue of 'equality' will make a few business audiences nervous too. This wasn't just expressed as a desire for equality of opportunity, but the desire to address disparities in wealth. It played well to conference, but will be played back as a desire to punish success. Miliband has to be sure that the public at large have the same 'bad guys' in their sights.

For the wider public, and those voters thoroughly unimpressed with the legacy of New Labour, it may be a harder sell. Miliband’s desire to drag the centre ground towards the left rather than move the party onto this ground was in evidence and won’t be missed by voters with a differing political compass, particularly social conservatives. His speech offered a sound introduction to an unfamiliar face, but he will undoubtedly need to include refined messages if it is to appeal to this significant section of the electorate.


John Hood, Linstock Consultant
 
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
 

Will Liberal Democrats support a ‘middle way’ for higher education funding?

Vince Cable is a man with an increasing talent for controversy. His comments at Lib Dem conference regarding financial services produced a storm of media attention and predictable levels of controversy. But it was his statement on university funding in a fringe event that should have caught the eye. Cable seemed to make an important concession to his Conservative Coalition partners when he announced that a graduate tax would be “unworkable”. Cable’s statement came with the qualification that the essence of the idea, that graduate payments should be linked to earnings, was a “red line” on negotiations with the Conservative party. But it ignored the passing of a motion at conference which called for the party to explore the option of such a tax. The Times Higher Education covered the announcement.

While party members may feel some confusion over the party’s position, this should represent better news for the higher education sector. There were always likely to be a number of practical obstacles to a straight replacement of tuition fees with a graduate tax – will it break the link between the cost and value of a degree, discouraging competition? What is the definition of a graduate? How will money be allocated to individual institutions if stored centrally? And when will these institutions see this funding? Cable’s announcement appears to quash any chances of a full blown graduate tax replacement.

Although clearly not a complete climb-down, this does pave the way for a ‘middle way’ between the proposed raising of tuition fees and the development of a graduate tax. Director of Policy Exchange, Neil O’Brien, recently wrote an excellent account of what this may look like. Cable’s comments may well demonstrate a gradual edging towards this position, a more sensible extension of the tuition fees regime which would result in higher earning graduates continuing to pay fees past the total cost of their degree, to an agreed fixed limit. This would provide the fairness Cable and party colleagues such as Simon Hughes wish to pursue and could be a more palatable pill for the party faithful to swallow as an alternative to a straight increase in tuition fees.

Creases would undoubtedly need to be ironed out, but as an alternative to a graduate tax this would no doubt also be a huge relief to the higher education sector.

John Hood - Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Lib Dem conference: Benefits, bridge-building and bonus bashing

The Liberal Democrats kicked off 2010 conference season with a strange mixture of delegate disapproval and subdued support. With the party in government for the first time in over 60 years, media scrutiny and security were both tightened. Commentators waiting in the wings to interview irate members and report on political gaffes and rebellion were largely left frustrated and although there were sporadic incidents of disharmony, there did not appear to be any appetite for all out opposition to the Coalition or to the party leadership.

Nick Clegg’s opening speech, described by Nick Robinson as ‘largely defensive’ received a luke-warm response from the floor. His statement that spending cuts were not ideological did little to allay member fears, particularly regarding planned cuts to benefits. Indeed, many members made their reservations felt throughout the next day. In essence it was a speech that recognised that triumphalism would be an inappropriate tone given the difficult decisions ahead. But in looking to soothe member anger, it failed to reach audiences beyond the conference floor.

Given the party’s and Nick Clegg’s poll ratings, shoring up the grassroots vote may need to be abandoned in the near future for a more ambitious approach targeting wider audiences, if the Lib Dems are to profit from the Coalition.

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, produced a more warmly received speech, and in many ways helped to prevent a maudlin atmosphere developing. This, of course, was safe ground for the Lib Dems, long supporters of the green agenda. But as someone who has often failed to inspire at speech time, this was as much a personal triumph for Huhne as it was for the party. A strident tone that focused on championing consumer rights in the face of rises in energy prices allowed Huhne to push past the difficult question of nuclear power, an obvious stumbling block. By the end of his speech, there was a palpable sense of relief among members, here was a man who understood their concerns and wouldn’t be cowed by Conservative interests.

Of course, this was far from the being the most populist speech of conference. Vince Cable’s speech, leaked in advance, provided the sound-bite of the conference, as he announced "I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour". Predictably the business world bristled while party members swayed to the theme of perverse bonuses and greedy bankers. Of course, the speech was somewhat more nuanced than this, but it hardly mattered. Cable’s anti-capitalist credentials had seemingly been confirmed, much to media delight, finally the conference’s headline had written itself.

While the confrontational approach was undoubtedly deliberate, so too were the relatively vague promises that accompanied it, recognition perhaps that financial services regulation is not an area to be tackled without Conservative support. While many commentators saw Cable’s comments as a rebellion against Conservative control of economic policy, others saw a more considered approach, possibly endorsed by Conservative HQ. A round of emotive bank bashing helped to demonstrate political autonomy and convince members that the party’s soul had not be subsumed within the Coalition. The wider public meanwhile were given the news they wanted to hear, that behavioural change would be forced upon banks. For the Conservatives meanwhile, a reputation for being business-friendly, economic heavyweights was largely retained as they floated above the debate. Naturally, long-term implications of such an agreed approach would be difficult to predict, but in the short-term, it seems to serve the interests of both parties. How this pans out during the Conservative conference will be of particular interest.

In many senses, this Lib Dem conference failed to spark. There were no real dust ups, and potential points of division both within the party and between the Coalition partners were largely averted. Although Vince Cable’s speech undoubtedly generated a lot of heat, it perhaps generated less light, and the long-term implications do not seem as damaging as first suspected. Despite this, conference undoubtedly had a sombre feel to it and the party is clearly still coming to terms with no longer being political outsiders. It is also clear that the real challenges for the party remain in the coming months. Members who voted against academies and free schools and who vehemently oppose cuts to benefits may well find that this no longer counts for much if Lib Dem policies are rejected in favour of Conservative ones. Managing the fallout from the painful decisions made in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will no doubt be first on the Lib Dem leadership’s ‘to do’ list.


John Hood - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Diversity in the Workplace

As seen on the The Works

Despite the recent media coverage and research highlighting that the PR industry could be doing more to value background diversity, we admit, we were shocked by our survey findings. We were left wondering how to remedy this gross under-representation of BME candidates within the profession? Given that the combined spending power of BME groups is expected to exceed 300 billion in 2011, when it is estimated they will make up 15% of the UK's population, PR teams need to better understand how to engage with this audience.

We asked some of the leading diversity campaigners, Bieneosa Ebite, (Managing Director of Bright Star Public Relations and Chair of Ignite, a network that promotes cultural diversity) and Ashnoor Pardhan, (Consultant at Linstock Communications and currently leading the campaign to encourage BME audiences to respond to the 2011 Census) their advice.

The following is a summary of their key points. For a full, unedited version, please click here.

Q1. "Why is the PR industry lagging behind with ethnic diversity compared to other industries?"

BE: "The PR industry is one of many industries that have a lot of ground to cover to ensure that its workforce is reflective of the UK's demographic profile. I have been working in PR for over 10 years and during this time there has not been a genuine acknowledgement of the diversity gap that exits when it comes to ethnic diversity, or the desire to undertake long-lasting action to help improve the situation. Until something is acknowledged as an issue, it remains 'hidden' and does not have any place on the agenda of those that have the power to change the status quo...Since Ignite's inception in 2009, we have been campaigning to put cultural diversity on the agenda of those that have the power to influence and change things within the industry. We are now starting to see that PR industry bodies, agencies and some recruiters are acknowledging that there is issue. The next steps need to be about taking tangible action for long-term change".

AP: "PR has a reputation for being somewhat elitist and this certainly puts people from ethnic minority backgrounds off the industry - ironically we're suffering our own PR problem. As such the number of consultants from ethnic backgrounds is significantly underweight when compared to society as a whole".

Q2. "How should we combat it?"

AP: Both as a profession and as individual companies. As a profession we need to do more to break down the barriers, perceived or otherwise, and encourage people from ethnic backgrounds to consider PR as an attractive career option. The CIPR and PRCA are starting to do more work in this area on all of our behalf. Additionally, companies need to be proactive in this area; embrace the talent on offer and the commercial opportunity. At Linstock we engage with Universities and offer internships, as well as engaging with and supporting organisations such as Ignite.

BE: "There are a number of steps that we can take to enhance diversity in PR: through education and buy-in; recruitment; promotion of the industry; monitoring and policy setting and increasing the visibility of senior practitioners from diverse backgrounds."

Q3. "How effectively can an agency reach diverse audiences if their workforce isn't diverse?"

BE: "Having a diverse workforce, one that is incorporates all of the 'special characteristics', brings a number of benefits. Diversity enables agencies to enhance their ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiencesPR teams that reflect this diversity will have a better understanding of how to engage with this audience. As well as the increasing levels of diversity in the UK, we must not forget that top companies from rapidly developing economies are going global fast. PR agencies must understand their need for a PR strategy that takes account of multi-cultural sensitivities in different markets, which will be vital for their success".

AP: "I think that to reach this audience effectively you need to employ people from these communities. At Linstock we offer clients a real understanding of ethnic audiences and how to engage them - we can only do this because we employ and work with people from these communities who understand the culture and sensitivities. Consultancies need to recognise that a diverse workforce can bring a unique cultural intelligence and knowledge to an agency... The audience also represents a significant commercial opportunity, but only to those who know how to engage them".


Ashnoor Padharn - Linstock Consultant
Bieneosa Ebite - Linstock Associate
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Mergers and Acquisitions: A Confidence Trick?

The recent upsurge in mergers and acquisitions flies in the face of strong evidence showing that key decision makers’ are tricked into underestimating the risks to shareholder value and profit by their own overconfidence about the likelihood of success.

In August there was a surge in mergers and acquisitions activity (e.g. BHP Billiton’s bid for Potash, Intel’s for McAfee). Thompsons Reuters’ data show nearly $90 billion worth of deals in one week alone, making it the largest weekly total for 4 years. This activity flies in the face of evidence showing a surprising lack of success e.g. simply announcing merger bids wiped off over $220 billion from the share price of acquiring companies over the period 1980 – 2001 (Moeller, Schlingemann, and Stulz, 2005); at best there is only a 50/50 chance of success (McGee, Thomas and Wilson, 2005). In any other context these chances would be considered far too risky. So why do CEOs and organisations do it?

Evidence suggests that key decision makers are blinded by overconfidence, leading them to over-estimate their own chances of success. They know that many other organisations have failed but are confident about their own chances of making it work.  However, research shows that they are, in fact, overconfident and just as likely to fail as other organisations. This overconfidence is due to the short-cuts in thinking (heuristics) decision makers use when faced with complex decisions. These short cuts are very useful because they make complicated problems simpler and easier to resolve. However, when simplifying in this way crucial information is neglected and this usually reduces the accuracy or appropriateness of the solution.

One important simplification strategy used by decision makers is confirmation thinking - a strong tendency to focus on information that supports an existing belief and ignore information that challenges it. This leads to a number of biases:
•    Overconfidence – people hold beliefs with higher degree of confidence than they should because they fail to take account of the information challenging this belief. Research shows that CEO overconfidence is a major factor determining mergers and acquisitions – those initiating these activities are much more confident of success as compared with external experts and analysts and this level of confidence is much higher than the actual likelihood of success.
•    Optimism – allied to overconfidence; decision makers have a general tendency to believe that, in comparisons to people similar to themselves, good things are more likely to occur to them and that bad things are less likely to occur.
These factors mean that CEO judgements of success of mergers and acquisitions are overly optimistic and downside risks overlooked so not addressed.

Can anything be done to rectify this situation and help CEOs and organisations make less biased decisions? Research shows that there are three ways of overcoming this problem:
•    Better governance: evidence shows there is more merger and acquisition activity when CEOs also act as president and chairman of the board (Malmendier & Tate, 2008); this highlights the crucial role of weak oversight by boards of directors and the need for better governance.
•    Train key decision makers to think smarter:  people can be taught to think in ways that reduce overconfidence.
•    Better decision making processes e.g. use of techniques such as devil’s advocacy, since these guide the process in ways that minimise bias.

Professor A John Maule
Director: Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School
Linstock Communications Associate 
www.linstockcommunications.com

Nudging back in vogue

As seen in the Independent 16 August 2010

The Government has reportedly set up a behavioural insight team at No 10, heralding the return of Nudge as a key policy driver. Andy McSmith’s article in The Independent last week provides an excellent summary of the principles of nudge theory. What it and the original work of Thaler and Sunstein underestimate, however, are the controversies and inconsistencies in the academic research on which these ideas are based.

For example, one key ‘nudging’ principle is to make the ‘desired’ activity the default on the assumption that people are much more likely to stick with this than change. This ‘nudge’ can provide the basis for encouraging people to sign up for organ donation or pensions – in each case the public may be automatically opted in, so must opt out if they don’t wish to be involved in these activities. Research shows that initial uptake is enhanced under these conditions.

However, this idea overlooks other key principles of human decision making that may modify or even nullify this ‘nudge’. For example, when people are actively involved in making a decision they are more committed to it and will stick to it longer, even when the outcomes are not as good as expected. This shows that being involved in the decision is vital in sustaining commitment to the action over time. ‘Nudged’ decisions are associated with less commitment so people will give up on them more readily when the outcomes are disappointing.

So ‘nudging’ people may be effective in the short term. However, in the longer term it may be less effective, particularly in situations where people are likely to experience a mixture of both positive and negative outcomes. Since longer term change is usually the primary objective, we may be better encouraging active involvement rather than a ‘nudge’.

Professor A John Maule
Director: Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School
Linstock Communications Associate
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

 

World Cup woes and calamity comms

The English and French football squads are clearly not happy and harmonious places right now. The sending home of French striker Nicolas Anelka for arguing with coach Raymond Domenech was swiftly followed by John Terry’s ill-advised press conference, in which he revealed details of imminent ‘clear-the-air’ talks between the England squad and manager Fabio Capello. While both represented a boon for the national press, they also highlighted complete failures of communications.

A recognised characteristic of Capello’s career has been the autocratic nature of his managerial style. In many senses, his no-nonsense style can be seen as a positive, providing as it does clarity for those who play under him. However, when it comes to communications, it can cause problems. Successful external communications rely upon strong internal communications. While it is not always possible to have everyone buy into the same message or pull in the same direction, internal communications need to aim to achieve this.

First and foremost, there must be dialogue. This doesn’t need to be constant, but it does need to involve structures being put in place that allow people to voice their concerns internally. Capello’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge this has arguably breeded a damaging inflexibility. Instead of effective internal communications providing a pressure valve for players, matters were brought to a head with a damaging and very public show of division within the camp.

However, flexibility, although important, must be checked by a structural balance. The flip side of a rigid internal communications system is the fiasco that has engulfed Les bleus. In the French camp player power trumps all, so much so that the French Football Federation’s managing director, Jean-Louis Valentin, resigned in light of player protests. This, obviously, is the other less favourable end of the spectrum and only perpetuates the point that flexibility and structure are not mutually exclusive.

The best laid communications strategies can be undermined by rogue voices of dissent. By failing to build structures to encourage effective and harmonious internal communications, both England and France camps have paid with poor external communications and the negative press coverage and public opprobrium that often follow.

John Hood and Jay McGregor - Linstock Consultants

www.linstockcommunications.com

Stay of execution offers RDAs a chance to demonstrate their clarity of purpose - as seen in June 2010 issue of NewStart magazine

For Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) hamstrung by the political uncertainty of the last 18 months, the Chancellor's first statement on spending cuts must have been relief of sorts.  In-year cuts of £270 million are hardly to be celebrated.  But at least they begin to clarify the future of regional development.  RDAs have not been abolished outright.  We are led to believe the views of business will determine their future.  But they will play a pared back role and have less to invest.  Behind the front line numbers the Government seems more inclined to cut in the south and east than elsewhere.  The picture is hardly crystal clear as yet, but at least the RDAs have something to work with.

As with any organisations, the RDAs have done some things well and could do some things better.  Independent evaluation suggests the RDAs return an average of £4.50 for every £1 they spend.  RDA investment has been an essential catalyst to major regeneration programmes, such as the Ipswich Waterfront and the renaissance of NewcastleGateshead.  The RDA role in business support has helped turn a baffling array of services for small businesses into a more streamlined and cost effective offer.  But RDAs have suffered when Government has broadened their remit with new responsibilities and diluted their focus on business led economic development.  Whether or not Regional Spatial Strategies were a good thing, RDAs were left with this unpopular responsibility as a consequence of their geographic remit, rather than their expertise in housing and planning.

Perhaps most significantly, RDAs have faced difficulties communicating what they do.  They use relatively small budgets (only in the Northeast is RDA expenditure more than one per cent of public spending) as a catalyst to private sector investment and to align the spending of other public sector bodies.  But while they serve this strategic role they have been measured against tactical results on the ground, such as the number of jobs created and the area of brownfield land regenerated.  This leads to confusion about what the RDAs are for – hands on delivery or strategic leadership.  And it results in bad feeling locally, where all the agents involved in a scheme set out to claim its results on the ground for themselves.

Local and regional confusion is compounded at national level.  RDAs are tasked with supporting the economic growth of all regions while reducing the disparity between regions – a built in contradiction in terms.  The Greater South East economy grew by nearly 18% from 1999 to 2006.  This was not reported as success for the RDAs in the south and east but as a failure of those in the north, although the economy there expanded by 15%.  On these measures, RDAs are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  But it shouldn't be a zero sum game.  To address inter regional disparities the UK’s economic drivers in the south and east need continued investment, so the returns of economic growth can be reinvested in the north where needs are different.

So what can RDAs learn from their journey so far and where do they go next?  Again, communication is one of the biggest challenges.

We are told that the future shape of RDAs will depend on the views of businesses and local authorities.  Businesses in the north have convinced business secretary Vince Cable to look with fresh eyes at the RDA record of achievement.  In the East of England, businesses have prepared a blueprint for investment that makes the case for strategic economic development at a scale beyond the local authority.  But persuading businesses and councils to champion the role of RDAs while previously committed programmes of investment are being cut is a big ask.

Three key principles can help the RDAs grapple with the task.
First, personal detachment.  Jobs and egos are on the line but the challenge facing the public finances and the economy supersedes the interests of any institution.  To fulfil their public duty to promote the economic development of their regions, RDAs need to set aside personal interest.  The arguments for and against strategic investment to create an environment in which business can thrive are top of the agenda.  The names of public bodies, or even their precise remits, are 'any other business'.

Second, RDAs need to demonstrate how their core strategic role is in line with the Government agenda.  They can bring greater efficiency to public sector spending by aligning streams of funding and targeting investment where it will deliver greatest economic return.  This can be exemplified by the nature of the cuts RDAs choose to make.  Which programmes are of greatest strategic importance to the economy and which, however worthy, would return least per pound of investment?  By shouldering these tough decisions RDAs will demonstrate their value in austerity Britain.  They may lose some friends in the process, but it's better to be respected than liked.

Third, RDAs need to live up to their billing as business-led and arms length from Government.  They need to challenge Government thinking where necessary, provide impartial economic evidence that no other body can provide and demonstrate that local businesses support their arguments.  If they wait to be told what to do by Government, they will both abdicate their responsibilities and speed their own demise.

RDAs must demonstrate their impact on their own terms, make cold, calculated economic arguments, and shoulder some unpopular funding decisions.  They may still be abolished, but at least people would understand what they stood for.

Jon Bennett - Director 

www.linstockcommunications.com

How will a Hung Parliament affect the Third Sector?

After 96 hours of horse trading and negotiations, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats finally came together to form a coalition government. As the parties assign posts and priorities, what are the implications for the charitable and voluntary sector?

Some have suggested that a hung parliament could benefit the sector as charities may find it easier to shape and influence public policy. However, with an emergency budget due within 50 days, programmes for 2010-2011 still hang in the balance for many. Businesses, local authorities, and charities are finding it difficult to make long term decisions.

The success of any coalition government will largely rest on the degree of agreement between the parties forming the coalition. Francis Maude is the newly appointed Minister for the Cabinet Office, and Nick Hurd has just been confirmed as the new Charities Minister. We also know Nick and Jenny Wilmott (Conservative and Liberal Third Sector spokespeople respsctively) seem to broadly agree on the need to reform the administration of Gift Aid, set up a Social Investment Bank, and open up the delivery of services to the voluntary sector. Of course, the sector will need to use its persuasive powers across the political sphere, since Labour could yet be in a strong position at the time of the next election and that could be sooner that the five year fived term being proposed.

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NVCO) has invited third sector leaders to a summit to consider the impact of the new coalition Government on charities. This is widely anticipated to discuss how the Third Sector leads the way within David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ vision for the UK.

This could be a new dawn for the Third Sector. On the surface there seems a broad consensus in working towards the same outcomes – the difference in opinions seems to be who has the best ideas to deliver them in timely fashion for the good of the sector.

Priya Shah, Consultant, Linstock Communications
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

The day the electorate jilted the Lib Dems

Linstock Associate Ben Rich, ex Deputy Policy Director of the Liberal Democrats and Vice Chair of the Policy Committee, bemoans what might have been on election night.

We Liberal Democrats are used to the occasional flirtation with us by voters between elections: the occasional by-election victory that sets Peter Snow’s swingometer all a-quiver.

We have even had the odd period of elongated engagement, most notably during the height of the alliance, although even then by the time of the 1983 election, we knew the love had gone from the relationship.

Yet this time it was different. This time it was for keeps. The minister was booked, the flowers arranged and the invitations sent out. Despite the odd pre-marital jitters the electorate seemed to have decided this time to see it through.

And then came the day itself. We got all dressed up, gave the rings to the best man and made it to the church in good time. All our friends were waiting to cheer us on and then, at the very last minute the electorate left us standing at the alter.

A friend said to me “you Lib Dems, you’ve been cheated again.” Yes, but not by the electoral system – we all know the system is loaded against us. This time it’s the electorate that has cheated us, left us all dressed up with nowhere to go.

What happened yesterday? There were no fewer than nine opinion polls in the previous 24 hours, showing the Liberal Democrats on a solid 27-28 per cent of the vote. With the occasional ups and downs, this had pretty much been the picture since the third leaders debate. Although our share had slipped from the highs achieved after that first debate, this would have represented a massive advance for the party.

Then, election day and around 20% of our voters (with the honourable exception of Redcar – I must go there) simply went awol.

When push came to shove, in the privacy of the polling booth, the British electorate suffered a collective chronic loss of courage. Some looked left, some right, and simply could not believe that things could really be different. With, I suspect, a collective sigh they choose to vote against what they most feared, rather than for what they actually believed in.

I would say that, would I? Well I suppose so, but then so did the electorate. Even in the week of the election itself nigh on 40 percent were telling pollsters that they would vote Liberal Democrat if they believed we could win in their area. Oh, the agony, I shout, “if you voted for us, we would win!”

But if not now, when? Self-evidently, never again will there be a first ever election debate with all its possibilities for a third party. The old parties have been warned, and the electorate will be less easily bedazzled.

And without such a transformational event is it possible to imagine under this electoral system the circumstances in which – given this experience – voters might ever believe that their neighbour, and their neighbour, will have the courage to vote for the Liberal Democrats, rather than simply against their worst fears?

So I find myself, this morning after, with all the pain of the jilted lover thinking what’s the point? Under this electoral system, the voters will never feel able to give us a break. And so I say to my leaders, if this political impasse opens up even the slightest opportunity to change that system, be self-interested for once - grab it with two hands.

Because, if we don’t, politics will go on the same for ever. Forever, these two old parties and no others. And that, quite, quite clearly is not what the public actually wants or they’d have jumped into bed with one or other of them last night.

And also, because I can’t go through that again. Better, maybe to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, but I’m for grabbing the bride’s train as she flees down the aisle and clinging on for dear life.

http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Were you up for Lembit?

So there was no castration of Balls but cheeky Lembit did meet his political maker. As did other heavyweights like Charles Clarke, Jacqui Smith and Mike O'Brien. But Labour held on strongly in a number of key marginals to prevent a Conservative majority.
It was an extraordinary night with some extraordinary results. With swings varying greatly across the country it was hard to predict any result.

The one thing you could predict was that each party would carefully control and manage the message. Within minutes of the exit poll Labour Ministers were checking their blackberries and repeating the mantra that this showed overwhelming support for electoral reform. The Lib Dems were disputing the polling figures while the Conservatives were calling it a rejection of the Labour Party.

But not all MPs could be kept on message. Ex-Labour Minister David Blunkett was the first to discard the official line in the early hours and call it a defeat for his party.

The question is will the public accept the lines being used by the respective parties? With over 600 seats now declared it is clear the Conservatives will become the largest party. The constitutional convention dictates the sitting Prime Minister, in the event of a hung parliament, has the first shot at forming a coalition. But can they come to an agreement with the Liberals? And will the public support such a partnership?

Those are the questions of the day. Let the horse trading begin!

Tony Cox Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

A sector approach needs commitment - as seen in PR week 7 May 2010

Richard Millar’s restructuring of Hill and Knowlton (News, 30 April) is sound corporate strategy and good news for clients if it’s based on genuine staff expertise. The sector approach means clients get more from consultants from day one – intelligent advice, policy understanding, and good relationships with key journalists and third parties. The model has underpinned Linstock’s growth.

But the sector approach requires commitment. When a client’s in house team is organised by discipline, structural realities can make a sector specialist harder to buy. If the head of media relations has an agency on board, the head of public affairs may be reluctant to hire a cross-disciplinary consultancy.

In our experience, there’s no point trying to cut your cake in every direction by switching to a single discipline approach (however good your credentials). All you can do is make a second case on your own terms and accept that you can’t win them all. Fortunately, what you do win is more interesting and rewarding work. Head to head, sector expertise will overcome generic, recycled assertions every time.

Jon Bennett Director of Linstock Communications
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Yellow fever or yellow bellies? Will the Liberal Democrat surge survive the election’s final rounds?

With the election now reaching its latter stages, Liberal Democrat HQ is preparing for a final push. In many senses this election has seemed new and yet, strangely, the same as ever. The leadership debates promised to change the face of British politics forever, and certainly, no future general election is likely to feature without them. But the last week now focuses very much on the old campaigning standards. Plenty of canvassing and the distribution of many, many leaflets! The Lib Dems have always been strong in this area, punching well above their weight despite limited resources. However, perhaps the question we need to ask is, how have the old campaigning methods meshed with new formats such as the debates?


On balance, the Liberal Democrats have been the winners of the leaders’ debates. Although it has been widely recognised that David Cameron and the Conservatives shaded the last debate, the seeming stability of the Lib Dem position is just as significant. As Lib Dem staff are constantly reminding one another, the bubble could still burst, but the real feeling is that the debates have fixed the party in a genuine three party, three horse race. Yes, left leaning support may slip back to Labour amid rumours of a Lib Dem-Conservative coalition and yes, floating voters may swing back to a resurgent Cameron, but given expectations at the start of the campaign, most Lib Dem supporters are more than satisfied with the campaign.

However, the leaders’ debates have presented new challenges as well as opportunities for the Lib Dems. Perhaps most notably, the prospect of ‘election fatigue’ seems a very real possibility among the electorate. For those campaigning for weeks, months even, in advance of and during an election campaign, this fatigue is nothing new. However, it is not necessarily something the electorate is so familiar with. The debates, while generally well received, have, for many people, been overly long. In fact, two debates would probably have struck a better balance – last night was, perhaps for many, a debate too far. Combined with the usual saturation of election stories in the print press, the electorate has been bombarded from all sides from new and old media – there’s been nowhere for the public to hide. Given the unusual aggression of the press and its often predictable partisanship, there is a concern that parties can overplay their hand at this point and incur diminishing returns.

In this environment, usual Liberal Democrat tactics may not thrive. The mailing of party literature has always been seen as a good way for the Lib Dems to by-pass the traditional media and get their message across to the electorate directly. When targeted very specifically at marginal seats, it has been remarkably effective. However, with the leaders’ debates embedding the Liberal Democrats in the minds of the electorate as a genuine, credible, viable party; is this still necessary? More importantly, do people want to receive literature three or four times telling them the same things? Equally, given the message that the Liberal Democrats are trying to get across – that they are very different from the two other parties and want to do things differently – is there a danger that using tried and trusted methods also used by the other parties tarnishes them with the brush of ‘old politics’. Perhaps, sometimes, finding new strengths is more important than relying on old ones. It’s a fine balancing act and it remains to be seen whether the Lib Dems’ remarkable story translates into success at the ballet box.

Diversity and politics…let’s ‘get real’…

The recent surge in support for the Liberal Democrats is the story of the election campaign. However, as we approach the final furlong of this three horse race, can they seriously represent the cosmopolitan UK population? Among the 63 Lib Dem MPs in the last Parliament there aren’t any Black or Asian faces to represent the estimated 10% of people who live and work in the UK and come from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities.

It can be patronising to see campaign materials where ethnic minorities are dubbed ‘the changing face of Britain’. Ethnic minority groups already make up around 30% of London’s population – but these are voters that political parties are only just waking up to. Political parties are in serious danger of alienating the ethnic minority electorate by not being representative of the diversity in our nation.

The Labour Party launched its BAME manifesto a few days ago. This outlines their policies for the BME vote in over 100 constituencies across the country and could be pivotal in determining the outcome. There has been little noise about this and other party attempts to reach BME audiences. There are constituencies such as Brent Central, where the ethnic population makes up over 50% of the total, in which parties are fielding candidates whose ethnicity reflects their community. In others, there is a drastic imbalance that needs to be addressed.

At present, there are just 15 MPs in the House of Commons, split among Labour and the Conservatives, and around 30 peers in the Lords from BME backgrounds. If politics were representative of our diverse society then this figure should be closer to 60 MP’s in the Commons, and 70 Peers in the Lords. Ethnic minorities are a key part of the decision making process, and equality and diversity just aren’t reflected in UK party politics.

Trevor Phillips believes BME people are disadvantaged because “the parties and the unions and the think-tanks are all very happy to sign up to the general idea of advocating the cause of minorities but in practice they would like somebody else to do the business. It’s institutional racism.” The Daily Telegraph, 2008

I wouldn’t go as far as this. But I would say that despite the rise of Barack Obama across the pond, the likelihood of a British Prime Minister, or even a party leader, from a BME background is small.

In a sense Gordon Brown was right. Nick Clegg should ‘get real’ - but on the issue of representing our BME communities in Parliament, all the main parties need to do more ahead of the next election if they want to win over the growing and influential 10% ethnic population of the UK. Otherwise ethnic minorities may start to believe they just don’t matter.

Priya Shah, Consultant, Linstock Communications
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

From the thick of it

A week can be a long time in politics.  If you're a Liberal Democrat, it can be a lot longer.  And if you're Gordon Brown, it can be an eternity.

Yesterday's gaffe has dominated today's press.  Commentators are poring over the polls to determine the public's response and it makes grim reading for Labour supporters. Some say Mr Brown’s candid moment will go down in the history books as the death of the New Labour movement. Whether this argument holds up remains to be seen, and the peculiarities of our voting system should prevent a doomsday scenario. But what does this mean for the other parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats?

The week began with the cautious optimism that seems to pervade Cowley Street these days. An unexpectedly benign Sunday press was a welcome surprise but almost certainly the calm before the storm.  The Conservative change of strategy - targeting Labour marginal seats rather than Lib Dem ones - was met with the baffled raising of eyebrows.

Lib Dems had expected Conservative supporters in the print press to unleash a raft of negative stories targeting the party on the morning of the last debate.  Instead, it is Labour that has taken much of the heat. Coupled with the Conservatives switching to target Labour seats, it seems like a pretty positive week for the Lib Dems.

For the Conservatives, the last minute change of strategy could be seen as a desperate roll of the dice.  A failure to gain ground in Lib Dem marginals had, it appeared, forced their hand.  With many marginal Labour seats requiring a swing to the Conservatives of up to 10%, things looked decidedly dicey for David Cameron. Today, that switch looks remarkably well timed.

Of course there is a further consideration. For many, immigration is a key issue in this election. Although it has been a costly diversion for successive Conservative opposition campaigns in the past, it finally looks to have broken into the national consciousness as a substantial concern. The feeling that political parties have conspired to avoid the issue has, rightly or wrongly, taken root.  Gordon Brown's comments yesterday will have served to confirm this in the eyes of many. For the Conservatives, seen as strong on the issue, yesterday's story has been a double boon.

So for Liberal Democrats, the Conservative threat has not been completely avoided. A swing towards the Conservatives could once again open up key marginal seats. The Lib Dem surge could yet be halted.

It's been a high octane week in British politics and it’s still not over. Tonight's debate promises to be hugely important, and as it stands, all bets are still off.  But as we saw yesterday – it only takes a thoughtless word to change the direction of this whole campaign.  It’s all to play for.

John Hood Linstock Consultant

www.linstockcommunications.com

Seconds out, round two!

With the 12 hour build up on Sky throughout the day it certainly had the feel of a heavyweight battle. We knew we were in for something special when Adam Boulton’s hyperbole reached new heights as he excitedly introduced “the first ever leaders’ debate live in HD”.

The communications world took a hammer blow in the opening minutes as Gordon Brown declared “if this election is about style and PR then count me out.” While a nice soundbite, it does rather ignore the huge communications teams that accompany all the party leaders and their expansive party headquarters back in London. The spin room was also filled with heavyweights from all parties desperately trying to influence media coverage of the debate. And, according to the Telegraph, Brown had pages of pre-prepared notes, rebuttals and gags including the clearly staged reference to “Nick” and “David” squabbling like his sons.

David Cameron had certainly been taking communications advice following last week’s disappointing display. Looking straight down the barrel of the camera he addressed the British public head on and tried to connect in a way he hadn’t been able to achieve before. Unfortunately the close-ups also revealed a somewhat tired looking face, showing signs of a grueling campaign schedule.

I was also joined last night by a behavioural expert from Australia (currently stranded waiting for a flight home!) who had almost no knowledge of the candidates before the show. She instantly had Brown as an ‘eight’, which I was told means he has a direct personality. He is straight talking, loves conflict and is prone to bursts of anger. His dominant stance at the lectern as he gripped it firmly with arms outstretched showed the confidence he felt on the stage.

Nick Clegg was deemed a ‘three’ – occasionally a bit flash, good at communicating, but unlikely to go into much detail. Three’s are also prone to using emotive language, as Clegg did last night with words like “paedophile” and “nutters” that will grab the audience’s attention. This is traditionally the image given to Cameron. But it appears that Cameron is no longer the heir to Blair, it’s Clegg!
In terms of Cameron, my antipodean friend was less able to pin him down. Although sharing some attributes with Clegg he was seen as crossing a number of personality traits including charisma and optimism but also as being slightly superficial. Perhaps the inability to put him in a box means the electorate can’t fully embrace or identify with him.

From the telephone canvassing I’ve done during the campaign there is a renewed interest among the electorate. I have spoken to a lot of people who have said they are undecided but are waiting on the final two weeks of the campaign and the final debate before they decide where to plant their flag. There is a real desire for ‘change’ but uncertainty over which party is best placed to deliver it.

Commentators appear undecided on the longer term effect of last night’s debate. But round three, the Leaders’ debate on the economy, should make for a good fight and compelling viewing. Whether someone can deliver a knockout blow remains to be seen.


Tony Cox - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Change is the Frame in the Election Campaign

In my last blog I suggested that many floating voters will use ‘gut’ or ‘intuitive’ thinking when deciding between the candidates. I also outlined the importance of framing in election campaigns.

So far, all three parties seem to be encouraging the electorate to use a ‘change’ frame and then trying to build up credibility by emphasising their change credentials.

This frame leads floating voters to evaluate campaign information simply in terms of the amount and direction of change it implies. Thus parties are being evaluated in terms of the amount of change they are thought to bring about, rather than a detailed evaluation of the implications of their policies.

With the introduction of the three-way debates the party leaders have become more prominent, so floating voters are likely to be assessing each primarily in terms of their ‘potential for inducing change’ rather than other characteristics. This is where Nick Clegg, either intentionally or by luck, has scored so heavily. He has been able to bracket Labour and Conservative parties together as the ‘old system’ and the Liberal Democrats as the ‘new way’.

This gives the Liberal Democrats a much higher rating in terms of degree of change, making them much more attractive to floating voters. This suggests that other aspects of their policy are being neglected. If you doubt this, listen to interviews with the new converts. Not only do they know very little about Liberal Democrats’ policies, but many actually disagree on issues such as joining the euro and looking for a successor to Trident. However, by focusing on this rather nebulous concept of change these crucial differences are ignored.

This state of affairs presents a real problem for the Conservatives who have made the ‘change frame’ a principal part of their campaign. It will be interesting to see whether they rise to the challenge by further emphasising David Cameron’s change credentials or by trying to switch the campaign frame.

As for the Labour Party, they too seem to be going along with the change frame, perhaps inappropriate for a party that has been in power for so long. It will be interesting to see whether we see a switch in their campaign as we get closer to polling day.

Professor John Maule - Linstock Associate
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Political Parties Must Appeal to Gut and Head to Win the Election

And they’re off!!!  The political parties have started what is going to be an intense election race full of hazards. But how will voters decide which horse to back?

Decision making research suggests that many people choose on the basis of habit and that this is so ingrained that political campaigns have little influence on them.  But what about those that have not developed consistent political ‘habits’ such as floating and new voters – how will they decide? Contemporary research suggests that they approach the choice in very different ways.

A relatively small group of people will conduct a detailed analysis of the party manifestos – often referred to as rational or ‘head’ thinking. They will analyse the positions taken by each party in detail, weigh the information up and come to a reasoned choice.

However, the vast majority will use another approach, often referred to as ‘gut’ or ‘intuitive’ thinking. This approach is used because our capacity for thinking is limited.  We rely on simple short cuts or rules of thumb that reduce the demand on our thinking by focusing on a very small amount of the available information, often processing this information in a simple or superficial way. 

But which forms of intuitive thinking will be used during the election and what lessons can communicators learn from recent campaigns?

This depends in part on how people ‘frame’ their decision – that is how they make sense of the situation. Framing a decision in a particular way makes particular forms of intuitive thinking more or less likely to occur.

For example, there is evidence suggesting that the Labour Party campaign in 1997 tried to get the electorate to frame the choice in terms of the individual qualities of the party leaders, building a campaign that highlighted the ‘presidential’ credentials of Tony Blair. This increased the relevance of a form of thinking called ‘representativeness’ where people match information about people and events to knowledge they already have.

So, if people are persuaded to choose a ‘president’ rather than a party, then they choose the person who best matches their existing understanding of the key characteristics of a president.  A successful political campaign encourages people to frame the political choice on the basis of which leader is more presidential.  Similarly, campaigners should present information that demonstrates typical presidential characteristics.

While the current election campaign has only just started, we can already see differences between the major political parties in terms of how they are trying to frame the electorate’s choice.

The Conservative Party has focused squarely on Cameron as an individual as if they wish the choice to be conceptualised as Brown vs. Cameron. On the other hand, the Labour Party kicked off the campaign by including the whole Cabinet as if they wish the choice to be conceptualised as one team versus the other.  The Liberal Democrats, however, seemed to opt for a middle ground, launching the campaign with leader Nick Clegg and its highest profile spokesperson Vince Cable.

It will be interesting to see whether this is a deliberate strategy and which, if any, becomes the predominant way that the electorate frames their voting decision. Regardless, the political campaigns need to appeal to both gut and head to ensure they’re first past the post.

Professor John Maule - Linstock Associate
For more information about Professor Maule click here 

www.linstockcommunications.com

Cash Gordon - Failure of the Cyberverse!

We recently saw the Tories go viral with ‘Cash Gordon’ - a hash tag campaign (the ‘#’ makes it easier to search for) attacking Labour’s involvement with Unite the union. They hoped to build momentum to rival some of Twitter’s largest spikes, such as the death of Michael Jackson in 2009, which crashed Twitter’s servers. But on this occasion, while servers didn’t crash the campaign pretty much did. It was popular, but not for the reasons the Conservatives had hoped. 

The campaign stacked up well. Think of a good hash tag, ride the media wave and go viral. Unfortunately social media is a harsh and unpredictable animal, which will bite you if you don’t prepare for every possible outcome. Starting a campaign on a User Generated Content website isn’t the same as sending out leaflets. The key is the word ‘user’ - better defined as the ‘general public’ – many of whom have strong opinions and lots of time to air them. The public are harsh, and can be brave from behind a keyboard, as Cash Gordon administrators witnessed first hand.

An open forum on a website that publishes users’ tweets without vetting was risky and prone to abuse. Yes, create a forum for debate and be genuine in your interaction with the public. But no, do not allow the public to publish content on your website without your permission or moderation. In this case, word spread quickly that if you tweet with the hash tag #CashGordon, any content, including obscenities, will be published in a twitter feed on the site home page (which has now been suspended).

Inevitably crass one liners started taking over the website, and the Conservative Party saw another web campaign consigned to the same fate as the 2007 Flash Gordon TV remake. To make matters worse, some of the public quickly discovered that lines of code could be included in their tweets and promptly began uploading pornographic material, Rick Astley videos, malware, and, ironically, redirections to the Labour party website.

The Conservatives’ idea was a good one and opportunistic, but they failed to keep control. If they wanted to create debate and encourage user interaction, then they should have had a separate forum on their website, requiring users to sign up before they post. They could have kept the hash tag idea and wouldn’t have been at fault if it turned sour. Alas, many developers are more interested in promoting their new websites or software than considering the ramifications of an online political campaign going bad.

The list of examples of politicos attempting to bulldoze the electorate with social media and making a complete hash(tag) of it is growing. We’ve seen the fall of David Wright, Sion Simon, David Cameron’s air brushed billboard and now this. You must tread a careful line when promoting yourself on social networking sites. On a relatively new platform, blunders are all too easy to make.

Jay McGregor - Linstock Consultant

www.linstockcommunications.com

Win when you're spinning

As the pre-election gloves come off, the much feared figure of the ‘spin doctor’ is once again figuring on the undercard. These vicious pugilists generally conform to one of two orthodoxies: scrappy bruisers or refined assassins. And purists be ware - a host of new contenders are limbering up.


At the risk of stretching an already weak metaphor further, the popular image of the political communicator is more than a little punch drunk.

But is this reputation deserved? It’s inevitable that the occasionally questionable behaviour of a few high profile characters will grab attention, but what about the lesser noticed comms professional quietly working across parts of national, regional, and local government? Are they also villains, obscuring the truth and peddling propaganda?

Not in my experience. Contentious political decisions need to be made in the full glare of public scrutiny, just as complicated public administration need to be explained. In addition, we’re told again and again that people are hungry to engage in politics. But between public institutions and…well…the public, sits a gaping divide. It’s up to comms pros. to bridge this gap by getting information across accessibly and concisely in a way that suits people’s lifestyles. It’s not easy, and a lot of skill and experience is needed to negotiate a fast shifting media (and increasingly ‘new’ media) landscape.

Sometimes, outside expertise is called on. At Linstock we’re incredibly proud of the work we do to help public organisations engage with the public, from keeping local residents informed about housing growth in their area, to encouraging minority ethnic groups to take part in the 2011 Census.

Effective communications are an essential part of democracy, so let’s not let a few eye-gougers hide the fact that most of us stick firmly to Queensbury Rules.

Mark Fuller - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Will PRs have to work harder? As seen in PR week

Farewell the BBC Asian Network, unless outcry from celebrity fans can change Mark Thompson’s mind.   Wherever you stand on the issue, the story should shake up a PR industry too often complacent about the UK’s growing Asian community. 

For too long, the BBC Asian network provided a tick box answer for clients outside their comfort zone.  With 360,000 listeners and the BBC logo it’s easy to present the network as a catch all solution. If your client’s story is covered then every Asian in the UK heard about it, right?

Wrong. With or without the network, PRs need to work harder and smarter to target the Asian community.  Understanding and celebrating the diversity of audiences and media is the key to success.  First, ‘Asian’ isn’t enough.  Clients need to understand the cultural and religious sensitivities of different groups and the way in which their messages will be received.  Second, the one size fits all approach doesn’t work.  Good PRs need relationships with many independent, local radio stations that serve particular communities and a sound understanding of community specific print titles that most databases ignore. 

Communicating with two million UK Asians requires a dedicated work programme, not a single radio schedule.

Ashnoor Pardhan, head of diverse communities, Linstock Communications

www.linstockcommunications.com 

Access to higher education

For those who advocate education as a vehicle for social mobility, access to higher education has long been a cause celebre. Although widening participation and increasing participation are not strictly the same concept, they are rarely treated as separate causes. Parliamentary debates on the issue are peppered with emotive rhetoric; high on accusatory finger-pointing and impassioned defences of political records.  So it was slightly surprising that yesterday’s Opposition Day debate on access to higher education provided little political ruckus since the argument focused on the huge increase in university applications this year and the expected shortfall of university places to meet this growth in demand. 

Many argue that the burden of responsibility for increasing and widening participation in higher education cannot solely fall on universities. This is an issue that came to a head in 2008 when Lord Patten, chancellor of Oxford and Newcastle, accused the Government of treating universities like "social security offices" in its efforts to widen participation to higher education. In recent months, newer universities have seized on the opportunity to differentiate themselves by calling for more university places for poorer students ; a tacit criticism of ‘elite’ universities like Oxford. Battle lines have been drawn.

In communications terms, the difference in approach between the old school and the newcomers is stark.  Newer universities have effectively used the widening access platform to carve out an image of progressiveness and inclusiveness.  But many red-brick universities have been left behind, made to look stuffy and out of touch. In reality, many of these ‘elite’ institutions have effective programmes in place and are making great strides in reaching out to poorer students. Clearly the greatest problem they face is to communicate these programmes effectively.  For Russell Group institutions and the like, demonstrating a willingness to reach to out to a wider audience is about more than positive PR. Effective access programmes can draw in talented students from poorer backgrounds.  They become self-perpetuating; other once wary students are encouraged to apply.  A good social conscience and a progressive access policy is not enough.  Universities must market their efforts more effectively if they want to remain relevant.  

John Hood - Consultant 

www.linstockcommunications.com

New media, old methods

Barack Obama’s party machine was the first organisation to campaign effectively using social media on such a large scale.  Indeed, many have argued, “it’s the internet what won it”. Obama’s success is attributable to a number of factors, not least his machine’s ability to use a resource the Republicans failed get a grip on. So why is it that, in an election year, the main UK political parties haven’t harnessed such a proven communications tool? Indeed, both parties have cited the Obama machine as an inspiration, with Labour Party HQ even taking tips from the Obama election team. The ideas are there, but, unfortunately the method is not.

By no means will this year’s election be fought solely in cyber space. If you look at the main parties’ profiles and fan pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, they have a relatively small support base considering the size of their organisations. The reasons for this are two fold: firstly, their online presence is contrived and, therefore, relatively sterile. Secondly, traditional media seize upon stuffy old politicians who attempt to appear hip by ‘tweeting’ or fail to appreciate their audience.

Parties have failed to connect with voters online because their blogs or tweets read like mini manifestos, or as a blogger might describe, political spam. A 17 times vetted, one line inspirational message - ‘Labour for a brighter future’ - is often seen by the electorate as insincere. The idea behind these tools is that you reach a demographic who will not respond to simple party slogans. To truly engage with the average tweeter, updates must have personality, be genuine and, arguably most important, they must be topical. Posting an update about your personal thoughts on a particular subject strikes a chord with people, and the personal touch will always prevail on this medium.

Although the Conservative Party has almost twice Labour’s following on its Twitter and Facebook pages, on balance it is Labour that has the advantage.  This is down to two factors.  First, it can call on a lot of grass root online support, with groups and pages set up by candidates and voters alike. 

And second, the Party has a number of online powerhouses, such as John Prescott and Alistair Campbell, who have large online followings and have successfully personalised the official message.

But, MPs be warned, unless you’re a Prescott or Campbell, blogging can be dangerous territory. On a slow news day, the media will seize on Twitter’s abundance of hilarious examples of MPs attempting to micro blog. Just look at the unfortunate case of David Wright, Labour whip, who described the Conservatives as “scum sucking pigs” in a particularly scathing tweet. The national papers picked this up and the story blew up overnight.    

Understandably, communication bosses at party HQ’s are apprehensive about loosening the leash on their delegates when blunders like this occur. But there is a middle ground. It is possible to be personal without being offensive. And if it’s done correctly, the rewards are plentiful.

Jay McGregor - Linstock Consultant  
www.linstockcommunications.com