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
31 March 2010
23 March 2010
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/
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/
18 March 2010
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
17 March 2010
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.
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
12 March 2010
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.
www.linstockcommunications.com
9 March 2010
Nothing learned on education
It was interesting to see a planned Opposition Day debate on access to higher education cancelled today. This could simply be recognition from the Conservative whips that higher education has taken up an unreasonable amount of Parliamentary time in recent weeks. However, it may also provide some answers to questions about the likely direction of legislation post general election, should the Conservatives form the next Government.
Schools reform is clearly a key ambition of the Conservatives, with Michael Gove promising an Education Bill within weeks of a Conservative Government coming to power. In recent weeks the printed press has extensively covered Conservative proposals, from top performing schools being exempt from Ofsted inspections to the extension of the Government’s academies programme. Although much of the policy behind any Education Bill will be in place before the general election, the Conservatives will still need to dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s to have a Bill in place. In addition, a number of likely proposals, including the development of Swedish style ‘free schools’ are likely to come under serious, sustained attack from large sections of the House. If a Conservative majority government is minimal, passing this legislation could be tricky and time consuming.
The real loser in all of this could be higher education. With the squeeze on public spending hitting universities hard, most are crying out for alternative funding sources. The Government commissioned Browne review is looking at just such possibilities. If, as expected, it calls for a rise in tuition fees, this would ostensibly benefit universities, particularly as the Conservatives are expected to support such a recommendation. However, such a comprehensive report as the Browne review will almost certainly require primary legislation. With a Conservative focus on schools reform, what time does this leave for the development of such legislation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
