Cameron: We’re all in it together – against those who aren’t

David Cameron set out a sober warning to his party conference today that it’s “sink or swim” time; a time of “difficult painful decisions” when we must “do or decline”. The Prime Minister wants to level with the electorate, but the persistent message of no jam today or tomorrow is hardly a tempting prospect for our big society club. It leaves Team GB struggling for willing members while wealthy affiliates flee to Monaco without paying subs. In keeping with George Osborne’s speech earlier this week, it maps out a future of hard work without hinting at rewards on the horizon.

With no preserves in his larder to tempt the troops, Cameron sought to stiffen the resolve of his party and the country by finding something to fight against: a tactic used by other speakers in Birmingham to castigate benefit scroungers and the “taxpayer funded, Châteauneuf-du-Pape-swilling” largesse of Labour. Cameron used his speech to unite people against the challenges from overseas. He spoke of Britain in a “global race” and warned that “Britain may not be in the future what it has been in the past.”

It’s a tried and tested approach, but for how long will the sense of national identity and service that are so important to David Cameron – he is a “simple man”, driven by family and service to his country – resonate with people in an increasingly globalised world?

Do British people feel their jobs and homes are threatened by foreign competition, or do they feel themselves more vulnerable to the actions of bogeymen in the international banking community, who regard national borders as more permeable?

In their conference speeches, both Cameron and Miliband tried to unite people against a common foe. Will Cameron’s warning of a challenge from overseas or Miliband’s assertion that we have to curb the excesses of capitalism prove the stronger rallying cry?

Jon Bennett

Director

jon@linstockcommunications.com

Had un oeuf of spurious research?

Researchers this week claimed that they can predict personality, lifestyle and even sex drive by how a person eats their eggs.

In what can only be termed slightly eggstravagant claims, the research team found that poached egg eaters are outgoing, listen to upbeat music and are happier; boiled egg consumers are disorganised; fried egg fans have a high sex drive; scrambled egg aficionados are guarded and omelette eaters are self-disciplined.

Covered by The Telegraph, Mail and Express, the research may have been tongue-in-cheek, but the level of media and public interest highlights our insatiable appetite for pop science.

As is regularly the case, the research is part of a PR campaign – once you read down the articles, you realise that this scientific breakthrough is all in the cause of British Egg Week.

But, while we can’t and shouldn’t take the research too seriously, it does pose some questions about researchers and the use of their work in marketing campaigns: 

• There is rarely sufficient appreciation of the flaws in the research e.g. small sample size. 
• The focus is largely on the outcomes of the research with little information about the methodology, which can bias the results. 
• The pressure to find ‘media friendly results’ can lead to huge over-simplification.

That’s why all Linstock consultants go on a research methodologies course to ensure they understand how to undertake, evaluate and promote research.

When there is so much excellent academic research available it is arguably a shame that the media focuses on pop science. After all, research is no yolking matter. 

Simon Maule

Director

simon@linstockcommunications.com

TV ad unlikely to aid auto-enrolment

This week saw the beginning of auto-enrolment, the “biggest change in pensions for over 100 years”, according to the Government, and a move that ministers hope will result in up to 11 million more people saving in workplace pensions.

The launch has been supported by a month long advertising campaign by the Government to build support for the scheme. It’s followed a fairly simple formula. Get a collection of famous business people like Dragon’s Den star Theo Paphitis to explain what the scheme is, then for these people to say ‘I’m in!’ to demonstrate their support. As far as public information adverts go, it’s pretty standard fare. But how has the public responded?

Unsurprisingly, with some cynicism. A number of organisations, including the Pensions Action Group, question the use of celebrity businessmen like Paphitis, suggesting they were highly unlikely to be taking out a pension designed explicitly for the low paid. Others have simply described the adverts as patronising.

This may seem like employee churlishness, but there are sound behavioural economic theories that help explain why this campaign is likely to be ineffective.

One such theory argues that people are more likely to act on information they receive if it is delivered by someone with similar characteristics to them. Paphitis may be a respected businessman, but he is also a multimillionaire with a lifestyle far-removed from the average low to middle income earner. The target audience for these adverts is unlikely to identify with the jet-setting affluent; they will be more persuaded by people like themselves in normal jobs earning normal wages.

Another aspect of theory, loss aversion, suggests how the Government can improve on these adverts. Loss aversion highlights people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Thus instead of talking about the savings gap of billions of pounds and similar macro economic factors, the campaign should focus on how people will personally lose out should they opt out of auto-enrolment. The possibility of losing out is a powerful driver of human behaviour and will lead people to remain opted-in.

And there are other decision making theories the Government can focus on to help increase support for auto-enrolment, not least the herding instinct. This refers to the tendency for people to ’follow the crowd’, particularly when distressed or asked to make a difficult decision. Over the coming months, the Government should reinforce the auto-enrolment message by highlighting the large numbers that remain opted-in to the scheme.

A campaign that combines loss aversion highlighting the dangers of losing out and on the herding instinct highlighting that enrolment is the norm is likely to be much more effective than one based simply on celebrity endorsements.

The Government’s determination to get people saving is admirable. But if it wants to crack the savings gap problem, it needs to base its campaign on sound evidenced-based principles. 

John Hood

Consultant

john@linstockcommunications.com

Clegg’s speech was unrepentant and self-assured, but actions must follow words

As first seen in Professional Manager

Pre-Coalition, Lib Dem conferences used to be very different affairs. The media provided relatively benign coverage, and activists could indulge in a sort of giant back-slap-athon. The Lib Dems may have been out of the reach of power, but they knew who they were and what they represented – the good guys of politics, wielding power by influencing the debate.

These days, a Lib Dem conference is a far more solemn beast. The realities of Coalition government and plummeting poll ratings have dampened grassroots enthusiasm. Many members have left the party altogether; those that have remained want reassurance over the direction the party will take over the next three years.

Amidst this angst and navel-gazing, Clegg’s keynote speech therefore felt less “tall order” and more “mountainous task”. His first and greatest challenge was to placate disillusioned members. A focus on “going green” and holding the Conservatives to account on their environmental promises will have helped.

Clegg’s second challenge was to appeal to a broader base, to convince the “squeezed middle” he was on their side. A commitment to focus on top-down tax cuts may well appeal to those who have turned away from the Lib Dems and looked towards Labour.

His final challenge was to project a statesmanlike image, to demonstrate leadership. By resolutely stating that the party is no longer the party of opposition, Clegg described the Liberal Democrats as now being one of three parties of government. Part pep-talk, part lecture, the speech ticked the right boxes but lacked easy sound-bites.

The problem for Clegg is, as he himself said, “So much of this is about perception”. The party membership cheered at the right moments, but Clegg’s talk of the realities the country faces will have sounded like “more of the same” to others.

Talk of a leadership contest will be put to bed for now, but for the Lib Dems to claw back wider support, Clegg will need to show that the progressive policies he espouses can actually be passed as legislation.

If Clegg pulls that off, he may find that his autotuned songs on YouTube are a little more flattering.

John Hood

Consultant

john@linstockcommunications.com 

Cameron survives civil war re-enactment

Do Brits take showers? Is Spotted Dick really the nation’s favourite dessert? And is Cheryl Cole speaking English? Not quite the questions that Dave (Letterman) asked Dave (Cameron) last night but not far off.

There are conflicting reports about whether the Prime Minister’s team had been given advance sighting of the questions he would face but you suspect not, given his failure to translate the latin phrase Magna Carta. But could these have been predicted?

It’s always a game of cat and mouse when speaking to producers about a possible interview for clients. Some are happy to provide almost word for word what the questions will be. Others are rather less helpful.

It’s understandable that broadcasters don’t want to interview people who have rehearsed so heavily for specific questions that it sounds like they are reading the answers from a script. But at the same time, is it fair to put someone up on live TV or radio and open them up to an ambush? Having experienced this in the past I can say the client is never best pleased!

While any good PR operator will have a pretty good idea of the subject areas and likely questions, it’s important to think around those areas to identify the tricky curve balls that may get thrown in. And be prepared for the questions you simply can’t answer too.

One technique to use is the ABC method. Acknowledge a difficult question, Bridge onto a subject you want to talk about, Control with a key message you want to get across. Not always easy in the heat of an interview. 

So how could Dave C have responded to the Magna Carta question?

Acknowledge you have been caught out, Bridge to the subject of British history, and Control with a joke; ‘with our long and glorious past it’s hard to remember it all’.  This leads neatly to what the whole interview was supposed to be about – attracting businesses and visitors to the UK.

What makes a great spokesperson is the ability to take this through under the bright lights. Get in touch if you want to give it a try.     

Tony Cox
Consultant
tony@linstockcommunications.com

Public health warning – will councils be prepared for the switch-over?

In April 2013 responsibility for improving public health and tackling issues such as smoking and obesity will pass from central government to local authorities. Recent research by Linstock, covered today by PR Week, found that nearly half of communications heads at local authorities believe they do not have the resources to manage the comms element of this switch-over. Only 41% of local authorities have already developed a communications strategy to support public health.

Public health has the potential to re-energise local democracy. It provides an opportunity for councillors to demonstrate tangible and measurable benefits to the quality of life of local people and it cuts across almost every area of local authority operations, from planning to schools. It also provides a chance for councils to show their worth to central government, who will be keeping an eagle-eye on their successes and failures.

So what do councils see as their main challenges? The obvious ones are time and money. A number of those questioned were unsure about exactly what resources they needed; many others simply felt they would not have enough time and money to devote to these issues.

But there is another concern. A large number of respondents pointed towards the difficulty of integrating public health communications across a number of organisations and groups. They recognised that for communications to be effective, they will need to engage with a wide variety of external stakeholders beyond the town hall.

To do this, councils will need to develop communications strategies that respond to the multitude of audiences they need to address. They will also need to bring together health, education and other organisations across public and private sectors.

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

Lamont’s lament – when good predictions go bad

What’s the worst prediction you’ve ever heard? It’s a tough choice; history is littered with an infamous few. Could it be Michael Fish reassuring viewers over concerns there might be hurricane force winds, a few hours before one of Britain’s worst storms of the Twentieth Century hit South-East England in 1987? Or perhaps it’s Alan Hansen’s assertion that Manchester United would “never win anything with kids”, months before their Premier League and FA Cup double in 1996?

Well there’s another that’s reared its head over the last few days, one which left its maker widely ridiculed for his timing. As the twentieth anniversary of Black Wednesday came and went over the weekend, so did a few chuckles in the media over Norman Lamont’s famous statement from 1991, the year before Black Wednesday, that “the green shoots of economic spring are appearing once again." For the record, the deterioration that led to the Pound being removed from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September 1992 is estimated to have cost the UK economy £3.4bn.

But just how bad was Lamont’s prediction? Its timing led many to question the then Chancellor’s wisdom, and it undoubtedly caused the Conservatives reputational damage in the eyes of the electorate. It certainly cost Lamont – he left the Government in 1993. But as then Prime Minister John Major explained to Andrew Marr over the weekend, history might well have proved Mr. Lamont right. In the years that followed, the United Kingdom entered an unprecedented period of economic growth (although much of it occurred under Blair’s Labour Government).

The problem for Lamont was that his statement was a high-risk, low-reward one. It could only be proven long after the event, and politics is a short-term game. Lamont made himself a hostage to fortune in the immediate aftermath, as any sign of economic stagnation was sure to be seized upon by the media. Conversely, any sign of economic growth that reinforced his prediction was likely to provide a far less salacious story for the press.

Instead of making such a triumphant statement, Lamont should have simply pointed to the evidence that supported his assertion. In doing so he would have given himself greater wriggle room once Black Wednesday struck.

This time the Conservatives have played it far smarter. By using the retired former Prime Minister John Major to make their case, they have used someone who need not worry about short-term concerns or his media profile. If the economy goes to hell in a handcart, the leadership can easily distance itself from his comments.

Tom Yazdi
Consultant
tom@linstockcommunications.com

For richer, for poorer: Labour’s union-leader partners hand initiative to Tories

As first seen on Professional Manager

No-one is more able to undermine the credibility and electability of the Labour party than the very people who provide its funding. Despite calls for calm from Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, and the appeals of more moderate voices like Chris Keates of the NASUWT, the Trades Union Conference (TUC) yesterday passed a motion that could pave the way towards a general strike.

Politically, it’s like Roman Abramovich insisting his team wear their boots on the wrong feet.

Granted, few people expect that there will be a national shut down, but plenty of people will talk it up. That provides a golden opportunity for the government to position unionised labour as the main barrier to economic recovery, and the Labour party as their political mouthpiece. It may stem from genuine concern over the impact of austerity, but union rhetoric against public-sector pay freezes sounds like simple self-interest to the ears of most people.

Recession itself is a pretty opaque opponent, and Conservatives would much prefer a simple scrap with the unions that people would more easily understand.

Ed Balls must have been delighted with the heckles he attracted in Brighton as he refused to back an end to the pay freeze. Ever since Ed Miliband’s election, the party has been trying to shake off accusations that the “Union Barons” call the shots. But the moment of conflict he created, and could have used to his advantage, has been superseded by another. His cause is no further forward.

Some in the Union movement want to sever the link themselves. Like a disgruntled spouse, they keep threatening divorce, and large parts of the Labour party think wistfully about the free and single life. Until it comes to the business of paying the bills, that is.

Latest figures from the Electoral Commission show that Labour received cash donations of £2.7m in the second quarter of this financial year, of which £2.1m, or 78%, came from the unions. Until something is done about party funding, Labour will simply have to take it on the chin and rack their brains for a way to seize back the initiative.

Jon Bennett
Director
jon@linstockcommunications.com

Apple vs. Samsung – How can Apple stay the apple of our eye?

A jury’s decision to award Apple £1bn in damages as a result of patent infringements by Samsung has led to much soul-searching across the pond. For many, the decision was naked protectionism, a blow against innovation and competition. Others felt Samsung’s punishment was not nearly severe enough. There is one certainty highlighted by these legal wranglings - Apple has wider issues around brand, image and communications that it will need to address shortly.

Fifteen years ago Steve Jobs returned to his spiritual home. His meticulous reconstruction of Apple is well documented, built as much on an instinctive understanding of brand, design and marketing as it was savvy business decisions.

As a challenger brand Apple was able to portray itself as edgy, young, exciting and importantly, aesthetic. Messaging started with the ‘Think Different’ campaign and moved onto adverts that included a PC and Mac compare and contrast, with a PC represented by a suited businessman and a Mac by a jeans wearing bohemian. Communications, and the Apple brand, was built around a sense of Mac owners somehow being different from their peers, more original, more free-thinking.

But Apple is now the biggest company in US history, not some uppity newcomer. Instead of playing the ‘new-kid-on-the-block’ card, they’ve shifted direction, with communications now portraying Apple as a lifestyle choice. Far from being a stamp of individualism, Apple is now a stamp of affluence, the technological embodiment of keeping ahead of the Joneses.

This change in direction has so far been managed relatively smoothly, but the Samsung case hints at choppy waters ahead. Can Apple continue to be the must-have brand, the epitome of urban cool, if it’s seen as a playground bully? A protracted legal case is surely far closer in nature to the suited businessman than the care-free urbanista Apple sought to portray itself as.

Apple customers are notoriously loyal, but how Apple communicates with the next generation of young adults is vital for its continuing dominance. It needs a communications strategy that acknowledges Apple’s popularity without compromising its image as a maverick. To do so, it needs to get back to what it does best – innovation. What could have been a ‘cooler’ response to Samsung patent infringements than to simply shrug, smile and continue to think outside of the box?

John Hood Consultant john@linstockcommunications.com

We love the greenbelt, so let’s build on it

In one of Lord Prescott’s famous malapropisms he once claimed that the green belt is a labour achievement and they mean to build on it.

It now seems some members of the Conservative Government wish to make good on his erroneous pledge.

Building on the green belt seems to be a regular reaction when Governments are under pressure to deliver new housing and stimulate economic growth.

But if this does happen in some form how do you communicate this positively to local communities that are fiercely protective of their surroundings?

Being involved in a current planning process on a green belt site I can vouch for the strength of feeling people have about their local environment. Rightly or wrongly attachment to what has now become the sacrosanct green belt is heartfelt. 

The coalition has talked about providing financial incentives for communities to approve developments. And certainly demonstrating a closer link between future development and the actual benefits for existing communities is vital.

This takes previous section 106 planning agreements to a new level. Rather than developers just paying for additional services to meet the needs of the new development there must also be a significant benefit for the existing community. Not in my back yard can often be overcome through this kind of measure.  

This does not get away from the need for good old fashioned community consultation and engagement. Yes, there are ways to carry out consultations online and gather people’s views and these should be embraced. But nothing is quite the same as a face to face meeting. This gives you the opportunity to look people in the eye and explain the detail behind plans and respond immediately to their concerns.

Trust is a word that comes up regularly in discussions with local residents about planning issues. And this is hard to build purely online.  

You may not win over everyone through meeting them face to face. But surely even a heated consultation is better than no consultation at all?

Tony Cox

Consultant

tony@linstockcommunications.com

A Stroke of Genius: Priming, Timing and Human Behaviour

This month’s Harvard Business Review highlights new research showing the potential impact of priming – a psychological process where a stimulus predisposes people to react in a certain way.

An experiment by research scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany found that golfers primed to believe that they were using a putter used by a professional golfer were 32% more successful at sinking putts than a control group that was told nothing. Similarly, the primed group estimated that the hole was 9% bigger than the control group of golfers. The golfers who believed they were playing with a professional’s club thought they’d perform better, so they did.

The research echoes similar findings Linstock unearthed as part of a recent academic review for Fidelity’s pension business in the UK. Research shows that exposing people to words associated with the elderly e.g. wrinkles means that they walk much more slowly when leaving the room and have a poorer memory of the room. On the flipside, participants asked to make sentence out of words like lean, fit, active, athletic are much more likely to use the stairs instead of the lift.

But what are the implications for communicators working on behaviour change campaigns? Firstly, priming can and does work. Secondly, techniques used to target the sub-conscious can sometimes be more effective at changing behaviours than the more obvious appeals to reason.

But there still remains a question mark over the longer-term impact of priming techniques. Once the prime is removed, people often return to their original state. Likewise, priming is just one of a number of behavioural influences. To truly affect longer term behaviour, a number of these influencers need to be used together. Researchers, including members of the MINDSPACE team in the Cabinet Office, are working hard to understand these types of affects and apply them in behavioural change campaigns.

While they continue their experiments, I’m just about to give the team a handful of pens used by Einstein.  

Simon Maule

Director

simon@linstockcommunications.com

Is backbencher backbiting overshadowing leadership?

As first seen in Professional Manager

Politics used to be all about the “big beasts”: frontbench heavyweights with big personalities and big ideas. But a succession of political leaders has shifted power away from the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet, and towards small cabals of advisers and acolytes.

In doing so, they have drawn policy decisions even further away from MPs on the party fringes, leading to a number of flashpoints between leaders and disgruntled backbenchers. Tony Blair was able to placate these MPs through a mixture of charm, bluff and minor concessions. But David Cameron has found this a much harder task.

Cameron’s backbenchers include the usual collection of lickspittling careerists – but they also contain a large number of MPs willing to risk career stagnation in order to challenge the party hierarchy. In addition to a familiar group of elder statesmen and embittered former ministers, this includes new, youthful backbench MPs from a diverse range of backgrounds. Given the broad church that these Conservatives represent, Cameron and his supporters have found it hard to whip them into line. As a consequence, rebellions have grown to a level approaching insurgency.

In stark contrast, Ed Miliband faces more benign objections from Labour backbenchers. Following a start to his leadership in which his momentum seemed glacial, Miliband was beset with questions over his competence. But improved performances at PMQs and a greater deftness with managing conflicting Old and New Labour factions has shored up his position and quelled backbench criticism.

What, then, of the Lib Dems? Nick Clegg has found his approach questioned by backbenchers on more than one occasion, but on the whole, most seem to accept that the party is locked in a loveless marriage with the Conservatives, and that any further turmoil would only harm the party and its chances for re-election.

The last government was characterised by its clashes between Brown and Blair – but this bickering did not prevent the party from presenting a (relatively) unified front in public. Both figures understood that party infighting is a guaranteed vote loser.

The difference for Cameron is that he is not faced with an ambitious colleague looking to dethrone him, but numerous colleagues questioning the government’s direction. It may well be highfalutin ideals that power these rebels. And their rebellions may be symptomatic of their simple desire to make a mark. Nonetheless, Cameron needs to find a way to placate them if he wants any chance of retaining power at the next election.

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

150 Million Olympic Tweets, but who won Gold?

It was a question asked on Radio 4 today and it’s worthy of closer examination. The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising has estimated there were 150 million Olympic related tweets sent during the Games. That’s 150 million tweets across 16 days, a pretty staggering figure. But we already knew that London 2012 had captured the public’s imagination. The real question is how have businesses used Twitter to cash in on this activity?

Brands have recognised that getting people to talk about them is the real boon of social media. The more people talk about a brand, the more familiar they are with it, the more popular it becomes and the more likely people are to invest in it. It sounds a hopelessly simplistic description of human behaviour, but by and large it rings true. Familiarity breeds favourability, not contempt.

In the main, companies have learnt to reject the corporate ‘hard-sell’ from a generic company Twitter account. Instead, businesses focused on individual athletes and competitors.  A company like Adidas has done particularly well by sponsoring high-profile athletes, both through traditional mediums such as billboards as well as via social media like Twitter. In fact some estimates suggest the number of people following Adidas on Twitter has increased ten-fold during the Games.

Another question this has raised is whether Twitter and social media is effectively making traditional forms of advertising and marketing redundant. The simple answer is, no. In many cases social media is being used to accentuate the effects of TV advertising. If anything, social media is working best in partnership with traditional methods of engagement.

So another win for Twitter and the social media revolution, right? Yes and no. Twitter’s effectiveness in generating debate on brands is almost unparalleled. But understanding how this can be effectively translated into increasing sales, for example, is a much trickier process, and one a number of brands are grappling with.

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learnt from this is that we should not forget the ‘social’ aspect of social media. It is still about conversations between people, not organisations. For brands to use Twitter effectively, they mustn’t lose sight of this. 

John Hood

Consultant

john@linstockcommunications.com