Taxing times for Tories

On Tuesday the Chancellor announced the postponement of a planned 3p-a-litre duty rise on fuel. Given the huge number of cash-strapped motorists that would benefit from this, the announcement seemed almost bullet-proof in its populism. So has it been met with enthusiastic support from a grateful public? Not quite.

Coming fast on the heels of the Government’s volte-face over ‘Pastygate,’ the postponement has been roundly criticised as a policy U-turn.

Any change of heart on policy conducted by Government is likely to be big news. For the media it suggests incompetence. For opposition parties it points to Government indecisiveness. When allowed to fester, these are perceptions that lose parties elections.

But despite the expected criticism of policy flip-flopping, it was the manner in which the announcement was communicated that has generated most ire. Although Osborne had previously discussed the postponement in the House of Commons, on Tuesday night, the junior Treasury minister Chloe Smith appeared on Newsnight to discuss the changes with presenter Jeremy Paxman.

The interview can best be described as ‘Textbook Paxman.’ Smith was mercilessly grilled over the Government’s postponement, and despite maintaining a level of poise that would escape most of us, the interview was quickly placed on YouTube as an example of another Paxman dressing down.

Smith’s performance was seized upon by Labour MPs, media commentators and even one back-bench Conservative MP. But instead of criticism focusing on the relatively inexperienced Smith, anger was instead directed towards Osborne. The suggestion was that he had ‘hidden’ behind Smith and asked her to deliver the difficult news instead of appearing on Newsnight himself.

Rightly or wrongly, this sort of decision matters. What you communicate is only half the story, the other is how this is communicated. Previous attempts by Governments to sneak out unfavourable or unpopular announcements have led to widespread criticism, not least after the now famous quote from former special adviser Jo Moore - “It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.”

On big policy decisions, there is an expectation that Cabinet members should deliver and discuss them in public. This expectation is amplified when the policy is debated on a particularly challenging platform, such as Newsnight. In failing to recognise this important communications principle, the Government has turned what should have been a well-received policy decision into a question of its competence and its members’ bravery.


John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

The FA wins at Euro 2012

We looked previously at how the FA had revamped its approach to public relations, but how has it held up after England’s elimination?

So, another England adventure at a major football championship ends in penalty shootout heartbreak. This time we faced the Italians rather than the Germans or the Portuguese, our more recent nemeses, but the outcome was all the same. Some things never change, eh?

Well actually, they do. In fact, England has actually scored a major success at this tournament, a communications ‘win’ for the Football Association. It feels like lessons have been learnt from previous failures, and the FA’s attempts to engage our national team with fans and the media have been felt and appreciated.

Two years ago, England were preparing for the World Cup in South Africa. Holed up in a hotel complex in the remote countryside, the players had no interaction with anybody; in fact, apart from computer games and a pool, they had nothing to do. It seemed deliberate. A misguided attempt to ‘focus the players’ and perhaps to create a siege mentality, where the players were encouraged to foster an ‘us v them’ mindset. This was borne out in a training session where for once, the media were allowed to come and watch. The then manager, Fabio Capello, saw media getting too close for his liking and launched a tirade of abuse at the journalists in question, forcing them back and no doubt putting them off coming anywhere near again. It was unseemly and unnecessary – and filmed by news outlets around the world.

The whole England setup felt distant. The team developed cabin fever and played awfully, but equally, the performance of the FA in allowing this to happen also left a lot to be desired.

How refreshing, then, to see a completely different approach this time. Based in the centre of busy Krakow, the emphasis over the last couple of weeks has been on engagement. With fans, with locals, and with the media. The players and staff have been actively encouraged to go out for coffee, go sightseeing, and they responded. The result has been a real feel good factor enjoyed by all, including the media, whose mild indifference to Roy Hodgson’s appointment not all that long ago has completely evaporated.

Did any of this make any difference on the pitch? Arguably so, yes. Okay, the end result is a depressingly familiar one, but the new-found spirit of togetherness was evident in the performances of a team who performed better than most thought they would. For the first time in a long time, England come away from a tournament having struck up warm and genuine relationships with those that hosted them, that came to watch them and that reported on their progress. This was all made possible by a shift in attitude, from insular to all-inclusive; cold and distant to warm and engaging.

Long may it continue. Next on the to-do list: penalty shootouts…

Tom Yazdi

Consultant

tom@linstockcommunications.com

When using stars, be careful they don’t explode into a black hole

What a week it’s been for football, and not just in terms of England’s win against Ukraine! This week has seen Nicklas Bendtner fined £80,000 for celebrating a goal by showing off his lucky Paddy Power pants, although the bookmakers have agreed to pick up the tab for the striker, and Nike reprimanded for using the personal Twitter accounts of Wayne Rooney and Jack Wilshere to promote its Make it Count campaign.

Whether you think the authorities were right or wrong in these two cases, the stories are a reminder of the challenge organisations face when using celebrities to endorse and promote their brands.

On the one hand, using popular people who resonate with the target audience helps to raise awareness, generate interest and increase loyalty. It doesn’t hurt when trying to get media coverage either! However, companies need to be careful that their relationships with celebrities don’t get them into sticky situations.

This is especially true since the advent of social media, as advertising standards bodies struggle to apply regulations designed for print and broadcast media to the world of Twitter and Facebook. There is ongoing debate over what constitutes “advertising and marketing communications” and how to define communications that are “directly connected with supply or transfer of goods, services, opportunities and gifts” on social media websites.

Companies planning to use celebrities in their marketing activities would be well advised to err on the side of caution, at least until the law has been clarified, to ensure that they don’t get hit with reprimands or fines.

But it’s not just in terms of the law that celebrity endorsement can get brands into trouble. Being linked to a star can cause problems for brands when that star behaves in ways that run counter to the organisation’s values, something that customers and critics alike are often quick to point out.

In 2005, H&M, Chanel and Burberry all cancelled plans to use supermodel Kate Moss in advertising campaigns following allegations of cocaine use. And in 2010 professional services firm Accenture dramatically changed its marketing strategy in the light of the scandal facing Tiger Woods, who had represented the brand for six years.

Finding the right person to represent your brand is difficult, and it is not just the companies noted above that have got into trouble when their ‘brand ambassadors’ have failed to live up to expectations. Organisations hoping to harness the power of celebrity must think seriously about who they use to represent them, and have contingency plans in place just in case.

When it goes right, using a star can keep a brand shining brightly, but when it goes wrong they can come crashing back down to earth with a bang.

Jo Nussbaum
Consultant
jo@linstockcommunications.com

Twitter and the tragic death of Tom Maynard

Yesterday saw the announcement of the death of Tom Maynard. A “prodigiously talented young” cricketer according to the chairman of Surrey County Cricket Club, Tom had already competed for England Lions and was a regular performer for his county Surrey. By all accounts, a glittering career lay ahead of him.

The sense of waste and loss that accompanies the death of someone so young was palpable in media coverage of his death. As was the outpouring of grief from friends, family and those within cricket. Cricketing luminaries like Andrew Flintoff and Michael Vaughan tweeted their condolences to Tom’s family, and Tom’s girlfriend posted a heartfelt Tweet on his passing.

For some time people in the communications industry have looked at Twitter and struggled with the question ‘What does it do?’. Is it a fad, a glorified news aggregator, a temporary realignment in how ‘news’ is delivered, or a fundamental shift in the way we communicate with one another?

Tom’s death highlights both the importance of social media like Twitter and its huge, and growing, influence on the way we communicate. Whether Twitter has a permanent place in British life remains to be seen, but it has become far more than a cold, hard provider of information or news. It is also a deliverer of emotional responses; sometimes on a national scale.  

Princess Diana’s death was seen as a watershed moment in British life, a point when our collective psyche changed forever. The stiff upper lip was replaced with a new-found acceptance of public grief and a recognition that emotional repression, frankly, served no-one. Twitter has highlighted this shift in attitudes, but it has also accentuated it.

Emotional responses are rarely reasoned or rational. They are brief, cathartic and immediate. By providing a platform for people to deliver these emotions, social media has fulfilled a new-found need to share our grief immediately with others. In doing so, it has fast carved out a unique and valued form of social interaction.

Some will undoubtedly sneer at those choosing to share their feelings in such a public manner. But this doesn’t diminish the very real emotions felt by those reacting to Tom’s tragic death. Perhaps, in time, this will also mark the point that lingering cynicism towards public grief in this country was laid to rest. 

John Hood

Consultant

john@linstockcommunications.com

Shock horror Cameron had a comms strategy

At the never ending Leveson enquiry Robert Jay QC has finally had the chance to grill the Prime Minister.

One of the main areas of enquiry centres on what deals or concessions were made to News International to secure the support of its leading publications.

Cameron told the enquiry that ‘we, the conservatives, simply had a communications strategy’. The QC seemed shocked by the response of the Prime Minister.

The QC then asked what the strategy was for winning over the Sun in particular. This goes to the heart of a common argument in communications circles about whether the media is an audience or a conduit to an audience.

The Prime Minister rightly pointed out that they did not have a communications strategy for winning over The Sun. The Conservatives instead had a strategy to explain their values and policies to a wider audience. And The Sun was an important medium to reach the voting public. Should we be surprised that so much time was spent trying to win them over to their side of the political argument, given the readership figures.

Coming from the school of communications Cameron then went on to explain some of the key principles of a good communications strategy.

This includes the top level issues: who the audiences are you are trying to reach and what they currently think; what the communications objectives are;  and the messages you are trying to get across. In essence, a strategy that is informed by audience insight.

As the Prime Minister said to the enquiry you tailor your message to audiences, talk about issues that matter most to them and engage with key publications, journalists and editors – that these audiences follow.

With any good communications strategy you are ultimately trying to change or alter opinions or behavior. In this case there was a clear objective and measure to evaluate, winning a general election.

Tony Cox

tony@linstockcommunications.com

Euro-nly as good as your communications

With the Jubilee bunting barely packed, another national event is already open us. Euro 2012 won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but the bi-annual hype and disappointment machine that is England international football provides us with some interesting communications lessons.

Two years ago, the England team left the World Cup in South Africa under a cloud. Expectations were measured prior to the tournament, but it was largely expected that England would give a good account of themselves. They didn’t. Unceremoniously hammered by a strong German side (sound familiar?), they were met by an extremely hostile media and public on their return. But it was the perceived attitude of England players that grated most with supporters. Wayne Rooney’s crude outburst in response to England fans booing the team was partly responsible for this, but players’ suggestions of being bored between games and a very public player mutiny were also met with incredulity from a public who felt they had become too detached from the common fan.

No England team returning early from a tournament is likely to receive a rosey reception from our media, but there are suggestions that the FA and England senior management have learnt some valuable lessons from the South Africa debacle.

Firstly, expectation management is important. In reality this has largely, and surprisingly, come from the media and the public, who recognise that the limited talents of the England squad do not match up to those of other countries. There is little England players and management can do to generate such measured expectation, but they have helped to reinforce it. Both have effectively walked a tricky communications tight-rope, demonstrating confidence that they can perform well while also talking of the strengths of other countries. Altogether, there is a sense of a less bullish, more circumspect approach from players.

Secondly, like any organisation, getting the right spokespeople is important. Although most players will at some point find themselves in front of the cameras answering questions, the decision to put players like Joe Hart front-and-centre has been a shrewd and considered move. A model pro (thus far), untainted by previous scandals and tournament failures, Hart has shown a level-headedness that has resonated with the public. In addition, players like Rooney have managed to stay on message, talking with apparent pride at their involvement with the national team. Finally, more divisive figures, who shall remain nameless, have been largely allowed to operate in the shadows.

Thirdly, the FA has demonstrated an understanding of the importance of internal communications and getting internal audiences on-side (excuse the unintentional pun). The organisation has clearly listened to England players’ criticisms of the planning for South Africa. Two years ago, players found themselves living in a complex shut off from the public. This was done deliberately to provide a protective bubble around the squad, allowing them to focus purely on football. But this prevented the essential ‘letting off of steam’ and led to a sense of isolation, boredom and nervousness. In Poland, England have already embarked on a far more effective charm offensive. A banner to thank local residents for their warm welcome was an obvious and positive place to start. But it was the visit to Auschwitz, a move undertaken by a number of teams at Euro 2012, that has helped to demonstrate a humility and willingness to engage with people outside of their immediate sphere.

Will any of this matter if England are thrashed by France today and go out in the group stages? Probably not. But it is encouraging that the FA has taken on board some important communications principles, and it may mean they limit the opprobrium heaped on the team should they fail to lift the trophy.

Cardiff Reds Sing the Blues

The speculation alone has led to weeks of argument and counter argument amongst fans and interested onlookers. Now, Cardiff City has confirmed that they are changing the colour oftheir home kit in return for much needed investment from their Malaysian owners. What next?

Well for one thing, the ‘Bluebirds’ will be a lot more red from now on. According to the owners at the club, Cardiff is more likely to build a fan base amongst fans in South East Asia in red than in blue. This hasn’t gone down well with the Cardiff fans in and around the city itself though – and that body of anger amongst the fans poses a very pressing communications challenge for the powers that be at the club.

That’s not to say some fans haven’t welcomed the changes. I witnessed a particularly full-blooded discussion between two Cardiff fans, and one pointed out that without this money, there would probably be no team at all a year from now, given their perilous financial position (the club is rumoured to be losing £1m a month at the moment). “So what would you prefer: a red kit, or no kit?” he said.

The response to this is that the heart and soul of Cardiff City, and its history, have been torn up purely for financial gain. Fans in the Far East may supposedly respond more positively to a team in red, but what about the fans in South Wales where generations of the same family have adorned blue flags, worn blue tops and even had the colour blue tattooed onto their skin?

Whether or not it is true, the overriding feeling amongst the majority of Cardiff City fans is that commercial considerations have strayed too far into disrupting the very fabric of what a football club is. They will no doubt cite the fact that there is no real evidence to support the ‘red is best’ theory put forward – not to mention the fact that blue clubs have had a pretty good year this year (Manchester City won the Premier League, and Chelsea won the FA Cup and Champions League).

A football club is nothing without its fans. Therefore, the top brass at Cardiff cannot ignore this groundswell of anger. To use a classic footballing cliché, they need to get the fans back onside.  

There are three things they could do:

·        Create some sort of public forum that allows genuine interaction between fans and owners. The fans can vent their anger and concerns, and the owners can respond;

·        Issue a public statement that demonstrates both an understanding of the importance of the fanbase, and their long-term commitment to the club;

·        Start winning… and quickly!

Some fans will never come round to the change. But if the things above happen, they stand a good chance of getting the majority accepting it.

Tom Yazdi

Consultant

tom@linstockcommunications.com