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