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