Has the new media bubble burst?

Tim Berners Lee, creator of the internet, recently proclaimed that social networking sites are ruining the internet. What does he mean by this? Lee argues that social networks are becoming so closed off and guarded by stringent privacy settings that they are creating their own mini internets. Tim’s comments smack of old man ‘things were better in my day’ rhetoric, there’s also a suspicion he’s still kicking himself for not patenting the greatest invention of the 20th century.

But Tim does have a valid point. Virtual monopolies like Facebook have an incredible amount of influence on the future direction of the internet. The fact is half a billion people have Facebook accounts, which means Zuckerberg and co have access to half a billion peoples’ personal details, interests and habits – an advertisers dream. However with new privacy settings guarding that information and the invention of tools like Facebook email, a rival to established email programs Gmail and Hotmail, users are encouraged to stay within the facebook network and never venture out into cyber space.

Two problems arise from this, firstly it stifles innovation – new ideas are based around adding to established existing social networks such as Facebook, twitter and Myspace rather than creating new ways of communicating. Secondly, from a marketing prospective, communicating with social networkers will become increasingly difficult.

The new privacy settings mean that advertisers and marketing professionals won’t be able to access as much information as before and the invention of @facebook.com email addresses means that users will be able to automatically deflect non Facebook email addresses away from their inbox and into a specific folder. Most likely spam.

These are good ideas from the Facebook team but another step towards closing off a previously open market. Communications companies are cautious, maybe even apprehensive about social networking, possibly because due to a lack of understanding. But there is no doubt they see the potential benefits of a solid new media campaign – endless new media ‘master classes’ prove that. However, tactics will have to change if a bitter battle for user time supremacy ensues between the leading online players. Maintaining a loyal user base will be essential to stay competitive, which means offering as wide a range of services as possible and protecting your users from threats of rival services. Thus closing down communication channels and eliminating what made social networking so popular in the first place – free open communication.

Jay McGregor, Linstock Consultant

http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Linstock hires NLGN news supremo - as seen in PR week 2 December 2010

Linstock Communications has recruited James Hulme from the public policy think-tank to head its newly created ‘local government futures’ unit.

Hulme, who has headed the think-tank’s branding, comms and external relations since 2006, is joining Linstock to set up the new unit.

The Local Government futures team will advise clients on developing relationships with local authorities and their partners and how to interpret and work with the Government’s localism agenda.

Hulme said: ‘The localism agenda is dominating politics in Westminster and beyond, and huge changes are imminent in areas such as housing, planning, economic development and service delivery.’

He added: ‘Organisations working with the public sector need to get to grips with these fundamental reforms.

‘I look forward to using my experience and expertise within the local government world to support Linstock’s clients.’

Previously, Hulme was parliamentary and government relations manager at Citizens Advice.

PR week

Cable breaks ties with party policy – the communications challenge of policy U-turns

So the Browne Report has finally arrived, and depending on what side of the fence you sit on, it’s likely to be a lot better or worse than you predicted. While a raising of the cap on fees was always likely, the possibility of unlimited fees will undoubtedly cause a few raised eyebrows also. The report will be pored over in greater detail over the coming days, and particularly after the Comprehensive Spending Review, but two issues are immediately apparent.

Firstly, the report, if implemented along the lines set out by Vince Cable, will see a genuinely fundamental shift in the funding of students, with the burden moving most sharply from government to students. In the long-term of course, unlimited fees, or significantly higher fees, are likely to result in a tiered system of higher education. This ‘marketisation’, it is hoped, will ultimately increase competition and ultimately, perhaps, drive down costs. In the meantime however, how will prospective students react to increased fees and an uncertain graduate jobs market? Although it is quite possible measures to ensure access for disadvantaged students are successful, there is no real way of knowing whether poorer students in particular will be put off entering higher education by these higher fees. Equally, Browne’s recommendations may result in a more fundamental shift in how students choose to study – could we see an explosion in part-time/stay-at-home students for example? Channel 4’s Factcheck blog has provided an interesting account of the progressiveness of Lord Browne’s recommendations, but what is of most interest is how these measures are perceived. 

This brings us neatly onto the second issue raised by the Report; how will audiences respond to recent announcements and how should the Coalition, and the Lib Dems in particular react. Vince Cable’s broad support of the Report provides himself and the party leadership with the agonising challenge of selling a policy U-turn to the electorate and to the Lib Dem party faithful. There are suggestions of the communications angle the Lib Dems will take, with Cable arguing that the party’s previous position was unfeasible as a result of the finances left by the previous Labour administration. The dangers of this approach are as obvious as its attractions. There are already signs that the electorate is growing tired of the Coalition’s insistence that irresponsible Labour spending is to blame for future spending cuts, irrespective of whether they broadly agree with the statement. If the Lib Dems are to successfully navigate this difficult period, it is vital they do not fall into an obvious mud-slinging match.

Lib Dems equally must not be constrained by an overestimation of the policy’s importance. Committing to abolish tuition feed was politically popular, but nowhere near the vote winner it was made out to be. Cable and the Lib Dem leadership must reject the urge to blame Labour and instead focus on making the economic argument relevant to middle class voters. Spelling out the cost of degrees and the size of the deficit will not be enough, messaging must discuss improved life chances and securing a higher education system that allows people’s children to compete for future jobs. Of course, cutting off the media’s creeping estimation that the Browne Report will hit middle-class families hardest will not be easy. After the child benefits fiasco at Conservative conference, the Coalition can ill afford such headlines.

Perhaps the greatest danger, but the one most within the party’s control, will be how it deals with rebellious backbenchers. A number of former heavyweights have committed to rebel and Greg Mulholland MP has already blogged on the issue. Cutting off such a rebellion is essential if the party is not to descend into opposing camps and risk appearing weak and divided.

Undoubtedly, the Lib Dems will be harmed by offering support for the Browne Report recommendations, but there is already a suggestion that the common sense of the policy has been accepted by the media, the Times already running a leader in support. If the Coalition can ride out this period of unrest and prove raised fees do not limit social mobility; it could cause more problems for the Labour party. Even with Lib Dem rebellions the Coalition should gain a small majority on a vote. In this scenario, attention would switch back to the Labour Party.

The Lib Dem’s policy of abolishment was politically popular but economically and logistically unsound. Ed Miliband’s support for a graduate tax is likely to be equally difficult to implement. Just as the Lib Dems may struggle to deflect criticism in the coming months, support of a graduate tax could similarly store problems for the Labour leadership in the future.

John Hood, Linstock Consultant
 
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Local Authorities: Are they too big to fail?

Last week we had a positive announcement from Nick Clegg on increased borrowing freedoms for local authorities and the planned introduction of Tax Increment Financing schemes, which was broadly welcomed across local government and the private sector.
Debate at the Conservative conference has now turned to its implementation.

How much freedom will local authorities really be given? How loose will the Treasury allow its purse strings to go?

One interesting question raised at a Respublica fringe event today is what happens if a local authority borrows to much? Of course, the rhetoric from councils is that it will only ever be 'prudential' borrowing. But this can mean different things to different people and no investment is ever 100 per cent secure.

So what would happen if a local authority was allowed to borrow what it liked and left itself overstretched? Will local government then be left with the potentially painful result of its freedoms and flexibilities? Or is it too big too fail?

We need to debate these issues not just at a national level but at a local level too. There is a vital role for communication between councils, business and local people about the risks that should be taken. Otherwise they may be left to foot the bill for a debt they knew nothing about it. And we know where that has left trust in the financial services sector.


Tony Cox - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Ed Miliband’s ‘New Generation’ offers Labour renewal

From a communications perspective Ed Miliband’s inaugural speech as Labour leader provided a number of unique challenges. The need to appease members yet reach out to the wider public; to celebrate the achievements of New Labour while demonstrating an understanding of why the electorate turned away from the party; and the balancing act of showing consistent values while offering a new vision and a sense of renewal.

In this regard, his speech ticked most boxes. Opening with the time-honoured political back story and introduction to his political education, this was of course of greater importance given his relative anonymity among the electorate. Tribute was paid to the way New Labour challenged established thinking but there was also recognition of the movement’s stagnation, with a line skilfully drawn under the contributions and legacies of both Brown and Blair. Popular left of centre policies were mentioned both explicitly and in passing, including an increased bank levy and the aspiration to introduce a living wage. Predictably such statements were met with rapturous applause and followed a simple conference rule – it is hard for the wider public to react well to a conference speech if the audience present is not sufficiently enthused.

Floating left-of-centre voters and disillusioned Lib Dem voters were targeted with Miliband’s confirmation he would vote for the Alternative Vote system and his rejection of the Iraq War as a mistake the party should be honest about. Of course, doorstep issue politics weren’t missed altogether, and Miliband was at pains to demonstrate an understanding of the concerns of the electorate. This included the issue of immigration and the need to be honest with the public over its affects on communities.

Perhaps the most significant term used throughout the speech was “new generation”. Ed Milband regularly spoke of belonging to this new generation, and peppered his speech with the phrase to variously demonstrate a break from New Labour, a youthfulness and a distinction between the so called pessimism of the Coalition Government and the optimism of a rejuvenated Labour party.

Even more fundamental however was the speech’s skill in delivering an absolute essential of political communications, that is ‘Define your enemy before he defines himself’. David Cameron was described as a pessimist, using the economic climate as an excuse to deliver ideologically driven cuts to public services. Although an obvious criticism, it was tempered with a previous recognition that Miliband would not oppose cuts for the sake of it. Describing himself and the Labour party as optimists, Miliband moved into the territory Cameron seemed to originally fix on when he became leader of the Conservatives. Since then of course, the Coalition has been at pains to soften the public to the necessity of funding cuts. Importantly, Ed Miliband also moved to prevent himself from being defined as part of the ‘looney-left’. His almost scornful dismissal of his newest press moniker ‘Red Ed’ could point to a willingness to address the media with a more confrontational approach in future.

So where will this leave the party and its audiences. There’s little doubt that it was a largely popular speech among members and that voters inclined to move away from the Lib Dems will have been impressed. The trade unions and far left may have been less pleased with comments on preventing “irresponsible waves of strikes”. Financial services will have delivered a collective shudder at some fairly robust language discussing wages in the City while the higher education sector will no doubt follow with interest Miliband’s support of a graduate tax. The issue of 'equality' will make a few business audiences nervous too. This wasn't just expressed as a desire for equality of opportunity, but the desire to address disparities in wealth. It played well to conference, but will be played back as a desire to punish success. Miliband has to be sure that the public at large have the same 'bad guys' in their sights.

For the wider public, and those voters thoroughly unimpressed with the legacy of New Labour, it may be a harder sell. Miliband’s desire to drag the centre ground towards the left rather than move the party onto this ground was in evidence and won’t be missed by voters with a differing political compass, particularly social conservatives. His speech offered a sound introduction to an unfamiliar face, but he will undoubtedly need to include refined messages if it is to appeal to this significant section of the electorate.


John Hood, Linstock Consultant
 
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
 

Will Liberal Democrats support a ‘middle way’ for higher education funding?

Vince Cable is a man with an increasing talent for controversy. His comments at Lib Dem conference regarding financial services produced a storm of media attention and predictable levels of controversy. But it was his statement on university funding in a fringe event that should have caught the eye. Cable seemed to make an important concession to his Conservative Coalition partners when he announced that a graduate tax would be “unworkable”. Cable’s statement came with the qualification that the essence of the idea, that graduate payments should be linked to earnings, was a “red line” on negotiations with the Conservative party. But it ignored the passing of a motion at conference which called for the party to explore the option of such a tax. The Times Higher Education covered the announcement.

While party members may feel some confusion over the party’s position, this should represent better news for the higher education sector. There were always likely to be a number of practical obstacles to a straight replacement of tuition fees with a graduate tax – will it break the link between the cost and value of a degree, discouraging competition? What is the definition of a graduate? How will money be allocated to individual institutions if stored centrally? And when will these institutions see this funding? Cable’s announcement appears to quash any chances of a full blown graduate tax replacement.

Although clearly not a complete climb-down, this does pave the way for a ‘middle way’ between the proposed raising of tuition fees and the development of a graduate tax. Director of Policy Exchange, Neil O’Brien, recently wrote an excellent account of what this may look like. Cable’s comments may well demonstrate a gradual edging towards this position, a more sensible extension of the tuition fees regime which would result in higher earning graduates continuing to pay fees past the total cost of their degree, to an agreed fixed limit. This would provide the fairness Cable and party colleagues such as Simon Hughes wish to pursue and could be a more palatable pill for the party faithful to swallow as an alternative to a straight increase in tuition fees.

Creases would undoubtedly need to be ironed out, but as an alternative to a graduate tax this would no doubt also be a huge relief to the higher education sector.

John Hood - Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Lib Dem conference: Benefits, bridge-building and bonus bashing

The Liberal Democrats kicked off 2010 conference season with a strange mixture of delegate disapproval and subdued support. With the party in government for the first time in over 60 years, media scrutiny and security were both tightened. Commentators waiting in the wings to interview irate members and report on political gaffes and rebellion were largely left frustrated and although there were sporadic incidents of disharmony, there did not appear to be any appetite for all out opposition to the Coalition or to the party leadership.

Nick Clegg’s opening speech, described by Nick Robinson as ‘largely defensive’ received a luke-warm response from the floor. His statement that spending cuts were not ideological did little to allay member fears, particularly regarding planned cuts to benefits. Indeed, many members made their reservations felt throughout the next day. In essence it was a speech that recognised that triumphalism would be an inappropriate tone given the difficult decisions ahead. But in looking to soothe member anger, it failed to reach audiences beyond the conference floor.

Given the party’s and Nick Clegg’s poll ratings, shoring up the grassroots vote may need to be abandoned in the near future for a more ambitious approach targeting wider audiences, if the Lib Dems are to profit from the Coalition.

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, produced a more warmly received speech, and in many ways helped to prevent a maudlin atmosphere developing. This, of course, was safe ground for the Lib Dems, long supporters of the green agenda. But as someone who has often failed to inspire at speech time, this was as much a personal triumph for Huhne as it was for the party. A strident tone that focused on championing consumer rights in the face of rises in energy prices allowed Huhne to push past the difficult question of nuclear power, an obvious stumbling block. By the end of his speech, there was a palpable sense of relief among members, here was a man who understood their concerns and wouldn’t be cowed by Conservative interests.

Of course, this was far from the being the most populist speech of conference. Vince Cable’s speech, leaked in advance, provided the sound-bite of the conference, as he announced "I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour". Predictably the business world bristled while party members swayed to the theme of perverse bonuses and greedy bankers. Of course, the speech was somewhat more nuanced than this, but it hardly mattered. Cable’s anti-capitalist credentials had seemingly been confirmed, much to media delight, finally the conference’s headline had written itself.

While the confrontational approach was undoubtedly deliberate, so too were the relatively vague promises that accompanied it, recognition perhaps that financial services regulation is not an area to be tackled without Conservative support. While many commentators saw Cable’s comments as a rebellion against Conservative control of economic policy, others saw a more considered approach, possibly endorsed by Conservative HQ. A round of emotive bank bashing helped to demonstrate political autonomy and convince members that the party’s soul had not be subsumed within the Coalition. The wider public meanwhile were given the news they wanted to hear, that behavioural change would be forced upon banks. For the Conservatives meanwhile, a reputation for being business-friendly, economic heavyweights was largely retained as they floated above the debate. Naturally, long-term implications of such an agreed approach would be difficult to predict, but in the short-term, it seems to serve the interests of both parties. How this pans out during the Conservative conference will be of particular interest.

In many senses, this Lib Dem conference failed to spark. There were no real dust ups, and potential points of division both within the party and between the Coalition partners were largely averted. Although Vince Cable’s speech undoubtedly generated a lot of heat, it perhaps generated less light, and the long-term implications do not seem as damaging as first suspected. Despite this, conference undoubtedly had a sombre feel to it and the party is clearly still coming to terms with no longer being political outsiders. It is also clear that the real challenges for the party remain in the coming months. Members who voted against academies and free schools and who vehemently oppose cuts to benefits may well find that this no longer counts for much if Lib Dem policies are rejected in favour of Conservative ones. Managing the fallout from the painful decisions made in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will no doubt be first on the Lib Dem leadership’s ‘to do’ list.


John Hood - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/