Media coverage and the mayoral election

London’s mayoral election has finally turned nasty. Inevitable perhaps given the personalities involved, but as the faux bonhomie between Red Ken and Toff Boris subsides, the sense of anticipation of a good old fashioned ding-dong of smear and counter-smear is palpable within the national media. As they continue to tear strips off one another, the media focus has understandably fallen on the two front-runners. But a question few have asked is ‘how has this affected the other candidates?’ The conventional wisdom is that, starved of the crucial oxygen of publicity, they will disappear in the electoral winds, voting chaff to ‘KenBo’s’ wheat. But is conventional wisdom right?

Certainly, at face-value, the polls would suggest so. The latest poll by YouGov has given Boris 45% of first preference voters, Ken 40%, Brian Paddick 7% and UKIP’s Lawrence Webb 3%, with the Green’s Jenny Jones pushed into a tied fourth place for the first time on just 2% alongside independent Siobhan Benita. So far so good, right? Maybe, but the final name on that list should raise some eyebrows; the relationship between media coverage and voting patterns may be more nuanced. Benita’s rise to joint fourth in the polls is a result of an extremely small media profile and even smaller funding. Yes, she is some way off challenging the big guns, but it’s still a remarkable achievement. It’s also true that press coverage of Benita has increased as the campaign has moved on, but compared to the other established names, it’s been fairly limited until recently. Moreover, it seems the media’s interest in Benita has occurred as a result of her popularity, rather than actively helping to drive it.

Plenty have questioned the media coverage she is now enjoying, and as a relative political tyro, this seems a genuine question to ask. But the dismissiveness of this commentary highlights the seriousness with which the major parties are beginning to take her. Of course, there is no concern that she might genuinely win, but after George Galloway’s recent landslide by-election victory, political parties are wary of the embarrassment of election bloody-noses being dealt by fringe candidates.

Some observers see this as a shift in voting, the advent of gesture politics, where voters are more interested in providing the major parties with a two-finger salute at the ballot box than determining which candidate best fits with their personal priorities and beliefs. But in reality, it represents a communications challenge as old as the hills – how do you make your message genuinely personal while appealing to a large audience. George Galloway neatly by-passed this concern altogether by focusing on issues of relevance to a specific demographic large enough to get him elected. But Benita’s “mum’s common sense” has provided a more ‘everywoman’ quality, neatly marrying high-end political objectives such as better transport and lower crime with the high-concern nimbyism of dog mess and bin collections. It’s a potent blend, and it should remind mainstream politicians, should they need it, of the power of connecting at a grass-roots level with simple messaging.

This question of how to deliver a grass-roots mobilisation of votes has vexed politicians for years, and will continue to exercise those looking for election in the forthcoming mayoral elections around the country. Siobhan Benita’s success has been built upon a perceived transparency. She has no apparent agenda and there is no obvious craven careerism; just policies based on her own experiences, experiences that mirror many of those of fellow Londoners. For politicians of major political parties, complete with the baggage of past administrations and their policies, this is not such an easy proposal. Ken Livingstone has already found that the image of a rebellious outsider he so successfully cultivated prior to his election has quickly eroded since his reintroduction into the Labour party. If the most recent polls are accurate, Londoners are not quite ready to do away with the old parties just yet. But with confidence in mainstream politics at an all-time low, it seems mayoral candidates seen as less in thrall to their parties may be better placed to achieve office than those with the full weight of the party machine and its media influence behind them.

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

Communicating strategy

Strategy. Just because it’s an overused word, doesn’t mean it’s an over rated virtue. Alvin Toffler summed it up nicely, when he said, “You’ve got to think about big things while you’re doing small things, so that all the small things go in the right direction.” But it’s not easy to think about the big things when people want to see action and they want to see it now. And they probably don’t care too much what the action is if they’re honest. Just look busy.

Two cases in point from the last week spring to mind. First, Kay Sheldon, Board Member of the Care Quality Commission, went on the Today programme to discuss a critical report on her organisation from the Public Accounts Committee. The regulator needs someone at the top who, “…knows how to lead, set a coherent strategy, develop a business plan and develop and inspire the workforce,” said Sheldon. Sadly, this was too, “Wishy washy,” for interviewer Justin Webb who wanted to hear about more staff on the ground or more money to be invested. Well done to Sheldon for talking about the real issues. But we all need to remember the media’s need for quick fire reportable numbers. They’re a must if you want to encourage some decent headlines. At least in the short term…

In my view, chasing short term plaudits played a big role in the demise of the Regional Development Agencies, which finally closed this week. I should know – I chased a few as head of communications there. The RDAs were meant to be strategic bodies, set up to take a long term view, encourage a wide range of public and private sector partners to work together and leave the delivery to other organisations closer to the ground. They were pretty good at it. But it’s not a role that’s easy to communicate and it’s not a route to quick results. So they fell into the trap of the short term win, chasing headlines for the amount of cash invested in project x or y and talking about the number of jobs created each year (supposedly). What a different public sector world; where spending more money was supposed to suggest high performance. Government found RDAs to be a useful dumping ground for Whitehall inspired wheezes and they were soon subject to a range of additional responsibilities and powers without being resourced to deliver. Before too long, RDAs were doing too many things, not doing them well enough, and exacerbating the hostility from some in local government who felt they should have been awarded the funding directly. Not a strong position from which to welcome an incoming government.

So how do you strike the right communications balance between a strategy that seems too highfalutin and just looking busy so no-one notices the big gap where the strategy should be? First keep it simple. The core of your strategy needs to be something your people can explain in a moment or two without referring to a dusty tome on the bookshelf. Second, only do things that contribute to the strategy and keep talking about the way in which they do. Third, remember that communication only serves a purpose if it helps deliver against the strategy itself. Don’t fall into the trap of expressing long term strategic goals in short term sound bites and numbers. Yes, you’ll get some headlines, but you’ll also set yourself up for a fall further down the line.

There’s a lot being written at the moment about tactics as the new strategy. Just get on with the day to day and let tomorrow take care of itself. There’s some truth in the need for flexibility, as long as your audiences buy into the core values you express. But without a big idea to hang it all on you end up like the political parties at the moment – at the mercy of events and widely misunderstood. As Sun Tzu said: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”


Jon Bennett
Director
jon@linstockcommunications.com

Petrol prices, panic, and the secret to perfect public communications

Linstock Communications Associate John Maule, Professor of Human Decision Making at Leeds University, recently discussed the difficulties faced by the Government in delivering public communications on BBC Radio Leeds. He highlighted the important decision making processes government must understand to deliver effective messaging.

The public communications gaffe is a time honoured tradition within Britain's political elite. A tradition so respectfully observed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries that it was forced to reinvent itself as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra); the department for 'foot and mouth' had also gained a reputation as the department for 'foot in mouth.'

This week, Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office, made his own clanger when he advised drivers to consider filling up part-empty petrol tanks and keeping a jerrycan of fuel in their garage, following a vote by the Unite union for a possible strike by tanker drivers. Widespread condemnation of the comments followed, with Unite, the Labour Party and many drivers describing Maude's comments as an over-reaction and irresponsible. The Government moved quickly to downplay his comments, but this has arguably exacerbated the problem. While Government spokespeople confirmed that Maude's comments were misleading, the Energy Secretary Ed Davey has subsequently suggested that drivers should consider filling their petrol tanks to full when next visiting the pump.

The public has reacted to this lack of clarity with a predictable mixture of confusion and bewilderment, with reports of congestion at numerous petrol stations as drivers rush to fill up before an expected shortage. For the Government, it's a clear blunder, but it's easy to see how such a mistake comes about. Government officials regularly walk the tightrope, balancing the need to offer vital information to the public without causing adverse reactions or unforeseen behavioural changes. Often they pull it off, occasionally they don't. The Government's focus on 'nudge' techniques is proof of a more sophisticated approach to public communications, and may offer some clues as to how it can avoid similar difficulties in future.

Linstock Associate John Maule, Professor of Human Decision Making at Leeds University, recently discussed the difficulties faced by the Government in delivering public communications on BBC Radio Leeds. Professor Maule highlighted the different decision making systems people use when reacting to perceived threats. The first is an analytical approach, rational, conscious choices that effectively weigh up the pros and cons of a decision. The second is a gut instinct approach, a more intuitive system of decision making rooted in our prehistoric past. It is the second system that helps explain how the recent petrol pump queues have formed. Just as our ancestors responded to predatory threats by grouping together for safety, so today we often adopt a herd mentality to making choices. These basic forms of decision making still drive us, a fact acknowledged by the Government's move towards the auto-enrolment of employees onto pension schemes, a system that utilises gut-instinct decision making systems such as 'loss aversion' to encourage employees to save for retirement.

But it appears Government is still some way from fully understanding how to effectively use these systems of decision making, or indeed how to prevent them driving people into making poor decisions. Professor Maule offers advice that most within the PR world would acknowledge - provide clarity and consistency. A key problem with the Government's handling of the petrol issue is the conflicting advice it appears to have provided. When faced by a threat, people look for information to make sense of the situation. If that information is unclear, people's perception of the threat will increase as their trust for the provider of the information erodes. Perhaps the greatest problem for government will be the long-term implications of such public communications mistakes. As Professor Maule rightly states "Trust is hard to build but easy to lose".


John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

What’s in a number?

Did you read that us Brits have a spring in our step? The Office for National Statistics has published the first results of the ‘Happiness Index’. We did pretty well. Across the country, the average mark was 7.5. Well above average, and pretty encouraging considering the fragile state of the economy and the effects of the biggest spending cuts in generations starting to be felt. 7.5? It could have been a lot worse.

Hang on a minute. 7.5 out of 10 happy. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean we are nearly three quarters happy? Happy three quarters of the time? Happy with three quarters of the things we do? Three quarters of us are happy and a quarter of us are not?

I’m now confused. What am I supposed to think when the survey says 8.2 next time – or goes down to 6.2? In fact, the more I think about it, how exactly do you aggregate something as intangible and inherently personal as ‘happiness’? This figure now seems rather arbitrary.

This goes straight to the heart of some important communications considerations when publishing statistics. We’ve all become a bit cynical of the ‘eight out of ten cats’ headlines. But can we shine some light on this dense and confusing statistical fog? We can if we take some straightforward but vital steps. Provide a clear research method. Explain what you sought to measure - and why. Describe how you went about it – and why. Explain how you’ve calculated the outcomes.

To take the example above, what we know is that ONS asked people to score the following between 1 and 10: how satisfied with your life are you nowadays? To what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? How happy did you feel yesterday? How anxious did you feel yesterday? The combined totals told us that just over 75.5 per cent scored seven or more out of 10 for overall life satisfaction. 

People like to hear something credible, and scientific sounding. To many, flicking through the morning paper or surfing the web on their lunch break, a quick scan of this methodology should suffice. And given the fact it is 7.5, rather than 2 or 3, there’s undoubtedly a feel-good factor created by it.

But, unless the methodology is sound and clearly explained, a communications campaign can become a communications nightmare. Once people see beyond the headline they can quickly become disillusioned and before you know it, opponents are pulling your methodology apart.

Remember those maths questions that ask you to ‘show your working’? The principle when publishing research is exactly the same. Unless there is absolute clarity over what you sought to measure, and how you went about it, the whole process can be fatally undermined further down the line. This weekend has already seen some comment pieces across the media picking holes in the Happiness Index. You’ll never please everyone, but you can help your chances by adhering to a few simple rules. 

Tom Yazdi
Consultant
tom@linstockcommunications.com

Journalism reaffirms its influence

Across the globe, the rise of social media and citizen journalism is putting pressure on established media brands.  Stories once broken by daily newspapers are now posted on the internet directly by their source.  A declining number of journalists work harder to tell their stories on a growing array of platforms.  And communications professionals scratch their heads as they try to engage companies, governments and charities in the new media environment.

People who saw the social media revolution as another channel for celebrity gossip thought again when it played such a central role in the revolutions of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and beyond.  According to the Arab Social Media Report by the Dubai School of Government, nearly 9 in 10 Egyptians and Tunisians used Facebook to organise protests or spread awareness about them in March 2011.  On Twitter, the hashtag “Egypt” had 1.4 million mentions in the first three months of the year, and “Jan25”, the date that the popular uprising began in Egypt, had 1.2m mentions.  

The speed and authenticity of these powerful grassroots media helped them mobilise thousands of people.  They created community and common interest that overcame the fear of repression.  They showed how media can reach out to everyone and lead to real action and change.

But the tragic death of a journalist yesterday, Marie Colvin of the Sunday Times, and the outpouring of praise for her courage and her work shows that we are far from the death of professional journalism.  Her reports brought home the day to day reality of people living in unimaginable circumstances.  Her last report, and its heartbreaking images of a dying child, showed how trusted independent journalists have the power to reach millions and open the eyes of the world.  While social media led to action on the ground, perhaps it will be a more traditional form of journalism that leads to action from the Syrian regime and the international community.

In reality, the debate about traditional versus social media is a sideshow.  Content is the fundamental.  And it takes a combination of platforms to convey the powerful emotion, first hand evidence and third party analysis that can together lead to change.

Jon Bennett, Director, Linstock Communications

Swift resolution should have seen off Suarez shame

It’s rare that a sportsman adorns both the front and back pages of national weekend papers, and it normally means one of two things. An heroic achievement beyond the norm, or a public indiscretion beyond the pale. Unfortunately for Liverpool player Luis Suarez, he finds himself rooted firmly in the latter camp - the new poster boy of sport’s ‘Hall of Shame’. Refusing to shake the hand of Manchester United player Patrice Evra would in most circumstances simply be seen as bad manners, or a crude attempt at the time honoured sporting practice of ‘mind games’. But in the context of this match, and the two players’ personal history, it was dynamite.


After being found guilty of misconduct and fined £40,000 for racially abusing Patrice Evra, Suarez has found himself at the centre of a wider debate on race and racial discrimination. Suarez’s comments came amidst a media still digesting the recent conviction of two of the murderers of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. For many commentators, there was an obvious link to be made between the Stephen Lawrence case and his comments, with the latter a clear indication of the persistence of racism on terraces and within British society; racism responsible for Stephen’s death. Fair or not, Suarez’s comments neatly dovetailed with current social commentary.


Given this combustible context, Suarez and his manager Kenny Dalglish’s actions represent a huge own goal for Liverpool (sorry!) on two important communications principles. Firstly, make sure there are clear channels for internal communications. In times of crisis, it is vital that people within an organisation are aware of each other’s future actions and sing from the same sheet. A number of people have suggested that Dalglish was shocked that Suarez refused to shake Evra’s hand, this can only have occurred through a breakdown in internal communications. Secondly, identify an opportunity to draw a line under bad publicity. The handshake at the start of Liverpool’s game against Manchester United presented the perfect chance to bring a resolution to the issue. Instead, Suarez’s actions meant both he and Liverpool were in the weekend papers for all the wrong reasons. To make matters worse, Dalglish’s post-match comments criticising the media and refusing to condemn his player’s actions meant further opprobrium. As a blueprint for how to mess up external communications, it’s a pretty thorough one.


Race and racial prejudice is quite rightly an emotive issue, and coverage criticising Liverpool’s handling of the issue has spread as far as the New York Times. There have even been suggestions that lucrative sponsorship deals are under threat. The result has been an inevitable apology from player and manager, but the lesson learnt must be to never allow pride to get the better of effective communications.


John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

Swimming against a Southern tide

Perhaps seeking to take advantage of the new devolutionary agenda a new movement for the North has recently sprung up, the Hannah MitchellFoundation. 

The call, from a group of Labour MPs, is for the North to be granted greater devolved powers to counter what they say has been years of recession while the South has sailed merrily along.

But we have been down this route before. Plans for a regional assembly in the North East were defeated in a referendum. The Northern Way has come and gone. The Regional Development Agencies are in their dying days. It would seem the regional agenda has moved on and off the political agenda.

The current Government are more interested in local economies. What drives them, how do we create more jobs, what is it that will stimulate the private sector?  Those with an interest in the future prosperity of the North might be better served to push at this more open door rather than resurrect previous models.  They will also need to demonstrate private sector backing for reform, and, as we have seen with Local Enterprise Partnerships, getting business involved is often the hardest part.

Businesses need to be persuaded that it is in their short and long term interests to devote time and resources to strategic issues that spread out far beyond their immediate responsibilities. Ultimately this may come down to cash investment. No doubt business support for a Mayor in Liverpool has been greatly boosted by the promised investment of more than £100m in the local economy.  But it seems unlikely that the private sector is going to be convinced that another wide ranging regional body is the answer.  With LEPS already set up across the north, perhaps the pragmatic approach is to encourage these bodies to work more closely together on the big ticket strategic issues of relevance to the north as a whole, rather than create a further tier of decision making. 

Whatever route they choose to pursue, one thing seems clear.  Governance structures come and go, but the issues remain the same.  But it’s better to work with what you’ve got than try to redraw the map, which can be expensive and in many ways exasperating for the private sector.

Tony Cox 

tony@lnstockcommunications.com

@tonylinstock