What’s the point of Conference?

Conference season is – mercifully – over.  They have been pretty dismal affairs this year: none of the leaders’ speeches were up to much; there were few significant policy announcements, and less substantive debate. And, as John Harris demonstrated in his brilliant conference videos, there’s a weird and worrying disconnect between the blinkered optimism of the party hacks and the economic reality in the world outside the conference centre.[*] When the most exciting things to happen were a speech by a sixteen year old (though these happen so regularly as to be almost ritual) and a flap about a cat, you know things are bad. 

So instead of looking at the winners, losers, ups and downs of the conference season – it’s hard to think of more than a handful of winners, in any case -  here at Linstock we thought we’d go a bit more existential and ask, do parties need conferences at all?

Traditionally, party leaders hoped to achieve two things at Conference: inspire the base and persuade the public.  Which of these is emphasised more varies from party to party, and on whether a party is in government or opposition.  So Lib Dem conferences have – traditionally –  been stronger on the former and weaker on the latter.  Their democratic party rules, which mean that real policy is made at conference, is brilliant for making activists feel like the party is really theirs.  When conference votes to decriminalise drugs, or unilaterally disarm, it’s been less brilliant at persuading the public that the Lib Dems are a serious party. 

Conversely, from when David Cameron became Conservative leader until the last election, Conference was when the Conservatives demonstrated that Cameron could lead and the party was reasonable.  Given that the leader’s speech is probably the only day of the year on which the opposition are guaranteed top billing on the evening news bulletins, it is no surprise that opposition parties tend to use Conference to reach out to the voters. 

Party leaders always hope that conference will do both, and sometimes they do.  Usually they achieve one or the other. When parties are in the midst of civil war, they can obviously be disastrous – as they were for the Tories under IDS – but it’s rare for all three parties to have bad conferences.

The striking thing about all the conferences this year is that, for the most part, none of them managed to either inspire activists or persuade voters.  For the first time in decades, the hall wasn’t full for the beginning of the Prime Minister’s conference speech.  Contrast this with early Blair, when the party had to lay on overflow rooms so many people wanted to hear him.

Now in government, grass roots debating and making of policy was inevitably far more muted than usual at Lib Dem Conference, with the party deliberately limiting hostile motions on the NHS bill.  And at all the conferences, there were far less activists than there used to be. According to the FT, less than a quarter of attendees were ordinary party members. This is at least partly to do with money: Conservative Home calculated the average cost of attending Conservative Conference to be over £700.  It’s hard to inspire your activists when they can’t even attend the conference.

This would matter less if party conferences had engaged the voters.  But evidence suggests that they have not. The YouGov daily tracker of voting intentions has recorded steady support for Labour at around 41% of the electorate since early September, Conference failed to produce even the smallest bounce in the opinion polls.  Similarly, the five YouGov polls published between the 12^th and 16^th of September all put the Lib Dems on 9% or 10%, as did the five most recent polls.  It’s possible that there may have been a slight improvement in the Tories’ position.  But it would be very slight – a point or two at most – and well within the margin of error.    

Of course, there is one other reason parties have conferences: fundraising.  It’s thought that the Conservative’s make £2 million from Conference, and all three parties turn a profit.  But if Conference no longer works as a forum with which to communicate with either party members or the public, parties should think again about what they’re supposed to be, or even if they need them at all.  Activists are far more likely to engage online than by going to conference, and sites such as Conservative Home are far more democratic and collaborative than conference has been for decades.  Nor do Conservatives and Lib Dems need conference to persuade voters: they have the bully-pit of government to do that. 

Labour, of course, don’t, but it’s still not clear that an annual national conference is the best way to talk to the public.  Several regional conferences, for example, might allow the leadership to reduce the distance between them, activists and the public.  Despite never taking place in London, conference still feels metropolitan and reinforces the disconnect between politicians and everyone else. Cynicism about politics and politicians is higher than it’s ever been, and politicians need to find a way to challenge this.  Conference isn’t it.  

Tom Lyttelton, Intern (thomas@linstockcommunications.com)

---

[*] Read Hopi Sen on the delusions of conference attendees.

Conservative conference: Setting and controlling the news agenda

This week has seen another pitched battle between the party spin doctors, the media and the even more unpredictable wider world.

Things didn’t start smoothly for the Conservative Party with the comments from Andrew Tyrie about the lack of a serious growth plan. In the vein of David Batty and Graeme Le Saux (for those who remember the mid 90s Moscow mauling) the media are always keen for an argument among the same team and his perceived attack was quickly picked up and blown up.

But up stepped the spin doctors of No 10 who had a quiet word with Mr Tyrie, presumably to remind him who the team captain is. They unfortunately lost some of their mystery when the quiet word was captured by a camera crew, which was very The Thick of It.

David Cameron attempted to regain the initiative with his interviews on Sunday and a mea culpa over his attitude to women. No more calm down dear for Dave who wanted to express his deepest regret for recent comments. Although this generated some positive headlines, actions, as always, will speak louder than words.

The Chancellor then pulled a monetary rabbit out of what we had been told was a completely empty hat to offer a freeze on Council Tax. This certainly warmed the hearts of middle England and was warmly welcomed by the Daily Mail among others.

But questions remain over the plan for growth. The credit easing for small business was left field enough for many commentators to not know quite how to react. It has been positively received so far, although questions have begun to be raised about its implementation and implication for Government.

Overall it has been a relatively positive conference so far for the ruling party. The challenge now is for the Prime Minister to raise the level and try to leave the country with an upbeat message, despite the ongoing economic turmoil. Should be a restful night for Mr Cameron then…

Tony Cox

£250 million in funding for local authorities: But is it a bin half full or a bin half empty?

If you want to change perceptions and behaviours you need to know how people feel in the first place and why they act as they do. So if CLG is going to spend £250 million in support of weekly bin collections, we have to assume people are pretty desperate to see more of their bin men and will hail this Government initiative as a result. But are they, and will they? According to July’s LG Insight Survey of perceptions of local government, 80% of British adults are satisfied with the quality of refuse collection. Yes, some of these contented souls will be getting a weekly fix. But if the survey is representative then half of them are on a fortnightly run. The numbers suggest these poor deprived souls just aren’t that bothered about it.



So is Government just pandering to the vocal minority?


There is vocal opposition to almost every change - opposition that deserves a hearing. We can’t rush headlong into new ways of doing things until we understand what we might lose as a consequence. But the danger is that policy decisions don’t reflect what people really want.


It seems that everyone is fighting for our right to a weekly collection. Media campaigns are pressing for action and the opposition has crowed over Eric Pickles’ abandoned pledge on the issue. And I’m sure most people would prefer a weekly collection if given the straight choice. But they might say something different if they could save some other local service by holding onto their litter for a few days. Do people really want £250 million being spent in this way?


Under localism, the right people to make these choices are communities themselves and the right bodies to enable this decision making process are local councils. Policy choices need to be framed broadly - no issue exists in isolation - and people need to be asked where they would most like their money to be spent. Before councils make a bid for some of the central government cash on offer, perhaps some will be asking local people these difficult questions, rather than assuming they know the answers. They just might be wasting their energy on waste.
I suppose I’m lucky. My bins get collected every week already. But as a rule, when I wheel them out to stand like three colourful sentries on the path outside, I reckon each is about half full.

Apple faces communications headache as Jobs resigns

The news that Steve Jobs has resigned as chief executive of Apple appears to be the end of an era. His official title may have been chief executive, but to many Steve Jobs is (or was) Apple. A man who apparently oversaw every aspect of their production and design process, the creative genius behind and omnipresent in the development of perhaps the most successful and culturally significant consumer products of the last decade: the iPod, iMac, iPhone and iPad.


So what does the future hold for arguably the single most ubiquitous brand in the world today, and a company that at one point earlier this summer was wealthier than the US Government?


Consumers of Apple’s products, typically staunch advocates and loyal supporters, will need convincing that the quality of the products and the power of the brand they have bought into (at some expense) are not about to diminish. Investors in Apple will, in turn, need to hear and see from the new chief executive the right noises about new products and new corporate ventures.

In short, Apple faces an immediate and very important communications challenge: to prove to the world that it is more than just one man.


(Tom Yazdi
Consultant
tom@linstockcommunications.com)

Home but not alone: Communicating with stay-at-home students

August, as we all know, is a slow news month, where the banal and the barmy can sneak under the radar and into the national press with alarming regularity. But there is one sector that provides rich pickings during this time of news thrift – higher education. Even before the inevitable ‘back to school’ stories emerge there is the fertile ground of A-level results and case studies exploring all manner of student issues from managing finances to getting the right part-time job. Simon Read’s recent article in the Independent on the need for university students to budget effectively is a case in point.

In fact, finance is a common news thread, a trend that is only likely to increase with the raising of tuition fees. In recent weeks much focus has fallen on the growth in the number of students living at home. The general consensus is that this is a result of students trying to reduce costs in the face of an increase in the cost of a degree. Much has been made of the real cost of a degree and the ‘sticker’ price, the latter being the cost as perceived by the prospective student. In fact, the Government has been significantly surprised and concerned enough by student perceptions of cost to appoint Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com fame to head an independent student finance taskforce to better explain the cost of degrees.

This is important, particularly in developing communications for those from disadvantaged backgrounds who may be put off higher education by increased tuition fees. However, equally important will be analysis of the likely consequences of changes in the student demographic on the back of raised fees. In short, if more and more students decide to stay at home, what will this mean for universities?

One of the greatest challenges of raised fees is the increased power it hands students. Within this landscape, the universities that thrive will be those that better communicate with their students, understand their concerns and attitudes , and react to meet their expectations. Communicating with students in student accommodation is a markedly easier proposition than communicating with those living well outside university boundaries. However, universities must find a way, as the recent publishing of the National Student Survey results is a timely reminder of the dangers of neglecting student satisfaction.

It is vital universities understand the common channels through which these students communicate. Social media has become somewhat of a reflex panacea for communications issues in recent times, but it will undoubtedly have a role to play in reaching students living at home. Another important consideration will be direct engagement, an approach that will require a detailed understanding of the services used by stay-at-home students when they are ‘on-site’. This could focus on the library or the student bar, but regardless, universities will need to make better use of the limited time and resources available to connect with these students.

To maintain student satisfaction, universities will need to need to work hard to ensure students living at home feel part of the student experience. However, this will require significant further thought on how to communicate best with these audiences.

John Hood
Consultant (john@linstockcommunications.com)
 

Urban Cycling, Messaging and Running Over Things in Tanks

It turns out London isn’t the only city to have a cycling-friendly mayor with a penchant for publicity stunts. In a video posted on YouTube, Arturas Zuokas, the mayor of Vilnius, Lithuania drove a tank over a Mercedes parked illegally in a cycle lane. It shows him sweeping up the mess, after which he hands the startled-looking owner of the crushed car his keys, and cycles off.

The video, which lambasts the owners of “expensive cars” who “think they are above the law” has gone viral. It garnered a respectable 400,000 views in the first twenty-four hours and has been picked up by both the Guardian and the New York Times. Bloggers have called on mayors the world over to follow suit in taking a harder line when dealing with nuisance parkers. According to his deputy; the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is “firing up the tank”. Boris Johnson, never one to pass up a chance to drum up some publicity, must surely be on the phone to Liam Fox demanding the Royal Armoured Corps police his cycle super-highways.


The stunt is obviously not supposed to be taken entirely seriously, and a spokeswoman for Zuokas clarified that the car destroyed was bought specially for the video. For bored journalists on a hot August day, it provided some easy copy and light relief. But, says PR Moment, it was also an effective piece of messaging. I think it highlights the importance of communications in urban transport policy, and particularly cycling (no, really).


When people talk about promoting cycling in cities they usually focus on infrastructure projects, such as cycle lanes or hire schemes. These things are important: between 2006 and 2009 New York City built 200 miles of cycle lanes and cycling increased by 45%. But over the same period, San Francisco built no new cycle lanes at all, and saw a 53% increase in cycle commuting. This isn’t really that surprising: things like bike lanes promote cycling by making it safer and easier. But the most important determinant for bike safety isn’t infrastructure, it’s other cyclists. Research from Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands has shown that the more people cycle regularly in a city, the less likely an individual cyclist is to be involved in an accident.


This is good news for cyclists – city cycling has been increasing in popularity all over the world. It’s also good news for municipalities that want to promote both cycling and reduce accidents. Building cycle-friendly infrastructure is expensive, and cities are increasingly cash-strapped.


In fact, a good communications strategy can be just as effective at getting more people to cycle, and by extension to do it more safely. Humans like to conform: as Thaler & Sunstein discuss in Nudge, one of the best ways to get someone to do something is to persuade them that everyone else is doing it. And people favour the status-quo. Just by making cycling more visible TFL could make cycling more popular and safer. It’s counterintuitive, but telling people about cycle lanes might well be more effective than building more of them. Moreover, they should be positioning cycling as mainstream, fun and useful: they need to make cycling the obvious choice for city journeys. Events like Sky Ride are a fantastic start, but they could be doing much more.


So although Zuokas’s methods may be unorthodox, running over a car with a tank to promote cycling is in fact a sensible use of public money. It’s hard to imagine the same thing happening here, but the video shows that a viral campaign that harnesses social media can be both powerful and cost-effective, particularly if fronted by a charismatic cycling mayor. If only we had one of those…

Tom Lyttelton, Intern (thomas@linstockcommunications.com)

Is innovation about complexity or simplicity?

This blog first appeared on the 6-heads.com website.

There is a desperate need and, I would say, a desperate desire in our society today for innovation. We complain about rigid rules and same-old techniques in business and hold up companies like Google, with its 20% rule that enables engineers to spend one day a week working on projects outside their job descriptions, as the holy grail of workplaces. We embrace new technologies such as Twitter and iPads and shun ‘outdated’ objects such as CD players and notepads. We want something new, something exciting, something big – and we want to feel part of it.

Our way of life is changing, and there are numerous complex issues facing our generation. The global population is ageing and becoming more urban; diseases which have been eradicated in the western world continue to blight developing countries; countries once shrouded in secrecy have opened their borders; technology has enabled instant communication across social classes and nations; energy security has been shaken and alternative sources are being championed by many; and the recent financial crisis has shattered our trust in companies and institutions.

It is easy to look at the challenges we face and feel overwhelmed. We cannot conceive of a way to solve them, given the extraordinary complexity of the modern world. Every part of society must respond, from education systems to the business world and political structures to retail environments. But are we in danger of making the process of finding a solution too complicated?

Perhaps in our desire for something new, something big, we are overlooking the simplicity of innovation. An innovative idea doesn’t have to be the most complex one, something that only a few can understand. The solutions to the challenges facing our world will need to cross borders and social classes, so they cannot be dependent on culture, income or social structure.

Innovation isn’t about invention. It isn’t focused on finding the new, rather it seeks to find the better and strive for the best. Many of the most innovative ideas we have seen in recent times have been the result of combining existing ideas in simple ways. For example:

 - The iPod wasn’t the first product of its kind, but it was innovative because of the way it combined existing technologies into one easy-to-use, accessible and transportable product and has led to a series of spin-offs.

 - Mobile banking, which has transformed the way millions of people in countries such as Kenya and India do business and manage their money, simply combined services that already existed and made them relevant to new situations.

 - Loyalty programmes, such as frequent flier reward miles, were introduced a few years ago as an innovative expansion of existing marketing strategies but are now standard practice for many businesses.

 - And the social network Twitter isn’t really that different to previous platforms and websites, but when combined with video phones and mobile access around the world it has radically changed the global media landscape.

Perhaps the key to addressing the challenges the world is facing isn’t in trying to think of totally new ideas, but finding ways that existing concepts, behaviours and technologies can be combined and improved to do something truly innovative.


Jo Nussbaum
Consultant (jo@linstockcommunications.com)