For her contribution to causing a crisis…..

It is difficult to know what to post on the subject of the News Corporation ‘crisis’ without it sounding like cliche heaped upon cliche.  But for someone who professes to teach public relations, and who has been known to provide counsel, I feel it would be remiss of me not to put some words together.  My thoughts come in three broad themes.

IT NEED NOT HAVE BEEN A CRISIS:

In many instances, a crisis is not born of events themselves, but of an organisation’s reaction to those events.  Indeed, it can be its “failure to meet the social norms and expectations of stakeholders” (Coombs, 2000, p.77).

Rupert Murdoch - not sure which 'social norm' has the bigger breach: the spread-eagled legs for the camera; or the almost knee-high socks with shorts combo; or perhaps it goes much deeper than that. Photo - Telegraph

Rupert, Rebekah and James have felt that it’s ‘okay’ not to have to answer for what has taken place on their watch, especially when it’s involved the families of murdered children, fallen soldiers and victims of terrorism.  To not feel the need to account for yourselves is almost as big a sin as the original crimes – thus compounding the crisis.

Almost childlike, they have felt that somehow, if they hide, it will go away.  If they don’t engage in the basics of relationship management – whether through media relations, public affairs, internal communications or investor relations – it will blow over.  Instead, they have just created bigger audiences for their original crisis, and added to their gripes.

A crisis demands “outside-in thinking”.  Instead, we have just seen a bunker mentality.

Sacrificing the News of the World appears to be a reflex reaction, dressed up as thought through strategy.  “If we throw the baying crowds a piece of meat, perhaps that will satisfy them, draw a line, and they will go away”.  Except it still didn’t answer any of the questions people had about past wrong-doing, and instead destroyed a piece of the News Corp empire that arguably was working well.  The News of the World need not have been closed down.

SHOCKING USE OF THE MEDIA FROM MEDIA PROFESSIONALS:

The three senior executives at the heart of the scandal have demonstrated a woeful understanding of the basics when  it comes to their own use of the media, which has usually involved them shunning interview opportunities (adding to the air that they have something to hide), or running away from a pack of journalists and cameras (in the process, creating the most defensive of photo-opportunities).

Rebekah Brooks and another defensive non-photo opportunity

This is from professionals (some of whom have been journalists themselves, so should know better) who lead some of the biggest media titles, many of whom are the catalyst for a crisis in organisation when they put allegations to them to ‘stand up a story’.  You would think they would be the experts at knowing how to handle a crisis, having seen it from the inside?  Think again.

Why no press conferences?  Why after hiding from the press for so long do you give an interview to only one publication?  Why do you have to resort to to advertising and letters to say your sorry?  When did you stop being a human being?

JOURNALISM AND PR PROFESSIONALISM:

Building from the last point, it is a cautionary tale about organisations assuming that high-profile former journalists always make the best PRs.  Some journalists make fantastic PRs – the ones that understand that the discipline is more than just media relations,and is about more than individual transactions.  At its heart, PR is about reputation.

Whether it is media professionals’ shocking handling of the media themselves, or the arrest of journalists turned PRs for their alleged involvement in this ‘scandal’, public relations needs to maintain a constant eye over standards in its own profession.  The discipline’s reputation itself is never that high – and the last thing it needs is to be brought into the eye of this storm by the actions of the likes of Andy Coulson and Neil Wallis.

AND FINALLY……

While writing this blog, it has been announced that Rebekah Brooks has finally resigned as Chief Executive of News International.  It may be a little late for the organisation to take control of the crisis, even though we have finally seen someone held accountable.

What price reputation? UAL's Rector, Nigel Carrington with Rebekah Brooks

Which brings me to the rather limp reaction of University of the Arts, London to calls for them to strip Rebekah Brooks of the honorary degree they awarded her last year for her ‘contribution to journalism’.  It was on behalf of constituent college, London College of Communication (LCC), from which Brooks originally graduated.

Rather than acknowledging the concern of academics, students and external audiences to how this award looks with hindsight, a university spokeswoman told the Guardian that they awarded honorary degrees to those judged to have made “considerable contributions to the creative and cultural industries“, while head of college at LCC, Sandra Kemp emailed all staff, warning it was inappropriate to comment while official investigations were ongoing (err… they will be for some time), and warning that all media inquiries should go to the university press office (err.. this to a college that includes countless journalism and PR students).

Excuse me, what about the bigger issues?  Am I missing something here – isn’t the university worried about it’s association with what will become the biggest scandal of our generation.  Perhaps the degree would be more aptly re-awarded for her contribution to causing a crisis?

With this year’s graduation ceremonies upon us, for the sake of avoiding its own crisis and denting its own reputation, London College of Communication/University of the Arts, London should withdraw her honorary degree.  You can join the Facebook group here.

References:

Coombs, T. (2000) Crisis management: Advantage of a relational perspective. In J.A Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (eds) Public Relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp.73-93), Mahwah, New Jersey:  Erlbaum.

Nil By Mouth

I have been wanting an excuse for an entry with a focus on ‘regulation‘ for some time, and a number of issues have come together at the same time to provide one.

Right: The (now) 89 year old Frank Holland - the original 'Dutch'

Last week, my 89 year old ‘Gramps‘ was admitted by ambulance to hospital, with severe stomach pains, and bleeding.  He is like a second Dad, with me having been a latch-key kid during the 1970s and 80s – and it is from him that much of the inspiration for the name ‘Dutch‘ comes.

For five days since his emergency admission, there was little progress on a diagnosis of his problem.  He was in the very ward visited by David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Andrew Lansley, from where they kicked off their ‘Pause, Listen, etc’ consultation exercise on the NHS reforms in March.

NHS consultation, kicking-off at the local hospital where Gramps found himself admitted via A&E recently

This blog isn’t a rant against those changes (I’ve done that elsewhere), but more one against a general atmosphere which prevents us ‘little people’ ever really getting their hands on the source of a problem; of seeking accountability, and for people in their every-day work being given the autonomy to flourish (but also to take a sense of responsibility for what they do) – in short, it is against a ‘tick-box’ regulation culture that prevents any kind of resolution or authentic reaction.

My ‘Gramps’ lay in his hospital ward.  Cameron and Clegg have been and gone.  So, I am reliably informed has the regular and pre-announced Care ‘Quality’ inspection. Check  ✔. Check  ✔.  100% compliance laminated bar charts produced and placed on walls around ward?  Check  ✔.  Check  ✔.

Funny though, the shiny, new, wipe clean metal signs above every bed on the ward remained empty.  I’m told they were there for ‘Quality’ Care’s inspection and for Cameron’s visit (must have made a better photo opportunity), but actually, to fill them in breaches patient confidentiality.

Nil by Mouth? (Source: BBC: 'Getting On')

Staff needed to know that my ‘Gramps’ was ‘Nil By Mouth‘.  By relying on this tick-box approach to managing care, they have encouraged him to eat food when he shouldn’t;  then when it has been decided that it is too late and he should carry on eating, the message hasn’t kept up, and the people with the food have decided he is ‘Nil By Mouth’ again, even though he is not.  As a result, there is no progress on diagnosis, and he has not even advanced out of the care of ‘A&E’ to a surgical consultant.

Breaching patient confidentiality?  The same information was kept on a chart in the corridor of the ward for ALL passing to see, but somehow, that did not breach confidentiality.

'Nils By Mouth' - not the actual state of the walls

By Day Five of his stay, and no further forward on his care, the Hospital told him he could go home.  Before he had a chance to leave the grounds of the hospital, he had been manhandled by a three-strong security team, who saw fit to prevent him leaving the hospital, and having done so, did not seem to have an idea of how to manage the intervention in someone’s physical space without winding him up further.

Back on the ward, but after I had whisked him off site bruised and incensed, a doctor had finally read his notes – and realised that he should not have been discharged – and because of his medication regime, should have been treated immediately, as we had been originally told.  Too late – I’m not sure he’ll ever set foot in a hospital again.

This is not an issue about a single hospital, or nursing staff – although who orders an 89 year old with a violent stomach condition and an unlikely relationship with ‘exotic’ food sweet and sour pork for dinner?  He was also discharged with someone else’s medication – another breach of confidentiality that was somehow ‘ok’.

For me, this is about an issue prevalent in every walk of life.

It hits the headlines in the regulation of private care homes; bonuses and credit availability in the banking sector; railway companies and ticketing; the Press Complaints Commission and ‘phone hacking‘; and quality of care in the NHS through the Care Quality Commission.  I had first hand experience this last week of how the latter’s pre-announced inspections are more interested in the punctuation used on a member of staff’s CV, than they are the real life experiences of people like my Gramps (I saw such an incident happen).

Closer to home, in higher education, students at my former university, University of the Arts London were vindicated recently, when in a landmark ruling, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) made a general ruling under its ‘Cause for Concern’ procedures about the issues I have been blogging about for some time (and resigned my job over in November 2009).  This is a big deal, as it is difficult enough to find your way around the system, let alone have the confidence to do anything about it.  And for it to take 18 months to get ‘justice’ after exhausting the democratic procedures of the elected college structure; one-to-one meetings; demonstrations; occupations and public meetings.

But the result of that regulator’s ruling?  Nothing!  While it found in favour of the student complainants, It also found that there were no future issues for concern likely to impact on the student experience.  This is from a university that left students on courses with NO dissertation supervisior for a term, no personal tutor, and countless examples of courses with no lecturers, purely as a result of the decisions of the head of college – and this was courses that did NOT close.

LCC's Head of College, Sandra Kemp

Who is to say that cannot happen again?  It happened because one senior member of staff decided to make changes without sticking to the relevant course change procedures, and ignoring warnings about lack of staff cover on existing courses.  Guarantees of quality, yes, but look more closely, and you would have seen courses having very little money spent on them, few unique resources, and in the case of the degree I am proud to have resigned from rather than ‘play the game’, they have been unable to appoint a permanent, specialist replacement in over 18 months, despite advertising, shortlisting and making job offers – because everyone else has seen through them too.  They, like me have made an ethical judgement.

"Nil By Mouth" you could say - Jacob Black finds himself gagged, just like lecturing staff

We were even asked to lie to parents of incoming students about whether courses were to close – “Nil By Mouth” you could say.

When I asked QAA if they were interested in my testimony, after six weeks of no reply, a prod resulted in another “Nil By Mouth” response.  Now they have got what the THE described as their “unprecedented” slap on the wrists, it is likely that my former College will seek to shore up what is left of its reputation by seeking accreditation from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations for the PR degree course it kept.  There is no way it should get it, purely on the staffing situation alone.  But they will pay their accreditation fee.  Someone will ask a ‘difficult’ question.  Its answer will be minuted.  And all will be well in the world?

Regulation isn’t working.  Unless citizens or consumers are given the tools to become more active in using the channels available to them, I despair.  Unless we all reflect a little more about how power is at play, we may as well all give up.  Fees will increase next year from around £3k per year to £9k – effectively a ‘blank cheque’ for the unpunished institution, which was making in the region of £100k per year clear profit from courses such as this even back then!  It is also about effective policy-making (or lack of) which often is responsible for creating the messes which need regulating in the first place.

If any of those students did want to try their hand at securing compensation for what even the regulator described as disrupted studies, they wouldn’t get it from the university, they wouldn’t get it from the university funding body (HEFCE) – they wouldn’t get it from the regulator, QAA.  No, they would have start a whole new separate process, through a totally different body, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)!  Run for your lives!!!!!

I think Charles Dickens perfectly fingered the regulators in Little Dorritt.

“The Circumlocution Office was (as everybody knows without being told) the most important Department under Government. No public business of any kind could possibly be done at any time without the acquiescence of the Circumlocution Office. Its finger was in the largest public pie, and in the smallest public tart. It was equally impossible to do the plainest right and to undo the plainest wrong without the express authority of the Circumlocution Office.”

Idealism? Take a Stand? or Give Up? Chicken Soup with Barley

If you’ll excuse me, I’ve got my own laminated bar charts to produce – another successful year you’ll be surprised to hear.  If you are interested in the issues raised, I thoroughly recommend Arnold Wesker’s play “Chicken Soup with Barley” at the Royal Court till July 16th.  After a slow start, tracking one family’s fight against the fascists in the East End of London in the 1930s, by the end I didn’t think the tears would ever stop – and that was a matinee performance!

Do we give up on our idealism?  Maybe we need to adapt our tactics to the terrain?  But surely we can’t cease caring in the face of a ceaseless, faceless bureaucratic onslaught?  It is tempting when the weight of forms take us away from the frontline, and from our talents, but when we remind ourselves that we are part of a wider human fraternity: real people like my 89 year old Gramps;  young people starting out on their careers?  We must put them at the centre of everything we do – in life, and in professions, such as mine of public relations.  Ethical codes and regulation are a sign that we have already failed, as are playing too safe in the delivery of our communication strategies in PR.  Kirsty Maccoll could have taught Ed Miliband a few things about Labour’s message and delivery had she still been alive.

Gramps meanwhile has forbidden the family from getting involved, but he needs us to bat on his behalf and navigate the official procedures.  He has already started seeking justice – in his mind, he ‘naturally’ went to the local police force.  They have since referred it to the neighbouring police force (where the hospital is based), who have since referred it back to the Hospital, who insist he submit a formal complaint about the hospital – but he does not want to complain about nurses personally, and does not understand these elaborate procedures.  We all know, “Computer Says No“!  ’PALS’ process activated?  Check ✔  Letter to CEO?  Check ✔  What’s the betting the computer will still say ‘No’, even if it says ‘Yes’?

* Apologies for being away so long

A Liberal dose of cognitive dissonance

Most of us have been disturbed by the strange case of the Liberal Democrats and their actions on student fees and a number of other issues within the ruling Coalition in the UK.  As a member between 1987 and 2010, I have been disturbed more than most.  Today, we hear they have slipped to a new low of 8% in a YouGov opinion poll!

Theories in the shape of Cognitive Dissonance Theory more usually used in understanding the mechanics of persuasion can help us understand just what the Lib Dems are up to.

The feeling of ‘dissonance’ (just like that uncomfortable feeling at the bottom of your stomach when you feel sick) hits when an individual:-

a) holds two clearly incongruent thoughts;

b) freely performs a behaviour that is inconsistent with an attitutude they hold;

c) makes a decision that rules out a desirable alternative behaviour;

d) expends effort to participate in  what turns out to be less than ideal activity; or

e) in general, is unable to find sufficient psychological justification for an attitude or behaviour he or she adopts. (Perloff, 2010)

In order to get rid of this feeling, Perloff (2010) suggests that we can do one of the following.  Alongside each, I will give an example of the party doing just that – except the path that would provide it with the option of getting rid of the most dissonance – change it’s behaviour and either voting against specific measures, or leaving the coalition, or at least more likely, waving a white flag, apologising, and admitting they had done a volte-face.  No – that would involve them admitting they were wrong.

1. Change your attitude: It’s not just student fees, or social housing. Here, Chris Huhne does an about turn on nuclear power.  The video shows his position BEFORE the election; weeks after the election, Huhne is announcing the green light for a new generation of nuclear power.  It is not a compromise, as it is clear those involved didn’t seem to want to put up a fight for the abandoned policy.

2. Add consonant cognitions:  Suddenly, there are new ways of appreciating the policy that, according to the proponents, we could not possibly have known before the election – except we did!  For example, the depth of the financial situation;  the compromises of coalition;  sticking to the ambition of progressive outcomes by targeting the number of those on free school meals going to Oxford and Cambridge.

3. Derogate the unchosen alternative:  If in doubt, ignore the questions, and just ‘slag-off’ the opposition in a less than subtle form.

4. Spread apart the alternatives:  This is an interesting one.  Compare with an imaginary situation had the Lib Dems not been involved, which implies that your Coalition ‘friends’ are beastly.  That’s not nice, is it?

5. Alter the importance of the cognitives elements:  It doesn’t matter that students will be saddled with three times as much debt (a proposition which will put poorer students like my 17 year old self off going to university), they will be paying off less per month when they pay it back.  Yay – it sounds like a Paul Daniels trick!

6. Suppress thoughts:  I was good friends with Tim Farron as a student politician – I’d like to think he still is a friend.  But this clip is a classic example of ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’.  Ignore the fact that everyone in the party is talking about what is going on.  Tim is at a local party function in Islington, and it’s as if all he can find to talk about is the content of the vol-au-vents and the fact that Trident’s renewal has been delayed for a year.  On that basis, members should be reassured – “we are getting so much out of the coalition”.

7. Communicate:  Newly elected Party President-Elect Tim Farron MP here appeals for votes as he runs in an internal elections, promising members he will make them feel better about themselves again – just like they did when they campaigned against the Iraq War.

8. Alter the behaviour:  99.9% of Liberal Democrats have not taken this option.  The vociferous response of a generation of voters lied to at the ballot box, whose idealism and enthusiasm has been smashed, let alone their vote lost is just a foretaste of what the party can expect to reap in return for not having altering its behaviour.

It is difficult to change your behaviour – to admit that it is out of step with your attitudes and beliefs – but it is the only way to TRULY eradicate cognitive dissonance.  To do so involves admitting that you have been wrong, or have completed changed your mind – and that is something politicians just don’t do.  Instead, they wriggle, they self-justify, and as a result, self-combust.

As a result, they obviously become less persuasive – and the case of the Lib Dems, to many people, an obscene let-down; to others, a laughing stock.  For example:-

Sadly, the only people who cannot see it are the afflicted themselves.  It’s very much like the behaviour of an addict.  For me, it is heart-breaking to see a party I have campaigned and worked for behave in such a way.  I have had no alternative but to let my membership of the party lapse.

The title of one of the most readable books on the subjects sums up where the party finds itself.  ”Mistakes were made, (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts.” (Tavris and Aronson, 2007)  If only THEY had been able to say they got it wrong.

Embarrassing affairs

Last week was the International History of PR academic conference, hosted by Bournemouth University.  It boasted an amazing array of topics, covered by some of the leading names in the field whose books and journal articles I have used during the last six years in which I have been teaching, but didn’t dream I would meet.

The history of PR is too easily entwined with propaganda, when it could just as easily be associated with activism, such as the Suffragettes

One of those was Karen Russell, associate professor at the University of Georgia, and editor of the Journal of Public Relations Research.  She gave a keynote address, encouraging us to ‘embrace the embarrassing‘.  She was referring to those names in the history of PR (Bernays, Ivy Lve, Barnum, etc), because only by doing so might we actually start to look around these figures, and beyond them.  As Jacquie L’Etang pointed out in her keynote address, we are allowing these figures to dictate what the history of PR is, as if there was no public relations activity going on throughout the rest of history between the times of Ancient Greece (at the birth of Rhetoric), and the American Revolution.  We jabe allowed them to ‘spin’ their own role as creators of PR.

In modern day public relations, one of the most embarrassing corners of our profession for many due to negative headlines is that of Public Affairs.  The spur of professionalisation was one of the drivers that moved fellow PR lecturer Sarah Roberts-Bowman and myself to develop to the new CIPR Diploma in Public Affairs, which we will be delivering for the PR Academy from September.  It is not a ‘Westminster Explained’ type course, but is instead designed to put Public Affairs in a wider theoretical framework, and provide space for practitioners to reflect about their work in a Masters level environment.

The Thick of It's Malcolm Tucker, continues to act in a not too professional, yet utterly entertaining fashion

Part one of the Diploma looks at the trends and challenges facing the political and public policy landscape.  As well as political communications and the nature of campaigning and decision-making, the course brings in perspectives on the nature of power, democracy, pluralism and the ‘public sphere’.

Part two of the Diploma looks at the art and science of lobbying and campaigning, through the psychology of campaigning, how to influence decision-making, messaging and the media, the role of political marketing, the concept of relationship management, moving from channels to conversations, dialogue and discourse – and finally, ethics and codes of conduct – probably the biggest issue of the moment as the new Coalition Government (and the industry, in the shape of the UK Public Affairs Council, bringing together APPC, CIPR and PRCA)  looks at the role of lobbying in the ‘new politics’ and considers what form of regulation is most appropriate for the profession.

Part three of the Diploma puts public affairs into the context of managing organizational reputation, including its link with issues and crisis management, CSR – and stakeholder theory.

The project is assessed through a 6000 word research project, for which candidates are prepared for research philosophies, methods and techniques in a fourth part of the Diploma.

There will be some skeptics about the whole idea of having such a qualification.  We have consulted widely around the industry, and had a warm welcome to it when we have taken people through it.  As with the CIPR Internal Communications Diploma which was launched last year and proved extremely popular, it is seen as a way of helping to professionalize public affairs, and a perfect step for personal development.  And for those industry figures who don’t think you can teach such things, we want you to be part of the delivery of this diploma.  Any theory is only effective if it is delivered in the context of professional practice, and we want top embrace as many people as possible to share their expertise as guest speakers or mentors, and create a real community of professional development.

*Labour MP Bessie Braddock packs a punch against singer Frankie Vaughan! Much of the terrain may have changed over time, but have the principles?

Back to the International History conference, it was great to meet the author of one of my favourite journal articles, which I use to give undergraduate students a taste for diving into a wide range of journals and articles to inform their final year research.

McGrath, C. (2006) “The ideal lobbyist:  Personal characteristics of effective lobbyists”, Journal of Communication Management, 10 (1) pp.67-79

At the conference, Conor McGrath was presenting a paper arguing for a re-writing of history, presenting the first UK parliamentary lobbyist as Charles Weller Kent, working for the NFU between 1913 and 1916.  Prior to McGrath’s paper, accepted wisdom has been that Lt. Commander Christopher Powell was the pioneer of lobbyists in the UK.  He set up the parliamentary consultancy Watney and Powell in 1928.

If McGrath’s research proves correct, it would mean that we would nearing the centenary of the profession in 2013 – and an ideal time just ahead of that for the CIPR to launch a Diploma in Public Affairs, so that when it comes, we no longer have to ‘embrace the embarrassing’ in order to celebrate it!

[*Credit for the fantastic Bessie Braddock photo to the Pool of Life blog on the Liverpool Daily Post site]

Still more Blanche Hunt than Gene Hunt, but things are looking up

My last post bemoaned how little the three main political parties were making use of the possibilities afforded by social media.  Campaigns were tending towards the negative, sometimes even the bile-drenched, rather than harnessing the interactive and the viral opportunities on offer.

This week has campaigns from each of the three hitting the headlines in the ‘old media’, and while I would still describe them as being more evocative of ‘Blanche Hunt‘ (the dear departed, pensioner queen of the sour one-liner in ITV1′s ‘Coronation Street’) than the ‘Gene Hunt‘ from BBC1′s ‘Ashes to Ashes’ contained in the imagery in some of them, things are looking up in the sophistication of their ambitions.

Blanche Hunt, played by Maggie Jones, who died on 2 Dec 2009

The first to come under the spotlight is Labour.  Rather than deciding to use an agency for the creative in their next advertising poster, they decided to invite members and supporters to take part and share their creative ideas.  It provides a way of scouring the horizon for potential creative ideas that the party may have missed, and provides a route for conversation with supporters, enabling them to feel they are getting involved.  It was dubbed “The People’s Poster“, with updates on entries provided via Twitter, and behind the scenes video of the competition given on You Tube.  Some of the entries were negative, some were very funny, and some were iconic.

Brilliant!  All of this provided perfect material for media relations too when the eventual winner was announced.

Labour's winning "People's Poster"

Labour could have intervened on the quality control, as one of the problems with social media is there is no control over what will be said or submitted.

In this case, Labour were too caught up with the message submitted, and its essential negative content to be able to stand back and see its essential weakness, that other people on social media, and the Conservatives were able to turn to their advantage.  The main character depicted on the poster – Gene Hunt – is a national hero, who despite tending towards the racist and the sexist, is essentially viewed as a redeemable fictional character of a particular time.  He is also a ‘bit of a dish‘, from an award-winning programme that regularly tops the ratings – a bit like The Sweeney, and A Touch of Frost too, for example.  Oh dear – cue Conservative mash-up of poster.

Conservative 'mash-up' of Labour's poster

I think it would be even stronger if you view it while playing this jingle, as sourced from the car horn of the ‘General Lee’ car in “Dukes of Hazzard” – another immigrant from TV in the 1980s.

It’s humour, and use of rhetoric are stronger, and so it is able to deliver its attack back with a a more memorable, stronger punch.

The Conservatives tried their hand at viral humour on April Fools’ Day, with a mock story about the Department of Government Waste.  A quick look at the view counter will demonstrate that it has not been as effective as the Liberal Democrat campaign for a spoof political party called the ‘Labservatives‘ complete with Twitter and Facebook presence.  The lesson here appears to be better research, with the Lib Dem message appearing to have a stronger resonance with voters, and delivered in a not particularly tribal fashion that has worked well.

The Conservatives may have made more productive use of new media through their use of ‘crowdsourcing‘ in their analysing of the budget’s effects on pensioners, and it may be behind the scenes use of new media which help supply old media with stories which may prove the most effective during the coming campaign.

Before signing off, a better example of how social media (working in tandem with old media) works best, with The Guardian newspaper’s own spoof April Fools’ Day story about Labour’s fictional ‘Step outside posh boy’ campaign.

Guardian spoof

Not only did it go viral on social media, and get reported as a spoof on old media, the paper encouraged readers to submit their own versions of the artwork, tapping into this alleged ‘side’ of the PM’s character.  It became a top trending topic of discussion on Twitter, is still accepted as one of the better ideas, and now the Guardian is even retailing limited edition T-shirts.  If only it had been real!

The lessons from all of this, if there are any, are:-

>  to let go a little, and employ as many sets of eyes and ears as possible – audience understanding.  In my limited experience, the political party activists need to get out and live life a little bit.  The press conference where David and Ed Milliband announced the “People’s Poster” looked a little odd.  It looked like the brother’s didn’t get out enough, or knew enough about popular culture.  If they had, the initiative might have worked a lot better;

> to continue getting rid of the bile in their campaigning efforts in favour of humour juice.  They are still too much like Blanche Hunt than Gene Hunt in how they conduct themselves.

These types of attack-ad inspired campaigns only scratch the surface in terms of what is possible with regard to integration with other comms channels, and nimbleness of foot.  For that, I sense we will be looking towards the pressure groups, and less formalised groupings of campaigners.

‘Anti-social’ media the main weapon in UK politics?

Following the successful use of new media in the election campaign of President Obama, there is great excitement about the role of ‘social media’ in the UK General Election campaign of 2010.

Non-aligned InVinceCable We Trust campaign

Observers are told that whoever can best harness the power of new media – whether to reach new audiences, to build movements through more engaged conversations, or to tap into new pools of creativity – is most likely to have the key to this election campaign.  It is why Obama, with a grassroots campaign, engaging people from outside of politics, giving them ways of getting involved, behind a positive message of hope was able to successfully use new media.

Just a few weeks of pre-campaign electioneering, sat for the bulk of my day in front of the computer, and making full use of Twitter and Facebook have left me thoroughly depressed as to the prospects for the role that ‘social media’ is set to play in this election.  While there have been some positive campaigns, such as Power2010 and #InVinceCable , these are for the most part NOT run by the political parties.

So far, both Labour and Conservatives deserve on-line ASBOs, such as the degree of  ’anti-social behaviour’ when it comes to social media.  Rather than talking to the electorate in meaningful, two-way conversations, they are instead shouting at each other, which may have the perverse result of providing them with less time to talk to the electorate.

This has most clearly been exemplified by the ‘#cashgordon‘ versus ‘#cashcroft‘ battle on Twitter recently.  The activist bases of the two parties have been too wound-up, too pre-occupied to notice that, in the case of the Conservative campaign, the open tag nature if its Twitter-feed meant that the front-page of its website could easily be hijacked by negative messages.  By the end of its first day, just a few hundred people had signed up, likely to all be activists already.  By the end of the week, it has only reached a thousand.

#cashgordon

Similarly, the Labour campaign (the party of government) fail to understand that be throwing cheap, playground names at the opposition, and by not even attempting to answer policy questions, they make it more likely that the same will come back.

#cashcroft parody from mydavidcameron.com

What is so depressing is that this is nothing new.  The two parties have not undergone a full cultural shift in embracing the full possibilities of what social media can deliver in campaigning.  Instead, they have chosen to repeat the mistakes highlighted by the deliciously viral video, ‘The Last Advertising Agency on Earth‘.

For that is the strategy they continue to adopt, albeit online – negative advertising, or ‘attack ads’.  And there wasn’t even agreement that it worked for old media.  They had a role because of the research that showed negativity (within an overall positive message) attract more interest, provide higher recall of a message/campaign, and thus have a greater impact – especially important in a short-term, four week campaign.  Research suggests that this effect is not universal though, and that it depends on the audience’s level of involvement with what it is going on – the lower the level of involvement, the more likely negativity will work (Dermody & Scullion, 2000; Dermody &Hanmer-Lloyd, 2005).

But of course, it’s also argued that overall, such adverts switch people off politics, and maybe they feed off the declining the levels of trust they encourage.  In terms of source credibility and message factors research, there might be an argument to be made for negative attacks on your opponents helping to mobilise your core support.  In fact, there is more research to justify ignoring your opponent (and their arguments) completely if that’s all you are trying to do (Perloff, 2003).  I’m also a little old fashioned in feeling that some attempt should be made to engage, to persuade, and for a candidate to be held to account for their views.  Dominant political marketing paradigms too easily ignore democratic, and even public relations traditions.

Save Our Sure Starts

Of course, it’s not all that dark, and there’s a mix of party-led and non-aligned initiatives. Labour’s “Save Our Sure Start” which has a strong presence on Facebook has a good potential to reach out beyond the party’s supporters.  Something like Mark Thomas’ “The People’s Manifesto” shows the potential for bringing new and old media together, using stand-up events, and books to engage an audience to create a unique, but credible manifesto.

I have to admit to a soft-spot too for the Parliamentary Education Service’s ‘MP for a Week‘ virtual adventure-style game, which although a little pedestrian, does go beyond the barking headlines to give some insight into what it means to be an MP, and provides for some form of participation.

But that’s besides the point.  The MyDavidCameron.Com website in particular shows the blurring of the lines between political advertising, and online parody.  Beyond their own supporters (and throwing pies at the opposition’s activists), the political parties so far have demonstrated that they have not fully embraced social media.  And worse than that, there is a danger that the investment of energy it requires of activists on keyboards and Blackberries will take them away from talking to talking to real voters – and converting a few swing or non-aligned voters.

I would argue that the kind of people who engage in spaces such as Twitter, or in political debates in social media spaces are typified by high levels of involvement in terms of consumer behaviour.  For party activists, it creates a fantastic space to engage their creative energies.  But for non-aligned individuals such as those in specialist pressure groups, charities and social enterprises (and the parties seem to have forgotten that in most people’s networks, that will be a great deal of such people), their kind of turbo-charged, finger pointing negative campaigning could very well backfire.  Let’s hope they’ve maybe got a little more creative viral content, and some engaging conversation-led ideas up their sleeves that may also provide excuses to mobilise.

And we’ve only just begun. Oh no, we haven’t yet!

References:

Dermody, J. and Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2005) “Promoting Distrust?  A Chronicle of the 2005 British General Election Advertising Campaigns”, in Journal of Marketing Management, 21, pp.1021-1047

Dermody, J. and Scullion, R. (2000) ” Perceptions of Negative Political Advertising: Meaningful or Menacing?  An Empirical Study of the 1997 British General Election Campaign”, in International Journal of Advertising, 19 (2), pp. 201-223

Perloff, R.M. (2003) “The Dynamics of Persuasion”, New Jersey:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates  [An excellent general resource on persuasion issues]

PR does the hustle using new and old media

I most definitely bend both ways when it comes to using ‘old’ and ‘new’ media – ensuring the integration of both in a campaign.

Each have a role to play, but ‘old’ is too easily given the ‘heave-ho’ in the rush to embrace new technology.  The best example I can signpost here are new music releases – giving me an excuse to plug the ‘Music’ tab on the top right hand side of this blog.

Take this track ‘Hustle’, by the band Tunng.  The band have a social media presence – Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, You Tube and the like – but I have never had cause to stumble across them, despite them having been around for a bit.

It was due to them coming to the attention (no doubt through some nimble PR) of Mark Radcliffe and Stuart Maconie on BBC Radio 2, who then proceeded to play the track to the millions listening to their radio show, and to champion it from then on.  Magazines could have played a similar role, but radio is in a stronger position when it comes to music.

I fell in love with it immediately – the power of third party endorser no doubt helping, a trusted guide helping the track (and the artist) stand out above the noise.  That, together with the mass audience, which could then be used to take traffic to various online sites to find out more about the track brought others, like me to the track I’m sure.

The story does not end there. ‘New’ media picks up the baton from ‘old’ as someone who has discovered the track, like me, is able to share their new found love, by blogging about the track, ‘tweeting’ links to the video, and – well, you get the picture.  As word spreads, ‘old’ media jumps back on the bandwagon to report the successful phenomenon – interviews with the artist and reviews of the track in more mainstream newspapers, magazines, tv, radio and online – justified by the social media activity the PR can point to when pitching in, sometimes even providing a story to back it up.

All aspects of the campaign need to integrated and planned with precision.  In effect, there is no ‘old’ and their is no ‘new’ – just many more different forms of media than there used to be.

The ‘Music’ tab is where I post, for the most part ‘new’ music that I have usually had the pleasure of being signposted by the likes of Mark Radcliffe, Stuart Maconie, Janice Long, Steve Lamacq, Trevor Nelson, Gilles Peterson, Kissy Sell Out, Huw Stephens – and even the odd older rare find showcased by Jarvis Cocker on his BBC 6 Music show.  I’m sure most of you will not share my taste, but I hope that it at least explains what it is for, and its relevance to PR.  I remain a luddite when it comes to my passion for the medium for radio, as it comes closest to sharing many of the social, interactive, instant and communal aspects of new media. But that’s a post for another time.