The recent campaign by Andrex has left me a little bemused.
I don’t think I can be accused of being a prude. And as the theme of this blog will testify, it has not been unknown for me to have an unnatural interest in toilet health.
This campaign appears to think it is extremely clever. It toys with one of those last areas of taboo in modern life that has otherwise been turned over to exhibitionism. By attempting to generate a debate on how, not to put too fine a point on it, we ‘wipe our backsides’ it goes somewhere that we just do not want to go in public.
Andrex wants to know how you wipe your bum
Conventional marketing communications theory would say, “brilliant!” The implication is that the shock value of seeing people talking about how they wipe their bum will grab our attention, watch the advert, and buy the toilet roll. And by engaging us in social media, by asking us to choose whether we ‘fold‘ or ‘scrunch‘, it deepens our relationship with the brand.
For some time, I’ve reflected on whether advertisers may be forced to abandon the traditional ‘message effect’ of the persuasion tools of humour, guilt and fear, in favour of the more physiologically grounded effect of disgust, whether moral or physical. In an increasingly noisy environment, such effects are less easy to avoid than the traditional ones more grounded in psychology. I’ve had Kelly, D (2011) by my bedside, but never seem to get the guts to read it. Maybe the Andrex campaign is the excuse I need.
Apologies for the imagery (Andrex planted it there), but am I the only one for whom this argument leaves ‘skidmarks’? If they needed to grab your attention, I could understand, but they don’t. As a loyal Andrex customer, I’m left bemused, and feeling as if I should switch to another brand.
If the campaign had been run with a PR element to it, I would have been much more sympathetic to it. Do we really believe Andrex ‘give a shit’ whether we ‘fold‘ or ‘scrunch‘? If they did, and it was a genuine conversation, perhaps it would work.
A genuine cause, rather than just getting the tills ringing
Maybe if the effort had been linked to something more substantial, such as an awareness raising campaign in conjunction with Beating Bowel Cancer, or another charitable campaign on sanitation, I would have been a lot more sympathetic to it. There could have been much more active media relations and social media activity on the basis of this charitable ‘CSR’, and what is often called the ‘managed controversy’ discussed earlier that would help secure column inches, as well as people talking, for the right reasons. There are links to charities on the Andrex website, but nothing above and beyond their usual work, and nothing tied in with this campaign.
Instead, I’m left feeling like this is a cheap stunt on Andrex’s part, and as such, it leaves me with a bad smell. Here endeth the toilet humour.
With a subject area like Public Relations, it is vital to be able to bring to bear scenarios from professional practice, and top-notch speakers who can grab students’ interests. This can be with a view to providing the arena for deep reflection on the relevance of theoretical concepts discussed on the course – and for students to be able to develop their own new solutions to creative problems and responses to emerging trends.
This term is already set to be an exciting one for the PR and Communications degree at the University of Greenwich welcoming guest speakers who turn heads and inspire such reflection.
Colleen Harris (here commentating on the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton on ABC News)
Topical, with the discussions around invasion of privacy associated with Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, and separately, Prince Harry (ahem!), Colleen Harris will talk to PR students at the University of Greenwich on Friday 16th November. Colleen is a former Press Secretary to HRH Prince of Wales, and the Princes William and Harry. She has served on the Press Complaints Commission, as a senior press officer across Whitehall (including at Number 10), and was Director of Strategy and Communications at the Commission for Racial Equality.
Weber Shandwick CEO EMEA, Colin Byrne
On Tuesday 16th October, Colin Byrne, CEO, EMEA of world-leading public relations agency Weber Shandwick will be dropping by the world heritage site that is home to the University of Greenwich to share his latest insights on trends in the industry.
In “Top trends for PR in the engagement era” he will discuss how, in considering influences on their brand’s sociability, most public relations executives look to external forces – winning the approval of the right media, achieving a target number of “Likes” on Facebook and dominating coverage of certain topics. Internal strategy, planning, cohesiveness and comfort in the digital space must come first; internal focus and consistency of vision are areas where substantial improvement must be made by most brands.
Ken Deeks
On Friday 23rd November we have the pleasure of welcoming Ken Deeks, who has insight gathered from straddling the PR/journalist divide in his career. He started off as a journalist working mainly for local newspapers as well as a spell on the Daily Mirror, before moving into PR. For several years, Ken ran a series of PR companies, operating mainly in the tech sector, including Kaizo. He then set up his own communications company KDL, which he ran for five years, before joining up with Paul Smith and Richard Baines to create The Amber Group. Ken is also the founder of Byte Night, the tech industry’s largest charity event.
Bell Pottinger Business and Brand’s MD, Kevin Read
Kicking off the term is Kevin Read, MD of Bell Pottinger Business and Brand, who will be speaking at our opening day Induction Event on Thursday 20th September.
Kevin’s main focus at Bell Pottinger Business and Brand is on resolving complex, international communications problems, shaping fresh, modern strategies and implementing integrated solutions that are typically spearheaded by PR.
He has more than 15 years senior consultancy experience and specialises in strategic planning and providing senior level business counsel. He has worked extensively for leading global brands (HSBC, British Gas, Unilever), a wide array of industry bodies (Nuclear, Food, Telecomms, Cosmetics, Drinks), government departments, NGOs and professional services firms. At the induction event for University of Greenwich PR students, he will be addressing the theme of creativity.
Not bad – and term hasn’t even begun. I couldn’t help blogging about it.
It’s that time of year when A-Level results become clear, and Clearing becomes an option for those whose results were not what they expected.
I teach on the BA (Hons) Public Relations and Communications at the University of Greenwich – and if that is the subject area you are considering for study, particularly in London, let me make sure you have all there is to know about our degree.
We’re based in one of the most beautiful parts of London – you may have seen us on the TV for the last few weeks as one of the Olympic 2012 venues, and soon to be the same for the Paralympics. It is truly amazing.
The Old Royal Naval College – home to the University of Greenwich – provides the backdrop to Olympic and Paralympic activities in 2012.
One of the most important stresses of our course is employability. You will find graduates of our relatively new degree working, amongst other destinations as a Publicist on BBC and E4 programmes at entertainment agency Ian Johnson Publicity, and an Account Executive at Kaizo. From an Account Executive at Bell Pottinger, to one at The Good Agency.
Students take work experience placements while on the degree, with what they have learnt from those times being assessed as part of a course on professionalism. Recent student PR placements have included Accessorize, Burton, Clifford French, Macmillan Cancer Support, Sotheby’s and Twestival.
On the video you will see two of the other key lecturing staff on the degree amongst the many others – programme leader, Nicky Garsten , and Mark Phillimore, who runs the MA too.
As well as them, there are other experienced lecturers like Mandy Atkinson who make up the team, a number of specialist visiting lecturers, as well as a host of guest lectures during the year. During the coming term, Colin Byrne, CEO EMEA of Weber Shandwick, one of the world’s biggest PR agencies is joining us to give a guest lecture.
Geographically, the Business School of which we are a part sits right across the Thames from Canary Wharf and London’s prime business district.
And then I suppose there’s me. I’d like to think that not too many PR degree courses offer a lecturer who teaches the same way as me. In a former life, I was head of PR at BBC Radio 1, and I will use many of the case studies of sex, drugs and rock and roll from my little black book to illustrate lectures, whether on crisis management, or media relations. As well as the corporate profile of the station, I managed the profile of anyone from Chris Moyles and Tim Westwood to Sara Cox, Trevor Nelson and Scott Mills.
Radio 1′s record-breaking breakfast host Chris Moyles hugs successor Nick Grimshaw
I’ve also worked in political PR and in government, supporting MPs and government ministers. And as a freelancer consultant, my clients have included London radio station Kiss 100, music technology app Shazam, broadcaster Nicky Campbell, and radio industry trade body, the Radio Academy – you try managing a photo-call with George Michael.
I put a big priority on getting to know my students – this is public relations – and using my experiences and contacts to their best advantage.
I think our course content and approach, the lecturers on the course, and our unique location in London makes the University of Greenwich the best if you are considering studying Public Relations and Communications in London for 2012/13. Plus the degree is accredited by the CIPR (Chartered Institute of Public Relations), and is a partner university of the PRCA (Public Relations Consultants Association).
If you are involved in Clearing – you know what you’ve got to do! And I hope there might be a chance I’m teaching you next term. Good luck, whatever you decide to do.
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.
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’?
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.
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]
