Celebritisation too far?

Many of the great kings and emperors (and other important notables) has their portrait painted for posterity. The picture would be full of symbolism to demonstrate their power. One wonders how many leaders would want this sort of portrait to be done of them and what impact this has from an impression management perspective.

This is Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it is unofficial and satirical and sold for $5,000. The cup looks like a Tim Horton's cup, which is the Canadian coffee house brand that politicians must be seen in to be seen to be 'normal'. The artist has gone on record saying that apart from the head the body is not a representation of Harper.

Is Brown really Britain's worst dressed man?

GQ magazine have published their best/worst dressed man list, something which is usually of little interest to someone like me (probably as I would fall into the latter category - before anyone else says it!). It is unclear exactly who all the panel of experts that determine the rankings are but they include fashion designers/gurus/experts. Interestingly Gordon Brown has come out as worst dressed, though he is in interesting company with Boris Johnson, Russell Brand and Peter Stringfellow, and only narrowly beats French President Nicolas Sarkozy into second place. David Cameron, in stark contrast, is eighth and the write up talks of him being Britain's next prime minister - which does make one wonder if the review is politically biased in some way.

The bigger question is though, is Brown really that badly dressed. How could this be given he must have a wealth of staff to advise him on presentation (though admittedly they have had little impact in a number of areas thus far). Is there a lingering perception of him as someone bad presented and badly dressed that overrides our reading of each individual appearance? Is there a bias against him regardless? It is interesting that he emerges bottom, especially when the story on the BBC news site is accompanied by a picture of him looking quite smart - or is that just me? The question is, is it just Gordon who never quite looks right, or does he actually dress badly?

Gordon Brown in his comfort zone

This is fascinating, there are some inaccuracies in the text here and there but what I find incredible about this is that here is a completely different side to Gordon Brown. His amusing anecdotes work, he has ideas, why is it then this character does not emerge in Westminster

I think it is comfort zones. Here he is in one. He is expressing ideas to an audience that want to hear and are not waiting to trip him up. He can be passionate here, whereas Westminster is too locked within party politics. An amazing difference. Perhaps demonstrates that some, like Tony Blair and David Cameron have not just the charisma but the mental skills that allow them to acclimatise to the pressures that face party leaders. Brown is a passionate but cerebral politician, he perhaps lacks those skills and so does not appeal to the audience that want simple cues about the character of a leader in the current fragmented media age. Just my thoughts!

Making David Cameron

The Conservatives are quick out of the blocks in producing an election video and they have, largely, taken a positive tone presenting David Cameron as in-touch with the people, an honest, straight-talker who engages an audience. Using clips of him on trains travelling the country and from the Cameron Direct events answering questions from ordinary people, it presents an image of him and also tells a story. The ordinary people arrive as floating voters and leave pro-Conservative.

Not sure if all the comments, and there are only eight so far, are from real people or party activists (and it is a fair point to ask if there is a difference) but if this is a typical response of an ordinary voter it presses the right buttons. MultipleTom writes "I like the authenticity of this election broadcast, particularly the real people talking about their real views with no regard to party line. it contrasts well against Brown's broadcast which is just him talking into a camera about how wonderful he is". Of course it is construction of reality that fits the narrative desired by the producers of the video, each person is carefully selected, so is each question and answer session to fit the overall narrative - it is well crafted authenticity. To me it is well done, very much borrowing from Obama in offering a the personal (or is that interpersonal) touch rather than the party based, top-down attack.

Keep Smiling

You know how the media were saying Brown looked too dour, serious, out-of-touch, one of his media advisers must have told him to smile more. I have seen facial analysis done, and often the person being analysed can be very surprised to find how they look and what perceptions an audience may have based on their facial and body movement - I always dread a student telling me what they think of my 'performance' during lectures. Brown, I think, must have been told to move his face and body more and to smile. So here he is smiling.

Now, does he look authentic? Err No! Is he smiling at the right times, well he is smiling when he makes positive statements such as "screening those in contact with those diagnosed as having swine flu"; but is this really something to smile about? Err No! The major point is also this is not Brown's key problem. It is the range of problems that have beset him and his government starting with the election that never was, his backtracking, his tendency to procrastinate and talk about logic rather than emotion, it is basically his personality that is the issue. These things may actually make him a good leader, he weighs things up, he does not work with gut reactions but it can also be painted as him being uncertain and inconsistent. So message to the advisor - tell Gordon to STOP SMILING unless he actually feels he has something to smile about and it is a natural smile. Fake smiles are just too obvious and look just plain wrong - or is it just me?

Is this a young David Cameron? Should we care?

The Conservative Party have denied it officially (though that used to be a clear sign it was true) but the web is buzzing with the question whether this is the first film appearance of the Conservative leader and possibly the next prime minister 'performing' in public.

The question is really does it matter? Twenty years ago Cameron was not asking for the public vote, he was a very different, probably fairly immature, young man. Why should we expect him to have never enjoyed himself and done all the things that a young person does? A bigger question! Given that now there are pictures of so many of us, and in particular young people, on Facebook, in various states if my students are anything to go by, will this be a big problem in 20 years time? Will be expect our prime ministers and ministers to be found in a ton of pictures drunk etc, in fairly revealing clothing, with probably what may be seen as dodgy fashions in the future, but it will be normal. Perhaps also more politicians will say yes to questions about whether they have drunk, smoked dope etc and it will not be used as a way of undermining them. Who knows what the future will hold.

Is the facade crumbling?

While no single event or mistake heralds a shift in emphasis or indicates decline but something is astray with Obama's communication after taking office. He makes gaffes, jokes about special Olympics, seems at times at sea during press conferences (see his response to the BBC's Nick Robinson yesterday) - it was not what he said it was the way he looked and spoke, maybe it was jetlag or maybe he is better at the scripted event. And then there is the presidential twitter feed, what do these mean. Are there links that are supposed to be there but have been forgotten? 'The Cost of Inaction' well we can guess but not too sure, 'Another Leg in the Stool', I think the only response to that is WTF unless i missed something. Now either it has been hacked into, and if so why has no-one noticed? Or someone is operating it that has no idea what they are doing. What ever the case it strikes me, as an objective observer, that Obama is not quite as good as a President as he was as a candidate and perhaps it is the fact that he doesn't have the same quality communication advisors and strategists around him. It was one thing to propel a candidate to the White House but, it seems, it is different to adapt that style to one of a president.

Gaining Views or Collecting Data

The Labour Party, and interestingly it is the party rather than the government or 10 Downing Street are inviting anyone "tell us what you want to say to the G20 world leaders before the summit and we’ll make sure we pass on as many of your comments as possible". The site asks for a question in no more than 200 words (though they state the optimum is 140 characters) and an email address, and this is the one bit that draws suspicion, they warn that "The Labour Party and its elected representatives may contact you using the data you supply". So clearly it is a device to collect emails and can be used for promotion, which is essentially a core rule of campaigning so understandable, and any contact from visitors may suggest wanting to start a conversation anyway. But the question is how many of the questions actually will be answered. You are able to view the questions, but there is nothing to say if these questions will be posed, how, or how any feedback will be given to those asking the question. An interesting idea though and gives the impression of listening to the 'market', however as with many of these things it requires some follow up to make people feel their views matter.

Just as an afterthought, whoever designed the picture did not think it through too well. Obama looks straight at the visitor smiling, this conveys the image of honesty and openness as well as him as a likeable person. Brown is staring into the distance looking serious but also slightly aloof (my impression) but it does kind of set them as being very different when Brown may well want a little of Obama's charisma to rub off on him. Perhaps it is intentional and serious Brown is felt to be the better image to convey but I wonder if the juxtapositioning of the two contrasting images is wise.

And its about style

Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show does an amusing critique of Obama's persona during press conferences compared to those of his soon to be predecessor.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

President Goofus and President Gallant - Peer Pressers

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

What is remarkable is the difference, the respect paid to journalists, the honesty and transparent style - in particular saying it would be disingenuous to suggest there would be no political appointments to ambassadorships. It suggests a different style of presidency consistent with his change and man of the people brand. It also suggests a more controlled and measured President. Bush appears to spend a significant amount of time thinking on his feet and getting it wrong. Obama also shows he is thinking on his feet, he may face criticism for appearing to pause and think, but this may also show he is considering not just what the answer is but how to phrase it. It is a style which will be important, he will face the media a lot and the way he faces the tough questions will be increasingly important. As Stewart says there are some areas where he needs to up his game but he also needs to keep that humility.

Its the look

If you are President, you must look like a President, and have a beast of a car worthy of office. No environmentally friendly car for the leader of the US, but a top of the range and special 'Beast' of a Cadillac build to special personal specifications. It exudes wealth and power, but is this consistent with a man of the people?

Credit where it is due

When I heard that the Conservatives were launching a campaign raising the profile (it it needed it) of their argument against Labour's attempt to reverse the recession I was a little sceptical. 'Labour's debt crisis' could have been a cheap attack, and the use of a baby well the mind boggled. But I actually think it is quite a clever ad.

The poster is fairly cute strategically. But the Youtube ad (above) uses some quite compelling imagery that could have a long term effect. The use of Labour's colour of red to signify danger harks back to that attack on Blair (Demon Eyes) but is much more clever. The way the red bleeds into the image accompanying the message about the level of debt that future generations will suffer does not have the lack of believeability that controversial poster had. Equally the message of 'babies' deserving better, the image of a blue sky and the phrase now for a change are an equally compelling combination of visuals and words that encapsulate the brand positioning of the Conservatives. Of course it is pure marketing communication and relies on two things, whether the floating voters trust the untested Cameron or Brown; and whether Cameron's alternative is seen as better. However a clever ad!

The image thing

Here is something interesting, left is the traditional image we see of David Cameron, the politician in suit and tie usually facing the camera directly. It offers the impression of being in business, working in the traditional dress of the politician. It can be a symbol of power and status; though of course not all those in positions of power or those with status wear a suit there is a certain symbolic quality in the suit as a mode of attire. But David Cameron seems to be shifting his image somewhat. Accompanying his statement on the economy is a less than traditional image (right). He is in casual dress, offering a side profile. To me it is the pose of a catalogue model and breaks a range of conventions. The look is perhaps thoughtful. He is clearly not wearing a shirt and tie, it looks more like a fleece. Equally there is the backdrop to the image. Tradition is the symbols of power, the Houses of Westminster for example. This backdrop is blurred and hard to interpret, it could be an industrial or city vista, it could be anything. Now this could be read as a huge mistake. That while this may be appropriate for a less formal message, it perhaps conveys the wrong connotations when accompanying a serious message on the economy. Alternatively it may be a subtle message that he does not have follow dress conventions to be seen as a politician, rather he can break those conventions and look like the modern man who does not have to conform but can dress smart/casual but still be taken seriously. As ever this can be decoded different depending on the reader, and may be largely ignored by many; however it it clearly a choice to offer this less formal and more casual image to visitors to the party website.

strategy, tactic, but what about the outcome?

Strategy
To engage with middle America, to overcome negative connotations, to answer critics, to be visible outside the traditional confines of a campaign, to be human/authentic/real, to be seen with celebrities, to get the message across.
Tactic
To appear on Saturday Night live, alongside Tina Fey (the best Sarah Palin lookalike around) to allow the cast to poke fun and take it in your stride, to appear with Alec Baldwin and others, to smile and look like you are having fun.

Possible Outcomes
To achieve the long-term strategy, or to look rather false or silly, to trivialise the campaign and its issues. To actually be seen to endorse some of the negatives voiced by Baldwin and Amy Poehler in her rap.

Decision Making
Should she or shouldn't she - she chose yes but was this the right decision for her as a candidate to be Vice President?

Image: and how it can be interpreted

I borrow the title from an article today's Independent written by Archie Bland who chatted to me about the issues on Friday. The article argues that a bad photo, or more broadly television appearance, can make or break a campaign. Quoting PR consultant Mark Borkowski, the thesis is that "If you ever stop thinking about how you look, you can get caught out." And this is the problem with such images of William Hague in a baseball cap on an amusement park ride, the strange image of John McCain tongue out groping for his seat that has gone viral online and across the media, Miliband and that banana, John Redwood miming badly to the Welsh National Anthem well we could go on. But the key about these images is if they sit comfortably with the voters frame of reference. Basically we all possess a range of perceptions about every public figure, these are called schema. If US voters have a John McCain schema that includes old and frail then these images will build up that perception and could be reasons why they should not elect him as president (this is the point I make in the article about Hague's perceived immaturity, the picture of him as a boy stuck and reduced his credibility). However this negative may be seen as an aberration from the schema, that this is not really him and he cannot be judged by a photo capturing him when off guard, hence then the voter will reject the inference. So while Borkowski is absolutely right about the importance of image the decoding of any image is also a function of existing attitudes and perceptions. For voters in the US, and particularly those floating voters in the swing states do perceive McCain as "a frail old geezer staring fiercely at the backside of the man striding confidently away from him, making a last, desperate play for the vote of the lizards" then the picture will compound that image if not it will be ignored and filed as rather nasty media hype of an off guard aberration by a man who has the qualities to be a President. So the key lesson is not just don't look stupid (though that helps) but don't look stupid in a way that plays to existing prejudices

off guard?

In an era of media trainers, perception managers, branding consultants etc etc in politics it is perhaps refreshing when the politicians look normal, authentic and not stage managed. However there are also moments when you realise why those consultants are so important. There will be a lot of political points made about this, and already are across the blogosphere (such as here). Should it matter? probably not! Does it? Probably!

Perception Management

I was talking to my students today about the focus on image and marginalisation of substantial policy from much of the political communication that is made mainstream. In other words the stuff that is promoted to us is more about building a perception of the man rather than telling us what the man will do when elected. The following video is a prime example.

The link is sent around by email saying that his opponents are asking 'who is Barack Obama'. His campaign team's response is to: "share a video of personal moments from behind the scenes at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, so you can see Barack and Michelle as they are -- decent, warm, and kind people with a loving family". It is a fly on the wall style video, well done yet appearing to capture private moments - a cynic would wonder how much is staged and whether anyone can act normally when a camera is pointed at them. But the broader picture is also whether this is asking the US voter to vote Obama simply because he is a nice guy, a family guy, a guy 'like you' or just to get them interested and involved to collect further information. While the latter may be an aspiration is the former more likely in reality and if so does this have a negative impact on how informed voters actually are?

What's in a name

After some form of voting, the Conservative party have launched their blog: its name is THE BLUE BLOG - mmm. Content could be interesting: "The blog will start with a bang at this year's Conference, where we will be bringing you backstage news and views from David Cameron, the Shadow Cabinet, MPs, delegates and the occasional guest." Given the twittering of LibDems and the comparative silence from Labour, the Conservatives had to do something to maintain their status as the party most embracing technology (at the top level that is) and innovating. Not sure if this is simply a relaunch of WebCameron as that gets little media attention, an attempt to gain more interest in their e-communication, or something genuinely different. There is no link as yet, not even a holding page, their website does not advertise it but, as in the manner of modern politics, puts Brown and Darling centre-stage (right). Let's hope the Blue Blog will offer a more positive message about the party itself rather than attacks on opponents. The one problem, extrapolating from polls, Cameron has is that he is seen as better than Brown but there is little wide knowledge about his or the party's policies. A similar situation saw Neil Kinnock versus John Major, Major was then seen as the safer pair of hands. Perhaps the Blue Blog can get more policy out there as the media may not be doing Brown any favours at all but neither are they giving Cameron a platform.

Gordon Brown and his percieved credibility gap

There is a killer phrase on one page of the BBC's various bits of election analysis, David Cowling comments that "It doesn't seem to be difficult to persuade people that your political opponents aren't up to the job. But it seems much harder these days to persuade them that you are". To an extent I agree but, when considering Brown's standing in the polls that have led to his party's spectacularly bad performance in the local election last night, perhaps also there is a little more to it. Yes it is very easy to kick and incumbent government when there is an economic crisis, and anyone can do so in the safe knowledge that they do not have to propose an alternative strategy and even if they do they will never have to. metaphorically, 'put their money where their mouth is".

But attacks only work when the public are ready to accept them (Social Judgement theory suggests our psychology is built around accepting or rejecting arguments based on established perceptions). Brown's problem is one of image. He does not appear competent or in control, nor does he appear approachable, in-touch or caring; this leads the public to perceive him as up to the job. Being a prime minister, president or any other sort of leader involves appearing to have the qualities of a leader; arguably Brown fails to project those. Hence he seems to be in a positin where opponents are offered an open goal, while his failure to keep answer critics (defend the goal) reinforces his lack of credibility and ehances that of his opponents. Can it be turned aroudn is a very big question, is the next general election there for the Conservatives to lose or can Brown establish himself as a prime minister in more than just name?

Is the BBC backing Cameron?

In announcing the final day of campaigning before the London mayoral, Assemblies and 159 council are elected, the BBC have chosen an interesting way to visualise the contest. The composite picture of the three main party leaders does little in the way of favours to anyone but Cameron. Given Brown now has employed former BBC producer Nicola Burdett as a sort of style guru managing media picture selection, is this the BBC rebelling or a bit of bias towards David Cameron and the Conservatives?

Just to check perceptions I asked an unwitting young person what they thought of the party leaders based on these pcitures. Brown was described as 'old, ugly, squeezing and invisible err 'breast' (ok unwitting young person was male), but less amusing for Gordon, said male yout also thought he looked 'uncaring and uncompassionate... I wouldn't vote for him'. Clegg was 'snobby', 'needs a shave' and 'remote' though he also asked who he was and if he was a Conservative. Cameron seemed like 'a nice guy', 'I'd vote for him'. Why, well the photos offer perceptions, Cameron's photo shows him lookign straight at the camera, not down at it, so he is 'on the level' not in a position of authority, he is smiling unlike the other two, he looks normal. Is this accident or conspiracy, if I was the PR team of Clegg or Brown I would complain!

A war of rhetoric

"Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough'. Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit."

A nice quote, a nice bit of rhetoric, and a nice link to popular culture and the notion of the all-American fighting spirit. But this line could backfire if the media also notes that in the 1976 film Balboa lost despite advise that he should give up. Hillary Clinton, the person who delivered this line as part of the last stages of the Democrat nomination race, is under pressure to concede and stop the division within the party in order to redouble efforts to undermine the McCain onslaught. Clinton seems under pressure to be twice the man of any other candidate, but is the rhetoric right and the messages resonating with those who will determine the outcome of the contest?