Labour's Manifesto Launch Ad: Smart or Dumb?

This is the advert promoting the manifesto of the Labour Party of the UK. Given that this is engaging it may get seen quite a lot of people, I can see this doing the rounds on Facebook etc. But is this a smart way of communicating their message, making simple and easy to digest and understand. Or is it dumb, or rather too dumbed down, trivialised and lacking substance. It could be seen as the bullet points for a grand plan, or a series of rather vague promises. It could be seen as patronising or reaching out and making policy relevant. What does anyone think?

Engaging, evidence of Dumbing Down or just Dumb

I only just found this wonderful trailer to advertise Super Tuesday's television coverage. This is the way to advertise an election contest, forget swing-o-meters, gimmicky sets, on the spot interviews, lets superimpose the candidate's heads on wrestlers and pretend its WWF. The soundtrack is Down with the Sickness by Disturbed, why does that seem just so appropriate. But then is this actually the way to capture a television audience, get them excited in the contest? Alternatively does it encourage a non-participatory audience, similar to WWF enjoying the game of candidates biting chunks out of each other and pretending to be wounded?

Showing creativity

Iain Duncan Smith, while Conservative leader, once appeared on the Johnny Vaughan chat show (now cancelled), and was asked if he would every perform rap to get in touch with youth voters; his answer was an enthusiastic yes: he intimated he would try anything! Perhaps luckily we in the UK have not been given the treat of watching politicians trying to rap; John Redwood miming badly to the Welsh National Anthem was damaging enough to his public image.

In Singapore no such problems seem to exist. The Media Development Agency, a conglomerate of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority, the Films and Publications Department, and the Singapore Film Commission (so kind of like a merger of the BBC and BAFTA) have decided they need to promote their creativity to a global audience using a rap song and video. What do you think?

My favourite bit is CEO Yeo Chun Cheng in a superman outfit, but they all look like they are having a good time; but like Boris Yeltsin when he played the spoons alongside a rock band there is something a little incongruous about it. On their website they state that "The raison d'etre of the MDA (so thus the video) is to develop Singapore into a vibrant global city so as to foster a creative economy and connected society". Critics would call it dumbing down and trivialisation; others would call it engaging, creative and memorable; hinting at its success. But who is right?

All together now Yes Yes Y'all We don't stop... and who else could get 'My tasks include internal systems integration HRFIS, PMP to iTRAX' into a rap song - so is this available on iTunes?

Good communication or Seriously Bad

Getting a message across is difficult! A simple message needs to engage its audience, encourage recall of the core message but also appear credible for the context of the communication. How many rules does this video follow, and whom would be turned on or off by it?

Is this dumbing down gone mad? Or is it engaging and effective? As always the viewer decides.

High quality debate - the main event

Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) are the most televised bit of parliamentary activity, not because great policies are debated and determined, purely because it is the spectacle of verbal jousting between the party leaders and the contest of who will win as the champion of the acid barb.

The last PMQs before Blair announces his departure timetable saw Cameron not question the future of the country but to attack the government calling it "the government of the living dead" while Blair responded to Letwin's assessment of the post Marxist world with "That will be Groucho", obviously a few economics lessons wasted there then.

The great problem is that the media focus upon the small element of parliamentary debates gives the perception of the House of Commons as a schoolyard where verbal bullying is the order of the day and nothing of any importance happens; good soap opera, poor politics. A shame as not all politics is like this, important things such as Council Tax and Climate Change were debated earlier this morning, but apart from the anoraks who watch the parliament channel (mine has a hood by the way) this goes unseen. So politicians look silly, and act like children at times, and the media gives the spectacle air-time, the audience looks on, tuts and maybe talk about the real issues.

Is 'Ming' reading my blog?

On BBC's Breakfast programming, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell seems to be echoing my comments on comparing engagement in the French elections to those in the UK. He comments that "We've got two parties - two conservative parties - who agreed about Iraq, agree about civil nuclear power, agree about the replacement of Trident. What we need is a party of opposition. We are the party of opposition in these local government elections both in the north of England and the south of England too." But are the Liberal Democrats a real alternative? When we think of choice we think in terms of what we can have, not what we would like but cannot realise. Sir Menzies 'principles over fashion' argument is something all parties should take on board by setting out a credible set of policies and their solutions rather than masking them in soundbites, cliches and imagery. However a question must be asked. All parties are guilty of attempting to present their arguments in a way that appeals to voters, their solution is going negative and not actually offering substance within that communication; the LibDems are as guilty of this as the rest, their 'New-Tory-Labour' site and animations hint at solutions but the actual policy is a few clicks away. So sadly Ming's fine words may appear a little empty.

And it is appearances that matter. If the first line of communication does not convey a message, it may convey similarity and vacuousness; it appeals to those who agree but not to the undecided who want help in making a choice. Maybe he's not reading the blog after all!

Hostages to rhetoric

The sailors by the captured Iranians were hostages, its official. Not only do the media use the term but a senior chief of staff on BBC lunchtime news. The definition of hostage however is a prisoner who is held by one party to insure that another party will meet specified terms. But there was no deal! Ergo, they were not hostages! Or is there something we are not being told? It may suit the anti-Iran themes to describe them in this way but it obscures the issues completely. Maybe there was a deal, maybe their release was a PR stunt that will be used as a lever later, or maybe the terminology is just media driven hype. What are the facts here?

Shrink (C)Rap

As a sad political junkie I tuned in to the first ten minutes of 'Shrink Rap' on More4 where Dr Pamela Connolly (yes that is the comedienne formerly known as Pamela Stephenson) was to probe the psyche of former Home Secretary etc David Blunkett.

I tries really hard to ignore the fact that she appeared to be acting out the parody of a psychologist that she was good at when on Not the None O'clock News until she asked the 'killer' question. Blunkett spent most of his life in boarding school, as we know a difficult time for a growing lad with changing hormones. "Did you compare your physique to the other boys in the showers" Connolly asked. Now Blunkett has been blind from birth, what do you think his answer was. My only image was of Pamela's husband Billy shouting at the TV, "of course he didn't, he's f**king blind". Such is the nature of televisual psychology - I switched off!

Why post on this??? It is interesting to see politicians talking about their thinking, we see inside their heads. Clearly Blunkett did this for a purpose, to shape public perceptions of him probably. But when politics becomes relocated within other genres it does little to enhance the reputation of the politician or the media. Maybe the programme improved, maybe not, I gave up!