no case to answer?

One of the most popular petitions posted onto the 10 Downing Street website was a call for Jeremy Clarkson, journalist and fast car fanatic, to be made prime minister. Usually the response to all petitions is serious and measured, for this a video response was created that says "we thought about it and... maybe not".

I wonder if this is a missed opportunity to make a case why Gordon is better than Jeremy would be, given his support (or lack thereof) maybe a case was needed, or is just easy to dismiss the trivial petition independent of the fact that half a million are willing to sign it? I'm not sure, of course there was no way that the petition would be listened to or taken seriously, that was not the point, but maybe rather than showing their humorous side it could have made more of a case. Besides all this, why did Gordon not make an appearance and show his human and humorous side, perhaps an interview with Jeremy asking if he would want the job. It just lacks something and it could have been so much better and gained a lot more positive publicity, just a thought!

AND why can't you post a comment on the video on the No 10 YouTube channel or for that matter any of their videos: ah interactivity and engagement, or rather free advertising, Web 1.0 for beginners!

Perceptions are everything

It is very common to find that any poll that finds answers which some violently disagree with is attacked for invalidity. This is the case for the findings that show public support for moving towards nuclear energy produced by Opinion Leader Research (OLR) who are under fire from environmental groups and the Guardian newspaper. The document which will inform consultation is claimed to be stacked with "pro-Nuclear opinion masquerading as fact" and so Guido argues this is simply push-polling and an attempt to produce the answers the government wants rather than having an open consultation.

Now we would normally not attack a research organisation, they are founded on the principles of gathering data that reflects the opinions and attitudes of a representative sample of a given population at the time of asking the question. Polling and research is a scientific process designed to find answers not support for an answer; so why is OLR accused so easily.

OLR is part of Chime Communications PLC, an organisation known for public relations and its association with Lord Tim Bell and the Bell-Pottinger group. On the front page there is a quote from Lord bell, whose long association with political campaigning makes him one of the few recognised experts in the area of winning elections, the quote reads:

"Perceptions are real. If you are playing to win they have to be favourable. Your ability to persuade people to listen to you, understand what you are saying, and support you, will determine whether you win or lose"

This suggest that unethical practices are allowed in the course of achieving victory, we know that research findings can create a bandwagon effect; where the reporting of a fact such as 80% of people favour nuclear energy may convince doubters that they are in a minority and should rethink their position. It is a common PR tool to use spin to nurse statistics to favour the organisation; and in the US push polling, the use of loaded questions to solicit the right response is common at election times.

None of these practices are directly attributed to Chime however, but the fact that there is an association between OLR and Chime is sufficient to cast doubts on the validity of the research. This is compounded by the fact that there are a number of government aides who have or do work within OLR and Chime, so they are seen as being partisan as well. The PR Industry is mistrusted, particularly when it becomes involved in politics, hence perhaps such associations should not be exploited by a government seeking credible data on a highly controversial topic. Unless of course Brown's opponents are correct and this is the use of research to sell an idea, a popular tool of government for many years. Perceptions are everything, why don't Brown's PR experts (including wife Sarah of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications) give him better advice.

Peter Kay for Prime Minister?

Given that we are again seeing the death of spin, unlikely given that every government, organisation and individual spins as part of their daily life, there is much speculation about how different Brown will be in his communication. I found an interesting article buried away on the BBC News site by Brian Wheeler that discusses, using a range of experts, what the Brown approach should be.

Tim Bell, former advisor to Thatcher, makes the point that ending spin is impossible; but also highlights that "He is surrounded by public relations people and people advising him on what his image should be. If that is what his spin is, he is telling a lie." PR is ingrained in government, but not all PR is bad. PR can be used to facilitate a dialogue, at least theoretically, the problem is that spin has become synonymous with PR and a negative entrant into political discourse. Hence, as PR consultant Mark Borkowski, "Blair completely blew it. The great secret of political PR is to make sure no one sees the strings being pulled. If the media are talking about spin, it means you have failed,"

Neil Hourston, of TBWA, Labour's advertising agency at the 2005 general election argues Brown should be 'Mr No Nonsense'. Learning lessons from the success of the John Smith's Bitter advertising campaign, Brown should emulate Jack Dee or Peter Kay, Hourston argues. John Smiths was "the 'no-nonsense' ale against the nonsense of lager... David Cameron is like Stella Artois" When pitting John Smiths against brands like Stella "we had to have charm and wit. We were actually being a lot funnier than the opposition... If we made John Smith's too rational and literally no-nonsense, they would not understand the appeal of those values. They would probably find it a bit boring." So Brown must be straight talking, witty, convey a no-nonsense attitude, be the peoples brand perhaps. The big question, is it too late to build a new persona. The whole piece is predicated on the fact that people want to know more about Brown, but do they? Is there evidence? Or have people already got a perception of Brown and are happy or unhappy with that? There are a range of assumptions that may be true for commercial brands, such as you can change the image using a funny ad, but are there really obvious parallels with politics? The ads though depict straight-talking, the big question is; whether straight-talking is possible in a competitive media environment and if politicians should really always tell it like it is? Couldn't resist offering this ad to help us consider the parallels!

Michael versus Alan

As news of the appointment of Andy Coulson (right) to Head of Communications by the Conservative Party was circulated, Gordon Brown announces that his HoComms will be the current Cheif Economic Advisor Michael Ellam, former Head of the Performance and Efficiency Team in the Treasury’s Public Services Directorate and a man who has held a wide range of posts across 10 years at the Treasury, including Head of Communications and Strategy (2000-2003) and Private Secretary to Chancellor Kenneth Clarke (1994-96).

The contrast could not be more stark. A serious academic, Ellam was educated at the LSE. Coulson's department is taking the scalps of the rich and famous. One wonders how their styles will shape the communication of both parties and, more importantly, how they will combat each other's strategies. What seems clear is that Ellam will be far less high profile than his counterpart, or indeed his predecessors. You cannot even find a decent picture of him on the web and his background is not well publicised. Could this indicate a shift away from high profile communication and image management by Labour, but a shift in the opposite direction by Cameron's Conservatives?

Bad PR!!

So you are a public figure, you get caught parking you car illegally in a disabled bay at a railway station and the media get hold of the story; how do you respond? Well to me the easy response is claim it to be a mistake, ok it wasn't but it might work, but apologise profusely. The alternative is go on the attack and say the station had "an absurd number of handicapped spaces... I've ever seen a handicapped person ever use one of them... Some helpful and public spirited constituent telephoned the Herald-Express to let them know my car was there... It would have been much more useful if they'd telephoned me to let me know my car had a ticket, but they didn't choose to do that and they were anonymous which is a very sneaky thing to do." This is the response of Anthony Steen, the Conservative MP for Totnes, or at least these are the parts of his response the BBC reported. Bad move methinks, annoy every disabled pressure group and reinforce negative images of the Conservatives in the process. In the words of Homer Simpson "DOH!!!"

Tabloid Tories?

Sex, Affairs, Big Breasts, well that gets attention; could this be the way forward in political communication?

Iain Dale announces this morning that Andy Coulson, former News of the World editor, is to become the Conservatives' Director of Communications. He has a strong background in the media, but his involvement in politics could be seen as rather negative having presided over the Blunkett affair scoop described by more serious journalists as indefensible, and around whom many debates on privacy circulate following scoops on Princes Harry and William and the Beckhams. So one wonders what it is that he will offer the Conservatives.

Well he knows a thing or two about headline grabbing, but can a life in celebrity and controversy transfer over to politics? Well, Cameron clearly wants to have a celebrity status and image, and controversy clearly surrounds politics; but would Coulson know as easily how to suppress a story than defend it? He knows a thing or two about PR as well, but selling a newspaper that deals in the salacious is not the same as selling serious policies (read into that what you will). Moreover, as Dizzy notes, after the problems that Campbell as a tabloid journalist faced can Coulson do any better?

A lot of questions relate to this appointment. Will this mark a dramatic change in the Conservative Party's communication style, we shall see!

Why you can't google for a Mcjob

The idea of all publicity being good publicity, and providing a critical mass of people were aware of your brand you are alright, has gone. Google are trying to block the introduction of the verb 'to google' into the Oxford English Dictionary; the immediate reasons are unclear, however, as words become common parlance it is easy to see how it can take on a derogatory aspect. The famous case is that of McDonalds, as momentum gets behind their campaign for the removal of Mcjobs from the dictionary. As they try to sell exciting career prospects, the OED describes "An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector"; McDonalds has a range of supporters including MPs lobbying for the rewrite.

This could be a test case for copyright of a brand name, and something that is definitely in McDonalds favour. Urban Dictionary has a range of terms starting with 'Mc', many of which refer to the brand. The fact that anyone can post a definition, however, such as that for Mcretard or embellishments on the Mcjob theme, poses a huge problem. While the OED may buckle under pressure, the various user generated definitions will flourish and the term will maintain its currency among the masses.

Given that this is largely a pointless act, why are there supporters from across business and politics. Branding and the use of brand logos is a big issue for many. Using a logo can denote being sanctioned by the brand; equally any derogatory reference that includes the brands logo can create a generally negative perception of the brand. Politicians are possibly thinking that if McDonalds can win there can be restrictions on who does what with key brand referents. So would this be the death of negative advertisements referring to the Liebour Party, also could it force satire publishing websites such as Deadbrain to reconsider how realistic their spoofs appear (see below); furthermore could it prevent spoof stories from naming real politicians? Probably not but one can believe that restriction would be seen as a good thing among the higher echelons.

But the problem is that these brands cannot prevent the ideas gaining currency and phrases falling into common use. Whether the OED lists a word or not, I will still hear students saying they will google something, or that they need a Mcjob to tide them over, etc, until a new phrase comes into use. Politicians should perhaps think themselves lucky that to do a Mandelson (get caught acting improperly twice, but getting away with it) was never popularised; and just consider what the verbs to Prescott or Blunkett could be used for. They are forgetting the power of anonymised, user generated content that can go global at the click of a button, hence while officially things can be prevented, unofficially they cannot.

New Leader, New PR?

Charlie Whelan, Brown's ex-spin doctor, now keeps up an interesting column in PR Week. Last week Whelan talked of how Blair changed the rules for political PR. The key innovations being media monitoring and image management; the lack of openness Whelan argues gave Labour the moniker of 'party of spin'.

This week, Whelan speculates on how Brown will use the modern tools of political PR. He makes the interesting point that presentation gaffes are a good way for Brown to differentiate himself from the polished style of Blair; such as hiding behind the autocue (pictured). So perhaps a middle road between Blair and Prescott is appropriate? But key for Whelan will be the feminisation of his communication strategy. While Damian McBride will no doubt be his official spokesperson, in the background the influential advisers will be Sue Nye, currently his political secretary and wife of BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies, but also Sarah his wife. As former head of Hobsbawm Macauley she is no stranger to giving image advice.

Whelan's bottom line is that this will provide the 'butch' Gordon with a softer side, one that shows compassion, and will appeal more to the female voter. While PR will remain central, Whelan's observations suggest the PR should be less obvious and may focus more on performance character than message control.

Meanwhile, Blair hints at his future role: envoy for the traditional English cup of tea -you read it here first (unless you read the BBC News site as well of course)

Political PR measurement

There are debates on measuring the extent to which investment in PR is value for money see here for a bibliography), however it largely seems to come down to one thing - column inches. Those investing see PR as simply media management and expect their PROs (in-house of agency) to get the brand name in the media. While some measurement schemes are sophisticated and employ semiotics to not just measure number but tone; it seems that the central edict is that any coverage is good.

Is it any wonder that PROs find it difficult to adapt their trade to politics. Most coverage is at best cynical and often two-sided. The political PR finds the national media sets the agenda, and the local media, particularly newspapers, can be similarly intractable. Hence there is a conundrum here. While most brands not facing a major crisis can probably get a story somewhere in the media, a political 'brand' cannot - hence measurement must be semiotic, comparing the actual briefing to the coverage and ensuring any bias began with the PRO. However, one cannot then claim success. A brand may get one bit of coverage, in one newspaper, in a corner of the rolling news schedule etc; a political brand may get a lot of coverage in one day and measurement will probably find that, on balance, the PRO has failed. So is there a role for PR for a political party?