If nothing else, social media can tell you if you got the message out

Due to the immediacy of public input an commentary, it is now simpler to assess the extent to which any set piece event is able to capture attention and also whether you got the message across. The US President State of the Union (hashtag #SOTU) is one such event and key to this is firstly capturing attention and secondly getting the message across.

Mashable produced some great analysis of what the social web was talking about when discussing the the SOTU. It certainly captured an active audience, 400,000 tweets is a significant number, and of those the majority talked about issues relating to education and the economy, they also note clear spikes in issue attention suggesting Obama is leading the online commentary. This, however, is an engaged audience who not only listen to SOTU but wish to add commentary and debate the issues. Sadly there is no sentiment rating to assess the extent of whether they were largely supportive or not.

A more representative sample was used to test out whether Obama's messages got through to the audience. An article in New York magazine shows two word clouds, one for Obama's speech and one from recall among 4,000 of the audience. Obama's cloud is dense and full of the sort of language one would expect. There are a lot of issues raised but also those buzzwords 'new', 'people' and references to nation and national identity with America/American/Americans. The 4,000 viewers picked out a less dense package of words. Aside from education, the key terms were descriptive as opposed to the terms Obama may have liked to have had resonate. Words such as 'Inspiring', 'hopeful', 'optimistic' describe a mood as opposed to issues - this tells us something about what audiences pick out however. But then there is the major key word they heard 'Salmon' - not a major policy area!

What do we learn from this, well we can get instance responses from an audience. Usually this would be the most engaged group however. This may look pretty positive but this may lead to a false sense of security about how you led an agenda and how politically aware the majority of people are. Asking a mass audience shows that what you think people heard may not always be what they actually left with in their minds.

Book Review: Britain Votes 2010

It is now traditional for Parliamentary Affairs to produce simultaneously a special edition of the journal and a book covering various aspects of each UK election. Britain Votes 2010, edited by Andrew Geddes and Jonathan Tonge covers all the main issues relating to the election one would expect and want to find in such a resource. The results and subsequent negotiations prior to the formation of a coalition are covered in excellent depth, with specific chapters on the campaigns in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland providing rich detail on campaigning and voting patterns and their impact on the election result. There are also chapters covering the campaigns of the main parties, and one on finance which shows the disparity experienced between the 'rich' Conservatives and their opponents. Despite inequalities in campaigning ability and funding, the result was not a disaster for Labour which suggests that there is more to voting behaviour than a flash campaign. The one clear 'effect' is the swing against Labour among Sun readers shown in the chapter on The Media by Dominic Wring and Stephen Ward. While Cleggmania may have been instigated by the first Leaders' Debate and Duffygate by then PM Gordon Brown being caught off-guard by television, but neither these nor innovations online translated into votes; maybe there is still a detectable Sun effect after all. Chapters on gender imbalances, in both media portrayals and despite selection procedures, economic and foreign policy and attitudes towards European integration and immigration round off the book. Perhaps more could be said of the minor parties, though they seemed to have little overall impact beyond the election of Caroline Lucas as Britain's first Green Party MP. Overall, therefore, this book represents an excellent resource that reminds us of the detail as well as providing in-depth analysis of a range of issues and some interesting thoughts for the future of British democracy.

The one issue I would raise about reporting on the election is the often repeated line that 'On 6th May 2010 the British electorate spoke, but it was not entirely clear what they said', a line originating with commentators on May 7th when interpreting what a hung parliament meant. It seems that actually it is clear that the voters as individuals were able to make their own decision on how to vote but collectively there was no winner. Basically it seems the clear outcome was not that any voter tried to engineer a hung parliament but that there was a failure by any party to win over a majority. Despite his flaws, Gordon Brown remained a better PM (perhaps safer pair of hands) than Cameron. Cameron failed to make a case for his social re-organisation and replacing Big Government with Big Society (as Martin J. Smith points out in the book). Voters may have warmed to Nick Clegg but still not seen the Liberal Democrats as a viable government. Hence, despite all the usual campaigning activity, and the added dimension of leader's debates which received record viewer figures for any British political programme, there seemed to be little impact on public opinion from the campaign. Of course we cannot say this with any degree of safety, as it is unclear how many individuals changed their minds due to any specific event during the course of the campaign, but it is striking how pre-campaign polling results seemed to be reflected in the results, notwithstanding minor underestimations of the Labour vote holding up.

These issues are all raised in the book, an analysed in depth where possible. While it is perhaps one of many texts that will emerge on the election its coverage and quality will place it as a key resource for understanding how the British voted in 2010, the potential impacts and how this election should be understood within the context of patterns of campaigning, party performance and voting behaviour for years to come.

Have a very Partisan Xmas

The Conservative and Labour Party are giving us a treat for Xmas, both a little bit of fun but conveying a strong party message. For a whole £5 you can buy the Conservative supporter in your life Ed Miliband's Policies for Britain, a 204 page notepad. Yes folks its blank, but its a fun notepad.

Less costly, but allowing fun everyday between Dec 1st and Xmas is the Coalition Advent Calender, behind each is a broken promise to remind you why Labour argue you should not trust the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats.

All good clean fun, and all very festive, but as both can be shared an opportunity to get a message relayed across social networking sites.

Vodaphone's failed viral campaign #mademesmile

Its a great idea, you want to get a bit of positive word of mouth. You start an online campaign and so do a bit of crowdsourcing. You find an appropriate hashtag (the symbol which placed before a term allows searching and grouping of tweets) and invite Twitter users to say what 'makes them smile'. In theory it creates a buzz about the brand and gets coverage online and offline. More importantly, in theory, it associates the brand with the making people smile. Well this was what could have happened for Vodaphone in a parallel universe when they offered free phones to those who told the world what made them smile.

The major mistake was to not take into account the environment for the brand. If you are a brand ticking along just searching for a bit of positive coverage it can work fine. Tetley, the tea company, invite users to send in pictures of their mugs to 'The Gaffer' at @tetley_teafolk; it seems to be going ok but Tetley don't have enemies. Vodaphone face significant criticism for not paying taxes in the UK. UK Uncut, campaigning against cuts and tax dodging, invited their followers to hijack #makemesmile. Very soon it became a trending topic, the content said it all. See this article for examples.

Just like Labour's #changewesee, Vodaphone managed to attract opponents which shaped the messages at key times. Conservative/LibDem supporters placed a lot of observations of negative changes they saw on Labour's site. The lesson is that letting the online crowd have control over your message is a dangerous one, but the outcomes can be predictable. Basically if your brand is in trouble, possibly avoid giving your critics a space on your own website to say what they think. It can end up with your opponents getting the positive coverage and not you!

Election 2010: party expenditure accounts released

The Electoral Commission has released full details of the party and candidate expenditure from the 2010 UK General Election. There is a lot of detail but there are two key headlines. Firstly is the overall party expenditure compared to one another. As the first graph shows, the Conservative party spent twice the amount as Labour, £16 to £8 million, the Liberal Democrats spend was just over £4 million. When one considers the outcome, it seems Labour got a better bang for bucks; or of course the actual spend has no impact in terms of votes. The disparity between spend and outcome though is quite stark. Of course the Ashcroft funded target seat campaign may explain this, that the money was channeled into specific areas as opposed to a largely national spend but one must wonder about return on investment.

In terms of wise spending, the Conservatives spent an inordinate amount on advertising while Labour focused on direct mail (unsolicited material to electors). That is the one clear difference in terms of communication strategy.

Looking at the overall figures for how spend was used (above graph) we get a degree of an idea of how parties campaign. Spend on direct mail is virtually equal across the major parties suggesting this is the key route used to reach voters. How effective this is is questionable, much direct mail goes straight into the bin, but with targeting and personalisation there is now a finely-honed direct mail strategy. Advertising is high spend and the Conservatives clearly led, with hoardings most heavily used and often carrying negative messages. Interestingly market research is central to each party's campaign, so informing the direct mail strategy, you can even see a bit of green showing the Green Party were equally serious about targeting. What does it all say about the professionalised, or strategy led, election. Awareness using advertising aside, it seems it is the direct route with communication targeted as well as possible that is the prefered mode of communication. Directly to voters, using a range of persuasion tools, yet under the media radar. The online media could be a supplementary means for delivering such messages, especially email, but they lacked the databases, one wonders if this will remain a a feature for the next contest?

Graphs taken from EC website

Will bare breasts deter Muslim Fundamentalists?

That is from entering a country, not if they are in the course of a terrorist act that if all the women stand up and rip off their tops will they suddenly stop what they are doing and run away. But the idea is serious, the Dansk Folkspartie (Danish Peoples' Party) believe that if they include candid shots of topless women on Danish beaches will will deter fundamentalist Muslims from choosing to settle in Denmark. Writing in the Telegraph, Praveen Swami quotes their foreign policy spokesman Peter Skaarup arguing: "I honestly believe by including a couple of bare breasts in the movie, extremists may think twice before coming to Denmark". Swami argues this is flawed as many young Muslims are obsessed with sex, his article has also lots more analysis and is well worth a read. The flaws are obvious but wonder if in branding a nation using certain images they can attract or deter people choosing to migrate to and settle their - an interesting poser for nation branding!

Will Facebook messaging replace Email? Probably Not!

Email is on the decline as a communication tool, and some claim were are observing the start of a trend which sees other forms of online communication taking over. In particular, some claim, the new integrated text, chat and messaging service offered by Facebook. A recent Pew Report highlights the use of a range of technologies for communicating, Text remains on top, followed surprisingly perhaps (or to me anyway) by phone calls (Cell and landline have daily use by 30-38%), face-to-face and then online with email languishing at the bottom with 11%.

As the Pew team note, however, this is demonstrating that different tools are used for different groups. Closest friends with whom we share phone numbers are texted and spoken to, and we are likely to see some of them each day and so have 'real' conversations. There are then a wider circle of friends who we communicate with online, they will be within our Facebook network and some linked to via instant messaging services aided by their prevalence across smart phones. Email is now the most formal level of communication. It has become the equivalent of a letter in the modern age. Young people will communicate formally using email but are unlike to use this for informal communication with their friends.

This suggests that email will not die, but its use will be modified. It also suggests a more social dimension to communication that needs to be understood perhaps. That tools that can be used to communicate directly to individuals are only appropriate for certain types of communication. There may be a use of social networking for promotion, but it is not a channel for advertising but socialising across geographical spaces. Equally, communication tools are no longer built for a purpose only but shaped by usage and to understand how to communicate you must firstly understand how people communicate to one another and want to receive communication from different sources - friends, organisations etc. Usage sets the rules, and it is not necessarily the usage built into the design. Food for thought perhaps

A thought on representative democracy

I am leading a session on representation with my students on Friday and thought I would offer some thoughts, not on the content but on the general concept of representation within a democracy. Of course, we know how representative democracy works. Every five years or so (normally) we elect individuals to represent the geographic area in which we live and they disappear off to parliament to work on our behalf. Implicit in the UK system is that this is a very broad interpretation of working on our behalf, and often it is the good of the country that is the key driver for decision making, though party whips tend to control voting. There is very little sense of delegative democracy happening, where MPs will vote in the way a majority of their constituents direct, and no mechanism for actually gauging public opinion by constituency anyway. So there is a question regarding how representative democracy is at the very simple level. Who do MPs work for is a big question, they rely on the party for their position as MP, they can be deselected, and on their party leader for a career beyond the backbenches, but technically the voter is the employer as many state on their profiles on Facebook.

Perhaps in light of the expenses crisis the assumption is that most MPs actually work for themselves anyway; this would be unfair as many do a good job as servants of the constituency. They promote a range of local causes as well as defending individual and group rights and taking cases to councils and beyond. They also act as advisers and give weight to campaigns. It is said there are divergent levels of service, with those MPs who enjoy safe seats being more relaxed about their presence locally and those in marginal seats being very keen to be seen as the defender of all things local. But the key thing here is being seen. Many MPs in safe seats so the same job as those in marginals, they just don't need to shout as loudly about their work.

Often representativeness of parliament is linked to the age, gender and ethnicity balances, while some predicted parliament would be younger, more feminine and more representative. This was not the case, with only a 2% increase in female MPs. But does that matter? While there perhaps should be a 50/50 split, with the geographic link it would still mean one-sided representation at the constituency level. The big question is about feeling represented. There are a range of value-laden 'should' demands of MPs in terms of how they should act as representatives (beyond expenses and all that relates to that type of behaviour), but many of these are quite unrealistic for any individual MP representing up to 100,000 people while also having a full time job in parliament. This puts the onus on the represented to go out of their way to be 'represented' and so show they have power; but in turn that is impossible if everyone actually did simultaneously demand the time of the their MP. MPs are not the only route to representation, but the fact that they are the formal democratic link places a burden upon them.

So students (or anybody) both for discussion here and in class, how can representative democracy work more effectively? What mechanisms can strengthen the links and ties between MP and those they represent? What realistic models are there for representation? And, a really big question, does the day to day campaigning nature of politics get in the way?

One negative perspective of political campaigning

While walking down the street in Edinburgh one day a Member of the Scottish Parliament is tragically hit by a bus and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. "Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around here, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.
"No problem, just let me in," says the MSP.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the MSP.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and blether about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the Scottish people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is very friendly who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the lift rises. The lift goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the MSP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity." The MSP reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."So St. Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down to hell. Now the doors of the lift open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and rubbish.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the rubbish and putting it in black bags as more rubbish falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder "I don't understand," stammers the MSP. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of rubbish and my friends look miserable. What happened?The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. ....Today you voted."

The Conference season is over: but who cares about Conferences?

I have been advertising my blog to my new students as a 'learning resource', yet nothing has appeared here for a while. Ooops, books, journal articles and life got in the way, so has Twitter! Too easy to share a link. However, given that we now start a new period of politics in the UK, parliament reconvenes, a spending review is imminent, and a coalition government now has to show substance as well as unity, I thought I would add a few thoughts on what to expect based on the events of the conferences.

Party Conferences are strange events. They were once spaces for deliberation. Where the party met and set a direction. Well sort of anyway. Perhaps that is more the ideal than the reality, but the often bitter arguments that took place in history show them to be more about the party meeting than presenting itself to the nation. As James Stanyer records in his book covering the evolution of conferences, they are now far more a media event than a place for policy making. And the media play a key role in translating events to the wider public, but they also need to make a story about each conference.

The Liberal Democrats perhaps had the toughest job. Conference is supposed to be a place for policy debate, easy when you are the third party but not so when you are junior partners in a coalition; and they are junior albeit punching above their weight. Leader Nick Clegg had to sell the coalition, the tough decisions, and also position these within Liberal Democratic values. Tough tasks which in the end the media suggested he did well but the talk of splits was constant and all those questions about whether Vince Cable was on message or really a socialist did not help the cause. Their problem was the multiple audiences, not only the party but the media, their Conservative partners and the voters they hope will stay loyal and those they need to persuade to support them in the future. Tougher given that most of these audiences will be served more by the media than by live coverage of events.

Labour in a way stole the show. The dramatic finish to the leadership contest saw brother beat brother and the media handed a fantastic soap opera story line. The Milibands became a modern day Cain and Abel, a real life Grant and Phil Mitchell. Ed, the victor, became 'Red Ed', and Neil Kinnock got 'his' party back. For an opposition party the first conference after an election is less important. It is more about rallying the troops and showing an element of acceptance, humility and setting out a course for reform. But the story was one of factionalism and David Miliband's exit was interpreted a number of ways: petulance, disappointment, disillusion, rejection of the result. Ed Miliband has a long journey but perhaps as a new leader his start was unhelpful and could be compared to the treatment of William Hague as incoming Conservative leader in 1997. Rejection of the party by the voters allows for negative coverage, criticisms of the choice of leader override positives, their history is more important than their future. The continuing story will be whether Ed buries Blairism (whatever that was) and New Labour, and how he can unite the party as a positive opposition monitoring government.

The Conservatives was, in contrast, the damp squib that never really lit up coverage. When the big story is that Conservatives are split over reforms to a universal benefit you know that there is little to say. Cameron's performance equally was seen as solid but unexciting. Abandoning his script-free style, this was a careful speech that seemed to spend equal time attacking his predecessors and thanking his supporters: not much policy really just a little more flesh on the 'we are in it together', 'Britain needs you', Big Society narrative of society he has been developing. The interesting aspect was his expressed commitment to the coalition and partnership with Clegg.

So they return to parliament, for Labour it is rebuilding a brand around Ed Miliband to engage those who are dissatisfied with the coalition. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats need to retain their own identities and present an unified image as a coalition, simultaneously. The media will be looking for disunity in the coalition and the partner parties, as well as signs of socialism from Red Ed. Should be an interesting time to study political communication!