Engaging Issues

"You may not remember me...."

2011-09-27T13:40:00.000-07:00

You may not remember me...

They are your first words, the introductory approach to the target of yourcommunication. And for the publicaffairs practitioner there is a second part to that sentence, always unsaid - that I know you, and that I have spent time understanding youand your opinions.

This week is Labour Party Conference, and got me thinking about that phrase, and what sits behind it.

The core skill of every senior public relations practitioner is anunderstanding of the target public, or target audience. You may hear some talk about writing skills,or understanding of the media, but they are really the technical skills.

It is only by really understanding your audience that you can get thestrategic elements right, developing a persuasive message as well as choosingthe appropriate channel of communication. In some areas of PR that means it can be about big numbers, and largeslices of the population. For exampletargeting young men aged 18-24, or those with a certain disposable income thatyou want to recruit as new customers.

But in public affairs your targets are often individual politicians orGovernment officials. And yourunderstanding can get very close and very personal.

Lobbying remains an important tool in public affairs.

There are some very simple, free tools, like Theyworkforyou.com thatallow you be alerted to everything your MP says in Parliament, every debatethey take part in. So you can follow theircontribution and understand their position.

Basic biographical information is available from the moment that a candidatestarts their campaign, and that is very useful in understanding a professionalexperience which might influence their policy interests.

The development of social media provides another source of information. Tracking a key MP, in a sector that is importantto me, I was able to follow everything they did on Twitter. I found out when they were ill, when theywent to their son’s school play. Yes,sometimes I feel like a stalker.

But it helps the public affairs practitioner to fulfil the key task ofany PR professional, to understand their target audience.

And so when you bump into the MP in the Conference bar, you know whothey are, what they did before they became an MP, what committees they serve onand what their policy positions are. You know what the three key messages are,and how I would respond to their questions.

However it doesn't make sense to always let them know that you know so much about them.

“You may not remember me...”

How a Google search can influence the most important election

2011-09-24T09:41:00.000-07:00

It is really interesting to see that a Google search may have an impacton who will be chosen as the Republican candidate for the President in 2012. Just type in Santorum and you will see why. As a PR professional I can tell you it is not the best description.

Gay activist Dan Savage knows how to use the interweb, and moreimportantly he has understood how to make sure his site comes top of the searchresults. That might be a problem forSantorum who is a Republican candidate, and who needs to make some progress ifhe is to improve on his 50-to-1 odds.

The reason why Mr Santorum has found himself in trouble is because ofhis position on gay rights, when he said, "whether it's polygamy,whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things areantithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.”

The merit of his argument is for you to think about.

But what is interesting is how one individual has been able to controlthe Google search for such an important US politician. The site is regularly updated, and he is always developing it so that it has fresh content.

However, he is not able to do it all by himself. Other supporters are making sure that theyare carrying out searches, and ensuring that they visit the site.

Back in May 2011, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show provided his help bypromoting the site, and driving more traffic to the site.

So, at the moment, the site does well in the ranking.

But it is another example of how the social media is changing the powerstructures.

It demonstrates how onedetermined campaigner can have an influence over a major political campaign,possibly the biggest political campaign there is in modern democracy. The Republican nomination will have anopportunity to fight it out against President Obama next year. That is the probably the biggest electoral competition there is in modern politics.

One person who understands how run a website, and draw in support from others, is having a great say in this campaign.

My experience of Kettling

2011-09-16T14:18:00.000-07:00

The BBC are reporting that the Strasbourg the European Court of Human Rights is considering the legality of ‘kettling’ as a tactic used by the Police.

Though kettling came to the public’s attention after the G20 summit of April 2009, it has been used by Police for several years. At the G8 summit in Scotland the Police faced a number of groups of political activists aiming to disrupt the meeting at Gleneagles. With the leaders away at the luxury hotel - and the newly created temporary conference village - the attention of protestors focussed on the cities.

There were running battles between protesters and police. I found myself following the story as it unfolded, and had my own experience of kettling.

One minute I was watching with interest as the anarchists looked for a way to take their protest to the financial organisations based in Edinburgh. They decided to gather outside of some Standard Life buildings in Canning Street, and I followed a freelance photographer that I was working with into Canning Street.

Then about fifteen minute later and I found myself kettled. The Police formed up behind me and I found myself trapped in Canning Street. Both ends of the street were sealed by a wall of Police.

Of course that didn't stop some of the more aggressive protesters running back and forward to test out the strength of the Police cordon. And they had some great flags!

One anarchist decided to take to the high ground.

In the end the energy seemed to just seep away from the demonstration.

And maybe that is why the Police use it to take on mobs that may turn to violence. The crowd is controlled, it is tamed and cowed.

In this case the protesters knew that they would be unable to break the Police lines. But of course the Police were also bogged down with lines of Police at both sides of the street, whilst news filtered in of battles in other parts of Edinburgh.

The Police were unwilling to let people leave, but after an hour the crowd started getting more restless. But this time it was more about individuals protesting about being held by the Police.

The journalists and camera crew, that had been happy to be in the midst of the demonstration, were now worried about getting out. Police commanders started to allow out those journalists carrying a Press Card.

And then we were all let out of the Kettle. But in small groups of three, everyone was asked for their names and addresses by a Police officer and we were out. In my case I was free to return to my office, which ironically was thirty feet the other side of the Police line.

My kettling experience was a couple of hours, whereas the legal cases talk about seven hour periods. All it meant for me is a late lunch, rather than going without food. It was a strange experience.

The Police on the line, refuse to talk to you. At best they ignore your questions, and for those a little more aggressive they will push you back. But they are there to keep you in, not engage in discussion or debate. They form a human barricade.

So you are left out on a street, with just whatever you brought with you. And very few people will bring food, water and a port-a-loo.

I am glad that my experience was two hours and not seven....

Pawlenty is out - and I am £20 down on the deal

2011-08-14T14:44:00.000-07:00

Looks like Pawlenty is out of the race to be the Republican nominee to take on Obama in 2012. And he takes with him my £20 wager on him (and I took him at 6 to1). I never thought he would win the Presidential election but I did feel he might have had a good chance at this stage.

When I wrote about him previously I pointed out some of his campaigning up to this point.

Unlike some of his rivals, he had experience of running an administration. His political position was towards the centre of the GOP political spectrum.

However, in a Primary election – where you are running for a Party nomination – the centre ground is not always the best place to be. And in recent times there have been a couple of new candidates that have also been State Governors, so one of his strengths is no longer as powerful.

And so in the end he ran at the wrong time. He is a two-term Governor, who appealed to Independents and some Democrats within his state. His record in Government was good and his policies were moderate. He is also a social conservative. So a great candidate.

But the Republicans are now influenced by the Tea Party. At this time in their history, Pawlenty is just not extreme enough for the GOP.

I am sure the Democrats are delighted….

COBR is back up and running...

2011-08-09T14:03:00.000-07:00

The COBR system is up and running again.

This time it is coordinating the response to the riots.

If you want to read more about COBR - or Cobra - and learn a little more about its strengths and weakness then please read my earlier blog here.

Crisis Communication Plan for a Zombie Attack

2011-06-10T09:03:00.000-07:00

A Freedom of Information Request asked a local authority whether they had plans for dealing with a Zombie Attack. Of course it is funny, but people worry about different things. And who is to say where the risks really are.

If anyone had said that a volcano was going to erupt, and then ground every plane in the UK, you would have laughed at them. So is it more of a stretch of the imagination to have a plan for zombies?

Well, okay, yes it is a stretch.

But anyway, nowadays good emergency planners do not have plans for every potential incident.

They work on assessing the risks and developing strategies to deal with a host of different possibilities. Planning tends to be around the idea of ‘capabilities’.

Part of every good emergency planning team is the communication professional. And it is the crisis communication planning that I am interested in.

As a communicator you know that there will be certain tasks that will be asked of you in any incident (e.g. gather the information, develop the message, choose the best channel, get it out, review and revise).

In crisis planning you need to think through how you might deliver on those actions in the most unusual situations.

And you always start by thinking through the problem in the same way you deal with a day-to-day issue. It really is a case of Keep Calm and Carry on.

So how would I approach the task? Read on for more.

If there is a Zombie Attack, my first discussions would be around the standard crisis communication questions.

We need to think about where the communication problems are, and how we might overcome them.

I think there are three areas of particular attention - speed of communication delivery, public credibility and establishing a constant flow of real-time information.

We need a way to get information out to the public quickly.

Every minute that the public is unaware of the risk means an increased chance of more zombies. Of course I am assuming the usual transmission by zombie bite – and I could be wrong - but we need to start with some planning assumptions.

So the first objective of crisis communications kicks in. Alert the public to the danger.

So we are looking at traditional mainstream media. Time is going to be a factor, so I would be looking at broadcast taking the message out on TV, radio and on-line.

Thankfully there are channels in place for the Authorities to get information to the media quickly in a national emergency. And I think we could rely on those.

A Zombie Attack is going to be a bit unexpected, so we might have a credibility issue with the public.

I know from research that the BBC continues to have high levels of credibility with the public. So I certainly want to be getting in touch with senior management to see whether we get all of the BBC platforms (local radio, TV, online) warning the public.

Yes, I am going to use other media outlets – and that would extend to applications like twitter. But my first thoughts are that I would really be using those other channels to push people – as signposts – to the information on the mainstream media.

I am also expecting that word of mouth is going to be pretty powerful. So we can probably rely on family members to be warning each other, and those communications will carry credibility as well as urgency.

This is where the second objective of emergency communications comes into play. Once the public are alerted, you need to explain what you are doing to resolve the situation and recommend action they can take to protect themselves.

If the BBC is Mr Credibility, then Social media would be King of Information.

I really think that social media would come into its own as the key information channel.

With a nod to social media, I think we would be able to use some of the platforms to great effect.

Twitter is going to be great for getting the message out and 'signposting' the media reports on the Zombie Attack. But we would also be able to use the flow of tweets to build up a true picture of where the zombies are. It is a type of crowd sourcing.

I think that the public would also turn to twitter as their preferred mode of communication. You really do not want to be stuck at the keyboard composing a long email when zombies are about. The short quick messages will allow you to get the information out, and then move on quickly. 140 characters and then move. Another 140 characters and then move....

I think hashtags would develop by themselves. But the authorities might want to suggest some that could be used around the country - like #ZomEdinb and #ZomLondon?

I could see Facebook pages emerging very quickly, and people putting up photographs of any gathering groups of zombies. Status updates could be very helpful, if your friends start talking about eating brains then you should avoid them. Do not accept any event invitations.

Of course the good in human nature would come out. I can see some FB pages being developed in memory of those that we lose to Zombie-hood. So they can live on forever, as the living dead but also as an online presence.

And let us put the technology to good effect and bring in some of the GPS/mapping applications. I think the Local Authority should be thinking about hosting map, and then allowing people to plot zombie sightings. That would be informative and a real life saver.

Foursquare would be very useful with some small additions.” I just checked into the Caledonian Hotel, Edinburgh - and it is full of Zombies”.

I think they would soon come up with some new badges that you could win.

I can see clever App developers already thinking about what they might do in this type of emergency. Possibly a map, with zombie groups identified and then a suggested route from your house to the nearest major shopping Mall which you intend to use as your refuge.

I am taking this opportunity to take credit for ZombieNav.

And by the way – All those people who opposed ‘out of town’ shopping centres will really be kicking themselves when they are looking for some place to hide up.

You’re probably wondering about the real time information, and possible lag in data. But remember that zombies do not travel quickly. They kind of shamble along. Even if you are a little out in terms of exact position, that information should be useful.

I started by saying that a Zombie Attack is not that different to other crisis situations. I also said that there were three areas of attention - speed of delivery, public credibility and constant flow of real-time information.

Of course every major incident calls for speed, public credibility and a flow of information.

And the communication objectives are the same in any emergency. Alert the public to the threat. Explain what you are doing to solve the problem and recommend steps they can take to protect themselves. Update them, keep them informed.

About the author - Jason Wassell is a freelance public relations and public affairs consultant based in Edinburgh. He is actually quite serious PR professional - and is a Chartered PR Practitioner as well as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. He is a specialist in crisis communication, and worked for the Scottish Government as a Communications Strategist - Civil Contingencies for two years. Jason has also advised the UK Government as well as commercial organisations on crisis communication and emergency planning. He has never been asked by a client to plan for a Zombie Attack, but has obviously spent some of his own time on it.

World Series of Poker – the poker community descends on Las Vegas.

2011-06-08T15:26:00.000-07:00

A departure from things political or PR - and instead this is an article on the wonderful world of poker.

I hope it is a useful introduction to a game that has exploded across the world. In some ways it is part of the mainstream, but there are still hidden or little known elements.

A few days ago a young man called Jake Cody sat down at a table in Las Vegas, and paid $25,000 dollars to take part in a poker tournament.

With such a great name like Jake Cody I know you are already picturing an American in his mid-40s. And at those stakes you are probably thinking of wealthy businessman, possibly a rich Texan oil tycoon. But the reality is more interesting.

Jake is a 22 year old, from Rochdale. He is a former student that decided to leave his studies to become a poker professional. This is the second time he has taken part in the World Series of Poker, and this time he is walking away with $851,192.

But that is just the start of the World Series of Poker (WSOP).

This is the 42^nd World Series. Over the years it has grown.

Lets have a look at the recent history of poker and the WSOP.

For more on the World Series read on...

There are 58 events over the next month. Thousands will descend on the Rio Hotel off the Las Vegas strip. This is a true festival of poker.

Jake Cody with his winning hand -K9s - and
his winner's bracelet

Jake is one of the first winners. It is not totally unexpected as he has won big competitions in the US and Europe. Early in 2010 he won $1.25 million in France.

But what makes Jake's win in Vegas so important is the 'WSOP bracelet'. These bracelets are provided to each tournament winner, and they are highly valued.

Comparison between poker players is often based on bracelet wins. Phil Hellmuth can boast of being the best player due to his 11 WSOP bracelets.

With so many more people playing in the tournament, the odds of winning a bracelet are more difficult. Larger fields require more luck to navigate through. Though there now more individual events played during the World Series.

However, Phil Ivey is considered by many to be the best modern player, and we know that he has won about $14 million in poker tournament winnings.

But he also plays cash games. And in 2006 Phil Ivey won over $16 million in three days, when he took on billionaire Andy Beal.

There will be many more winners over the next few weeks.

The WSOP culminates with the Main Event, which starts on the 7^th July. It costs $10,000 to take part, and last year over 7000 people played the game. The winner was a Canadian called Jonathan Duhamel, who walked away with just less than $9 million as his prize for first place.

The explosion of the poker explosion has been down to two technical factors – television and online poker sites. And one human factor – a man called Moneymaker.

The use of an under-table camera allowed the TV viewers the chance to see the hidden cards for each player. That allowed everyone to play along with the game.

Then the next step was the development of the online poker sites.

Anyone interested in how communities can develop online should certainly investigate poker. You will find online sites where you can play poker, community sites where you can enter into discussion and training sites to improve your play. There is also an array of media outlets, stream TV channels, podcasts and online news sites.

It was a Chris Moneymaker, an accountant from Tennessee, that really brought people to poker. His story inspired, as he bought into a smaller competition for $39. Working his way through the competitions, he eventually got to Las Vegas in the summer of 2003 with a Main Event ticket. He went on to win $2.5 million.

You couldn't make it up.

The story appealed to all the amateurs. They now had an example to follow.

During 2003 there were 839 entrants, each paying that $10,000. The following year there were 2,576 entrants. And as already mentioned, last year the numbers topped 7,000.

But this year the numbers will be down.

The online community has taken a blow in recent weeks, with the US Govt cracking down on a number of the largest poker sites - which it says are illegal. The sites were closed down and players’ money was frozen. It was Black Friday for Poker. The saga continues, but that is another article in itself.

These developments have removed thousands of US professional players from the game. They have been unable to ‘work’ and gather the fees required to take part in the World Series. Some are still waiting for money to be released from the Full Tilt Poker site.

So all of this will reduce the number of people travelling to Las Vegas.

How much do you need to play?

Well if you want to play in all of the competitions, you need about $300,000 for your entry fees.

The cheapest official event has a $1000 entry fee. But like Moneymaker, you could have a go at the satellite competition. Start at $75 and work your way up.

And if you are successful. Well, on the edges of the World Series will be the cash games. In the 'big game', played in the Bellagio casino, there are regular wagers of $100,000 per hand.

BBC gains access to 'Dominoes' Flu Pandemic advert - but is this really in the public interest?

2011-06-06T05:56:00.000-07:00

An interesting news report on the BBC, who have used a Freedom of Information request to gain access to an advert prepared by the Government in case of the outbreak of Pandemic Flu. Not the the H1N1 strain but a pandemic based on H5N1, which continues to worry health professionals.

It is reported by Martin Rosenbaum of the BBC, who is as interested in the FOI process that ensured the release of the adand what it tells us about the psychology of those who were involved in the planning.

The creative execution for the ad is based on the idea of falling dominoes, is a lot darker than other health advertisements and with stark language makes clear that ‘some people will die’. This was never used, yet the BBC had been aware that it was prepared (something that I will return to.)

The advert itself was created a number of years ago, and was based on a very different scenario to the one we experienced in 2009. The H1N1 virus of 2009 was deadly, unfortunately people died, but it was not as virulent as the strain that many health professionals feared – H5N1.

The H5N1 projections, in documents available to the public, suggested that Scotland could face the worst case scenario of 60,000 deaths in a short (say 12 week) period. How do you plan for the consequences of that scale of impact?

I certainly hold an interest in the discussion about this advert. For two years I worked in civil contingencies, working alongside UK/Scottish Government and some great communicators in the local responders. So I am not quite a neutral bystander.

But that experience prompts some questions.

How does its release help the public? And what role is there for the media?

Click the button to read more....

How does this help the public?

I am not really sure where the public interest is in the release of this information. How does this help the public?

It prompts suggestions of ‘cry wolf’, or a discussion on whether public funds were miss-spent on an advert that was never aired.

I carried out some research into public perception a couple of years before the Pandemic. The over-riding message back from the focus groups was that they didn’t believe that the country would face another global pandemic. The view held by most was that modern medicine would have all of the answers and prevent a massive flu outbreak.

Interestingly when the risk was explained - the science set down - then the public were very quick to ask what the Government was doing to protect them.

And so policy makers and communication professionals are between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to these types of preparation.

Scotland's Chief Medical Officer and Deputy First Minister
outline steps being taken by Scottish Government

It is important to have flexibility, to be able to respond to the situation rather than being bound by rigid plan. But some steps need to taken, just in case the worst happens.

The first responsibility of every Government is to protect its people. All of the discussion about making jobs or education the priority is a secondary argument. The reason we have Government is to provide protection from disorder, from crime, ill-health and even from external aggression. We can debate the rest, and agree where Government should stop.

If there had been a H5N1 pandemic we would not have been the time to develop and produce a national advert along the lines of Dominos. It could be described as a justifiable ‘risk’, in terms of government expenditure, in the face of an even bigger risk.

Freedom of Information prompts a number of ‘armchair’ strategists, who are keen to second guess what policy officials are doing. And journalists are the best at this type of criticism.

Of course sometimes Government does get things wrong, but many great decisions are made – based on an in-depth understanding of the facts of the situation.

When I was Communications Strategist for Scottish Resilience, I made sure that people knew what my job was. I was keen to explain what the various governments and agencies are doing to protect the public.

But there were also aspects that were probably best not discussed. Communicating risk is always difficult. And that is made worse when a good newspaper article depends on a journalist twisting the story just a little further.

There are always matters that have be to considered, assessed in their context, and measured across other risks. But I believe the wider debate really adds no benefit.

What role should the BBC and other media play?

The BBC may be happy to have released the information, but for me this prompts another question.

How should the media and the Government work together to plan for the most extreme of circumstances?

In particular - what is the role of the BBC, as the public broadcaster, in matters of life and death?

How did they know about this advert?

Might they have seen a copy a few years ago?

The BBC has in the past tried to develop structures to help emergency planning. If you know where to look, you can still find the information that they provide to emergency planners. So they have been happy to suggest they are partners to the public services that tackle major incidents.

Of course the Government talks to the media about these issues. But can the Government really share their real concerns with the media, when journalists will see this as a potential story?

Anyone who has worked with the media during a national emergency will recognise the way in which the media will swing from one extreme to another.

First they will say that the Government is over-reacting, then once it is clear there is substance to the issue they will then swing wildly to talk about risk in terms of Armageddon.

The Daily Express provides a great example here.

And then after raising expectation, and stoking fears, the problem will go away. Then it is time to talk about ‘cry wolf’. They are almost disappointed when their worst projections do not come to pass.

Communicators will understand this ‘no-win’ situation.

We can only hope that the media will at some stage recognise the role they have to play in a national emergency. But too often a deliberate miss-representation of risk provides a better 'story'. Maybe even the lead bulletin or front-page.

That shouldn't stop policy makers evaluating the risks, and taking the steps they think would protect the public in the worst of situations.

That shouldn't stop communicators thinking ahead, about what they should be doing now to protect the public tomorrow.

Research into US Twitter users

2011-06-02T01:50:00.000-07:00

I like to follow the research by the Pew Research Centre because they tend to follow some of my favourite subjects across politics, the media and public policy.

Their recent survey into US Twitter use shows increasing popularity of the social media platform.

“13% of online adults use the status update service Twitter, which represents a significant increase from the 8% of online adults who identified themselves as Twitter users in November 2010. 95% of Twitter users own a mobile phone, and half of these users access the service on their handheld device.”

Twitter is well suited to mobile phones. Tweets can be quickly read or quickly composed on the move. That makes it very attractive.

There were also some comments made about the proportion of African Americans and Latinos now using Twitter. “Fully 25% of online African Americans use Twitter at least occasionally, with 11% doing so on a typical day.” I personally think there is something in there about the numbers online and sampled in this survey, and I would have been interested in more detail about the sample.

It is probably the ‘user age’ that I think is of particular interest. The survey suggests that use amongst the 25-34 year olds has doubled over the last few months from 9% to 19%. Whilst usage by those ages 35-44 has also grown significantly (from 8% to 14%).

Pawlenty is in in for Republican race!

2011-05-23T02:30:00.000-07:00

The Republicans continue to provide the excitement to the Presidential race as their candidates start to emerge. They will now battle it out to decide who will take on President Obama.

And my outside bet continues to be Tim Pawlenty, who has just announced his candidacy.

Pawlenty has a good narrative, as someone from a traditional democrat state and humble beginnings, but who eventually became governor of Minnesota. He served two terms. An enduring message has been that this task ‘will not be easy’. He has warned against other candidates that are offering easy solutions to the problems facing the US.

So he has a pragmatism that comes from holding office, but he also has a good record in attracting ‘independents’ which will be attractive to party strategists.

And he is not too far away from the social and fiscal conservatives. He has lauded the Tea Party, and done the rounds of the conservative conferences. Pawlenty is not their favourite but they do not oppose him.

However, he continues to be an outsider. Mitt Romney and John Huntsman are the front-runners.

The media has picked them as the two contenders, with the ‘fun’ expected to be delivered by some from the more conservative reaches – say Bachmann or Palin.

But let’s not discount Pawlenty. There are certainly concerns about Romney and Huntsman. One introduced health reforms that look suspiciously like Obama’s. Whilst the other has worked for Obama, as an ambassador.

And the entry of a more conservative candidate may pull the other candidates to the right as they seek to appeal to Republican voters. That in turn may result in some collateral damage, as miss-steps are made on the campaign trail. There is a careful balance to be struck in appealing to Republicans in a Primary election but not alienating the wider electorate.

It may be that Pawlenty is the last one standing, and not disliked by anyone……I am not wagering my house on him winning the election. But it is interesting to see how often it is someone coming through the middle who wins.

He needs to be successful in Iowa, and that will be a pointer to whether he has a chance.

Scottish Elections - Why the difference between constituency and list votes?

2011-05-10T12:26:00.000-07:00

The Scottish Elections continue to be the focus of my attention just now. If you want to you can separate it from its political roots, and they become great case studies in public communication.

It is fascinating to look at the various messages being communicated, and the channels adopted by the political parties. Looking back, and without any doubt, the SNP campaign seemed to be most professional, the best planned and most effectively executed.

Of course it is a little strange to think about political campaigns away from the political world.

I have already heard from pundits who have explanations for the SNP victory, and in particular telling us how the voters switched parties. I think I will wait for some more robust research.

But one statistic has already intrigued me. The comparison of constituency votes against regional votes.

Now it may be on the periphery of Labour’s concerns. The gap between SNP and Labour constituency votes was over 270,000 – 900,000 v 630,000.

But what happened to those votes regional list votes?

In the rest of this blog I look at the gaps, and make my own jump to a couple of conclusions.

It was interesting, that if you look at the figures, you could make the case for 97% of SNP voters using both votes to vote for the SNP. I know that is not perfect, because I do not take into account some bizarre voting splits. But the SNP had 902,915 constituency votes and 876,421 list votes.

The Conservatives also do well in keeping their voters together, though you could argue they are down at their base support. They had 276,652 constituency votes and 245,967 list votes. That is about 90%.

Labour does less well. They win 630,437 constituency votes and 523,559 list votes. That means 83% of their constituency voters gave them their regional list vote. They lost 17%. So that is over 100,000 voters.

The Liberal Democrats did worse of all in this statistic exercise. They gained 157,714 constituency votes and 103,472 list votes. Which is about 65%, and a loss of 35% of voters between the ballots.

I think that is interesting because I wonder why people have split their votes in this way. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, the constituency vote may include an element of local support for the incumbent Liberal Democrat politicians. The list vote might be the true verdict on the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

So an element of those higher constituency votes for Labour and Liberal Democrats may be an incumbency factor. Though you may have fallen out of love with the party, do you still feel a loyalty to your hard-working local candidate?

Or have Labour voters got used to splitting their votes from previous experience of Scottish Parliamentary elections? I have certainly heard Labour supporters suggest that a second vote for Labour is wasted in certain areas of the country. Labour's traditional success in constituencies meant it was difficult for them to win any list seats. And so the wisdom was that you could give your 'second' vote to a fringe party. Of course that did not work out on this occasion.

What does that mean for Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the future? Which is the true level of support for Labour - 630k or 520k? When Labour start rebuilding, which point do they start from? And how do they ensure that their supporters make sure that they give them both votes?

And the SNP have succeeded in their 'two votes for the SNP' approach. Their list vote seems to have been absolutely solid. They convinced electors to ensure that they voted twice for the SNP, and it has worked out in terms of seats.

5 thoughts about the Scottish Elections

2011-05-06T05:46:00.000-07:00

Background to the Scottish Elections 2011

The elections to the Scottish Parliament decide the make-up of the Scottish Parliament, but also the party that will form the Scottish Government.

The results are astounding for anyone with a basic knowledge of Scottish politics. For the last 50 years, Scotland has been a foundation on which the UK Labour Party could build. During the 1980s, it was Scottish Labour politicians that kept the Labour Party operating when the Conservatives dominated Westminster.

When a devolved Scottish Parliament was created in 1999, Labour entered power as senior partners in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. That was repeated again in 2003.

In 2007 the SNP managed to become the biggest party in Scottish Parliament, but there were literally a few hundred votes in it as they finished just one seat ahead.

The 2011 election has provided some fascinating and astounding results. It is clear that the SNP were able to take seats from all political parties. It was a bad night for both Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

What happened?

The 2010 General Election seemed to show that Labour was once again in favour with the Scots. Their share of the vote was good, and they returned 41 Members to the UK Parliament.

Early polling for the Scottish Parliamentary election suggested that Labour was about 10 points ahead of the SNP. However, as the campaign’s progressed it became clear that the SNP were moving ahead of Scottish Labour.

And the results prompt a few thoughts.

5 thoughts about the Scottish Elections:

1. Labour chose the wrong strategy, twice - Labour suggested that they were the only party that could really fight against the Conservatives. Of course that strategy only works if you are the credible alternative to the ‘threat’ of the Conservatives. But the SNP have a track record in fighting UK Government – be they Labour or Conservative/Liberal Democrat.

When it was clear that this was not working, it seemed that the emphasis changed to talking about the threat of Independence. The message became, that a vote for the SNP would be a step into the unknown for Scotland and a vote for Independence. In the last few days it was thought that this ‘fear tactic’ may have had some success, with eve of poll surveys suggesting a closing of the gap. However, the results suggested that had been a statistical blip.

In the end it was clear that Labour took the wrong route, and then repeated that mistake.

2. A more active Parliament, and more legislation? - The SNP pulled back on the legislative programme in 2007 because of their inability to deliver the votes in Parliament. If they command a majority they can push through some of the ideas that they put on the back-burner. Interestingly it removes one excuse that the SNP could give to campaigners who demand action on unpopular issues.

Will they now introduce a more comprehensive wish-list of legislation? New members in particular, may feel that they have a mandate to introduce a radical programme and deliver on campaign pledges.

Those with an interest in policy need to bring out the SNP manifesto, and check the detail of those campaign proposals that might well become law.

3. It is a very new Labour team - Whilst the SNP and Conservatives allowed candidates to stand for both constituency seats and the regional list, but Labour frowned upon this. That has meant that Labour’s loss of constituencies has led to the departure of some of their most respected politicians.

The Labour Parliamentary group will consist of a number of new list members. They were selected through an internal voting system that only a limited number of Labour Party members participated in. They will come with a mix of abilities and skills, but they will be new to the public.

I am not sure that anyone will knows what this team will be like.

4. Do not assume that this means Labour losses at Westminster – Electors throughout the United Kingdom can be very sophisticated in their voting patterns. Individuals will support different parties at local and general elections. In Scotland, this is even more complex where electors will split their vote between Scottish and UK

Some of the research I have seen tells me that voters often see this as being two very different tasks – at UK the competition is between Labour and the Conservatives, whilst in Scotland it is Labour v the SNP. The concept of the two-horse race is exacerbated by the First Past the Post System.

An argument could be made for that to repeat itself at the next General Election. These SNP voters may indeed still cast their vote for Labour in a UK election.

The interesting research will be into how strongly the new SNP voters are aligned to SNP. These new voters may be willing to switch or they may be true converts to voting SNP.

5. Scottish Liberal Democrat vote collapsed – There was discussion about the heritage that the Liberal Party has in Scotland, but in the end that didn’t prevent major losses for the Liberal Democrats. In some constituencies we have seen direct swings of about 15% from the Liberal Democrats to the SNP.

So many of the new SNP seats are due to this straight transfer of votes from the Scottish Liberal Democrats. It will be interesting to see whether the Lib Dems can rebuild from this low point.

Great fun on the Quiet News Day Podcast

2011-04-28T00:57:00.000-07:00

It has been a few hectic days, with lots of bank holidays to provide distraction. But keen to note my latest 15 minutes of fame, taking part in the Quiet News Day Podcast run by the good people at Holyrood PR and Deadline News.

It can be found at:

Itunes at http://ow.ly/4E4k3

Or on your PC at http://ow.ly/4E4k4

For a little bit more then read on.

My fellow guest was Alastair Ross of McGrigors - and also the Chair of the Association of Scottish Public Affairs. He brought some really useful insights from his political knowledge. It was worth being on the podcast so I could listen in so I can repeat his words as my own. But as he works for a law firm I will tread carefully.

The subjects were around politics and public affairs. We discussed everything from the SNP gaining the support of the Scottish Sun to the development of social media in political campaigns.

It was that last subject that really interests me. How can social media be used by politicians who want to engage with their constituents and build stronger communities?

We are starting to see more of that, and it can only continue to develop. One of the points that we all agreed with is that social media can work as a campaign tool, but it really is best as a long-term platform for community engagement.

I do believe that the key skill for politicians in the future will not be to debate on the floor of the chamber, but will be about how they communicate that out to their constituents. It really doesn't matter whether it was delivered with style, because no one is watching the images from the parliamentary feed (apart from me). However, they may hear about it from a blog, or a customised email or an online community newsletter. That will become the reality.

One of the questions that I really need to come back to is the influence of Scottish political bloggers. I really do not think that there are bloggers that have the influence of someone like Guido Fawkes. And I wonder why...

Scores on the doors after the Manifesto launches in the Scottish Election

2011-04-16T15:36:00.000-07:00

Scotland is now in the midst of the election of the Members of the Scottish Parliament. On May 5th the Scottish electors will go to the polls and sometime after we should know which political party will form the next Scottish Government.

The last few years has seen the first minority administration, with the Scottish National Party running the Scottish Government and having a difficult time passing their legislative programme.

Over the last week the four main political parties - Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives - have launched their election campaigns with the publication of their manifesto documents.

So how did they do?

Labour. They had a few technical problems with their launch, a fire alarm went off in the building and then a typo was spotted. In terms of the content it brought in some of the ideas presented by other organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses. They used stories of real people to illustrate the points they wanted to make.

A core message emerging from the manifesto was a commitment to tackle the problem of youth employment - making it easier for companies to employ young people, increasing number of apprentices.

Liberal Democrats. It was clear that they were keen not to be caught out with un-costed election promises. They came out with the idea of 'selling off' the debt of Scottish Water. The results from that sale would be allocated to a number of key initiatives. They face problems with their connection with the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition in London. But they have provided some interesting ideas about how they would try to help the individual

Conservatives. They were the first to launch, and so provided the benchmark that others would be judged against. But with expectations relatively low, the coverage was never going to be too critical. There is not really a story about the Conservatives doing badly, that is just taken as read. Political journalists need to look for different angles.

They received some praise for individual initiatives, and of course the Conservatives can point to some successes they have had from working with the SNP over the last few years. In return for Conservative votes the SNP has been willing to provide concessions

SNP. They took the decision to launch last. Alex Salmond, First Minister, presented the manifesto at an event mixing party activists and the media. It created a different atmosphere, something that seemed more like a conference address by the leader, rather than a press conference.

The manifesto document itself had much higher production values. Big pictures, unusual paper format, and even an interview by a SNP supporting journalist. I think that the SNP were able to point to their record in Government, and they did their best to suggest Scotland is on a journey.

Who had the best manifesto?

As a PR practitioner I am always interested in the approach taken to communication, and the manifesto document can be seen as a vehicle for communication. Maybe these documents have never been that effective as an element of mass communication, maybe they were never really read by the public. But that doesn't stop us judging their approach.

Overall I think the SNP produced the best document in terms of communication. Put aside your view of the content, it sets out the message in a way that is very clear. There is great use of signposting, and you know what they are attempting to say. They made use of their record in a compelling way, and used all of their team to set out their vision.

Labour certainly came close, there are some clear messages under a number of solid policy sections. But it was their style of document that may have let them down. Then you get lost in their long list of bullet points. I like bullet points, I may be guilty of using them too much, but I also understand they can be a weakness and look like a long shopping list.

Does style really matter? This is all about politics, so surely it is about the policies?

Well it is about ease of understanding, and accessibility to the message. Politics is not an easy subject, we are talking about the big issues facing this country. It can touch upon macro-economics, social policy and the complex interplay of so many other factors. Don't fall at the first hurdle.

Using the right style helps to get the message across. That is first part of the battle to persuade the potential voter. Make it as easy as possible for the reader.

Now if I was judging this on policy, then that is something completely different. That is the second stage of the communication process.

And of course we still haven't seen the Green Party manifesto. That is still to be published.

YouGov poll on Al Jazeera v Al Arabiya

2011-04-03T08:47:00.000-07:00

A new survey by YouGov, sponsored by public affairs agency Grayling, brings me back to a discussion about the media in the Middle East. They have published a review into viewing figures, amongst a sample, and then a question on trustworthiness.

The accompanying article suggests that this “puts Al Jazeera on top as most watched and most trusted news channel”. In particular that it is ahead of its main regional rival – Al Arabiya.

In an earlier article I took a look at the competition between these two networks, and the new intervention from a new Sky News channel.

However looking at the figures it is interesting to see that Al Jazeera is just slightly ahead of Al Arabiya by just a few points. The poll is split between two regions – Saudi Arabia and UAE – and there are some interesting differences. Some of which reflect the competition between two different channels, operating in two different regions.

In UAE it is Al Jazeera that that leads in terms of viewers with 42%, and Al Arabiya is at 28%.

In Saudi Arabia it is Al Arabiya that is ahead by 66% to 62%.

I think the second question demonstrates that there is a difference in trustworthiness, which seems to reflect the common view that Al Jazeera is more independent, and more trustworthy.

Across the combined sample group Al Jazeera is ahead by 10 points (44% v 34%) when asked about which channel was trustworthy.

On home-ground Al Jazeera is up at 38%, with Al Arabiya at 19%. Which reflects a concern that NBC, the Al Arabiya group, is more influenced by the interests of the Saudi authorities. Whilst in Saudi Arabia, they are both neck-and-neck.

The survey also showed that there were concerns about the trustworthiness of local TV channels. 25% of the sample watched their local channel, whilst just 12% said they felt that their local channel provided "trustworthy reporting".

My own experience is that this is a mix of both local politics - a tendency to support the local regime - along with the professionalism of the reporting teams. When brought together this has an impact on the levels of trust a viewer will have in the reporting of a TV channel.

Interestingly the BBC channels – both BBC World and BBC World (Arabic) – have a combined popularity of 44%, and 39% in terms of trustworthiness. I am going to be interested in how Sky News does when it starts to build its audience.

Why Scotland will be important in the AV referendum

2011-03-27T14:07:00.000-07:00

The Scottish Elections are underway, and of course the polling will take place on Thursday 5th May 2011, which is the same day as the referendum on the Alternative Vote.

The debate in Scotland has been focused on the merits of holding the two polls on the same day. A discussion about process.

But there are a couple of reasons why Scotland might be important to the referendum result.

First, the turnout in Scotland will probably be one of the highest in the UK. The Scottish Parliamentary elections should ensure a turnout of around 50%, not quite the level of a UK General Election but still higher than the English regions. And whilst people are voting for their MSPs they will take the opportunity to also have their say on the AV.

In other parts of the UK, there are a number of local election results but they tend to be lower turnouts. So they might expect something like 30-35%. A higher proportion of Scots will be going to the polls.

Second, despite the problems of the last election, and the spoilt papers, there is a general acceptance of different electoral systems in Scotland. In fact the electors of Scotland use four different systems.

In the Westminster elections they use First Past the Post. The Scottish Parliament uses an Additional Vote. Local Government in Scotland is based on Single Transferable Vote in multi-member wards. Finally, the European Parliament has a list system.

So will the Scots be willing to change one of the systems for the Alternative Vote?

I guess the Yes campaign will be very interested in whether there is a Scottish view on the AV system, possibly an acceptance of new ways of voting.

But the talk on the ground is that there is no understanding of the Referendum, or of the benefits of the two electoral systems. The people of Scotland really didn't have much of a say in the development of the systems they now use, it was part of the package of the new Parliament or the reform of local government. The legislators made the decision, not the public. And maybe that is the way it should be when it comes to technical discussions.

Anyway - it will be interesting to see whether the political figures within Scotland come out one way or another. In the absence of an understanding of the issues, it may be that electors are guided by politicians they trust.

If you are voting for a candidate to be your MSP, then you may be influenced by their suggestion in the Referendum.

The politicians may yet get to have a big influence. And if so, then it might be Scottish politicians that have a bigger influence then their colleagues across the UK.

Governor Pawlenty launched campaign - with a new video on Youtube and Facebook

2011-03-22T07:26:00.000-07:00

Tim Pawlenty has run out a number of great campaign videos. A few weeks ago I wrote about his record of coming up some great images that would be worthy of Holywood. Though I think he would be worried about all those liberals that dominate Holywood. Now he has kicked off his campaign to be President with a launch video.

Once again he has used the social media to broadcast the message.

Not as good as his earlier attempts but certainly another impressive contribution to political art.

There are probably another 5000 words that could be written about the US political narrative. The way in which certain constant threads are used by candidates, so for example Mr Pawlenty is talking about his humble background and his rise to be Governor of Minnesota.

There is a great line mid-way through. It is a line that he has used in a couple of speeches, for example I recall him using it in his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference. He talks about taking back America and focuses in on those 'values':

"Our Founding fathers created it. Americans embraced it. Ronald Reagan personified it. Lincoln stood courageously to defend it."

In communication terms that is lovely on so many levels. Linking past to future. Name-checking those that are seen as the giants by the modern Republican Party (poor old Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower). Talking of the courage to defend America, but also suggesting that Americans (or true Americans?) have embraced those values. Just good writing in my opinion.

He has set out to appeal to a number of different strands within the Republican movement - both social and fiscal conservatives. His competitors may angle one way or the other - and that is before we even think about the influence of big business within the Republican party.

And that is the interesting puzzle for the Governor. He looks like a candidate that will appeal to the mainstream - humble background, experience of being a Governor, interesting home state in terms of politics, and not too radical.

But he needs to get through an internal contest, with his future decided by the most radical of Republicans. And so he needs to think about his positioning. We will follow his campaign with interest.

What is the Cobra emergency committee? 4 things about how COBR works

2011-03-19T16:06:00.000-07:00

Another off-topic post. This time about the emergency procedures followed by the UK Government. Over the last few days the media have been talking about the Cobra committee, chaired by both David Cameron and Nick Clegg to discuss the situation in Libya.

I have an interest and some experience in emergency planning. So this is a chance to talk about the 'committee' - its benefits but also some of the risks.

A few years ago I was involved in the civil contingencies process, advising on public communication during emergencies. Of course I was a small cog in a really big machine, but it was fascinating to see how the machine worked.

I also know that is of interest to others. The Cobra committee receives attention at some of the the most critical periods - an international incident, a flu pandemic, extreme weather incidents and fuel strikes.

4 things about COBR. It is:

a complex of rooms - not a committee - which has continued to develop over the years
a process that brings together all the decision-makers in one place and allows for a response that is truly cross-government
the place where all the 'action is' - and so something that can pull people away from their teams
a time consuming process - with some people spending their day going from meeting to meeting

And it does differ somewhat from how it is portrayed in Spooks.

A mix of benefits and risks. For more of discussion then read on.

It is probably useful to say that politicians, and the media, often play up the mystique of the COBR structure. It plays into the modern public perception created by TV programmes like Spooks. However the UK is very transparent about the processes used in an emergency. Much of the information is available online. So none of this is restricted information or breaking any confidences.

There are equivalent systems in the devolved administrations, including the Scottish Government Resilience Room (SGoRR) in Edinburgh. In order to work together effectively they operate similar processes, but with the option to tweak them slightly to meet the local circumstances.

But first it is useful to make a couple of corrections on the use of phrase.

1) - First it is COBR not COBRA, and it stands for the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms. There is a story about it being Briefing Room ‘A’, so providing the A that makes it sound a little more deadly. However there are now a number of rooms used in any operation. It is now properly termed COBR, but the media continue to talk about Cobra and of course it is pronounced Cobra.

2) - Secondly, the acronym started as a description of the rooms and is now about a process. Technically there is no COBR committee, but there are a couple of different committees termed as such – in particular the Strategy Group and the Civil Contingencies Committee (CCC). The Strategy Group tends to lead in international or terrorist incidents, and the CCC deals with other emergencies.

This is not about being a pedant, because these two points are quite important. They point to some of the positives of the system, and some of the risks.

There are also links into the other rooms around London and the UK, so that others can be part of COBR. For example Scottish Ministers will engage with the UK Ministers. The levels of discussion dependent on whether the area of policy is devolved or reserved to the UK Parliament.

So in a policy area like health, for example during a pandemic, there could be four Health Ministers engaging on an equal basis to develop a joint approach. In another area such as terrorism, the key decisions might be taken by the UK Government - with complexities about who deals with the consequences (justice and community relations all being devolved).

The first points towards the growth of the facility. Over time the complex has become more complicated, and better designed for purpose with every incident.

The technology allows for the flow of so much more information into the decision-makers. The way in which the information is gathered, analysed and the passed on to the groups has improved. The standardisation of the approach allows for better decisions to be made, when the stakes really are at the their highest.

The facilities are also a little more comfortable than they were originally, and better suited for 'events' that might last for weeks. COBR seems to open up on a relatively regular basis, and I wonder whether the gadgets and the nice coffee are the real attractions.

On a more serious note, the opening up of COBR is an 'action' that can be taken by a politician. At a time when information may be in short supply, when the options are not obvious, the opening up of COBR can be seen as a decisive move. Something to announce to the media to show that you are getting a grip on the situation.

But there is a threat in those developments. The COBR complex is all about communication and co-ordination, but most of the work is carried out elsewhere.

It is in the Ministries and Departments and emergency services that the real analysis and policy work is carried out. Any major incident will involve hundreds of people in offices around the UK. But the Ministers and senior officials may not want to leave the centre, particularly if they perceive all the action to be in COBR.

COBR, and the equivalent rooms in the other nations, can become extremely busy places. Having access can be seen as a badge of importance.

But the leaders risk losing contact with their teams, or with their own co-ordination centres. They may even seek to move more of their operations to COBR. But that goes against good practice in terms of emergency management. Do not try to learn new skills, or introduce new working methods, when you are at your most pressured. And we will return to that disconnection.

Second point is that this is about the development of a process. The benefit of the COBR structure is that you have true co-ordination of all of the Government departments. The Prime Minister will tend to chair the Strategy Group, and the decisions are binding on all. There will be a Lead Government Department, but the discussion is collective.

It is also a series of meetings that feed into each other. The specialists, including the communication advisors, meet as a team. They in turn will take part in a meeting of officials, often brought together from across all of the key Government departments.

That allows an informed briefing to be placed before the politicians (Strategy Group) or the Civil Contingencies Committee. All of the information flows to the decision makers, and it should also ensure that that only the most important issues needing decision reach the "Cobra" (sic) committee.

But the process can be hard going. The senior specialist, say the key communication advisor, can find themselves going from one meeting to each other – team meeting 9am with a scan of the media and decision about the line to take, specialist meeting 10am with other communication professionals, the officials meeting at 11am and then Strategy Group at noon. He or she then gets to chat with his team again at 1pm, and the process starts again.

If you are a communication practitioner then you will know how hard it will be to follow the public communication process when you are tied into the meetings. The speed of the media, and in particular the role of the social media in emergencies, makes the task harder than ever. There is a risk that the lead communicator falls behind, and by their third consecutive meeting the information is out-of-date.

If an event happens in a devolved area then there is another set of officials based in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. They often have an even longer day, because they have their own set of meetings that in turn lead to the UK meetings. In order to improve the connections between the various teams, a number of Liaison Officers are dispatched to the relevant regions and nations.

In his book The Terrorist Hunters, Andy Hayman said that he thought that COBR was overly political and “drags people away from the serious job in hand to attend a crisis meeting.” He suggests that the complex becomes the focus, and also that the process is very very time consuming.

He may well have a point, and we need to balance that against the advantages of the joint process that allows for cross-government decision making.

News organisations going online, newspapers fall - but is journalism losing control of its future?

2011-03-14T12:16:00.000-07:00

I am a big fan of the good people at Pew. I have drawn on their information in the past to examine the progress of online activity. They are concerned with the United States, but I think this is often an indicator of how we will develop in the UK. And it was very interesting to read their state of the media report for 2010.

They have a positive story in that US news media improved in 2010, but then it would be hard not to beat 2009. It seems that most of the positive movement comes from online media organisations.

There was some bad news for newspapers, which continued to see its advertising revenues decrease by about 6%. And weekday circulation fell by 5% - which is not as bad as 2009 when it dropped by 10%.

And the US public is turning off TV news, with the overall viewer numbers falling by about 14%. It is CNN that has lost the most, losing 37%. Fox has seen its numbers fall by 10%.

But there is more of a story to be told about the US media and the rise of online news media. So read on.

The overall situation seems a little rosier, as ad revenues have increased for every media sector, apart from the poor print newspaper. With Local TV doing well, but not as well as online.

Indeed, the calculations done by the Pew Project suggest that ad revenue and audience for online news has surpassed print newspapers. Now this depends on a series of calculations, drawing evidence from different sources, but it is probably right or close enough.

It is suggested that online advertising grew 13.9% to $25.8 billion in 2010.

And they point out a very interesting consequence.

That the news industry is no longer in control of its own destiny.

They have a very good point, in that online news sites depend on others to sell their ads and to bring in revenue. That can lead to others taking a slice of the income right off the top.

It also means that information about audiences can be held by those third parties. Anyone who knows about anything about advertising, knows that audience information is power. This information is the oil required in all media sales.

Speaking of that insight the report editors say, "Increasingly that knowledge exists outside of the news companies."

And of course there are also deeper changes to the news industry happening in the background.

The Pew report suggests that seven out of the top 25 newspapers in America are now owned by hedge funds. This raises the question of what approach these new owners will bring to the business. Analysts are talking about the return that will be required by these new owners.

There may never have been a golden age when the newspaper owners always put good journalism ahead of commercial interests. But the involvement of these new owners from outside of the industry asks some serious questions about the profits that will be demanded.

One publisher, speaking privately, said he believed he had two years to turn things around before questions would be asked.

A few positives

A sliver lining is that 23% of readers said they would pay $5 a month for an online version of their local paper if the print version were to perish. So the public still has an interest in the local media.

The networks continue to invest in news gathering in big numbers. Fox is now the biggest spender, with suggestions that it would spend $686 million in 2010, and CNN spending $672. However Fox spends more on its higher profile presenters and pundits, whilst CNN still have the bigger infrastructure.

A very American issue. The controversial bailout of the Auto industry helped out advertising in 2010. 77% increase on local TV, 22% in radio and 17% in magazines. It was not just good for the car makers but also gave a boost to the media.

The recruitment of online journalists seems to even out the loss of traditional roles. There have been about 1000-1500 appointments to online news organisations over the last year, which is roughly the number of lost jobs over the same period.

So what we see from this report is the continuation of the demise of the print newspaper. They are dropping in terms of circulation and ad revenues. Though I am sure we will keep writing them off and yet they will be around for a while.

Other media sectors maybe losing audiences but they seem to still be growing in terms of ad revenues. It is the online media that is gaining audience (17%) and ad revenues (14%).

There is investment in online journalists, but it is still unclear whether the current structures are sustainable. The online success is in part controlled by third parties. The information about customers is owned by others.

Can anyone be happy with that type of risk at the heart of their commercial model?

Twitter valued at £3 billion. But how will that be delivered in reality?

2011-03-01T16:10:00.000-08:00

Is Twitter really worth £3 billion?

JP Morgan is seeking to take 10% of Twitter for a reported £280 million. And of course that means that the company would be valued at just less than £3 billion.

Not bad for an organisation that probably doesn’t make a profit. I say probably, because no one really knows the truth about Twitter.

So how does it make money? And can it turn a profit?

I am not suggesting any conspiracy but the company is a private, and it keeps its figures private.

But what we do know is that Twitter made some appointments late last year, which were focussed on exploring different ways to make money. Probably very important in delivering some funding for further development.

And they entered into some major distribution deals, particularly with Google, that opened up a whole world of tweets to the wider online community. It is unclear how much this is worth to Twitter, but it could be in order of about $25 million over a year.

Other new income streams have come from the introduction of the promoted tweets and promoted accounts. This opens up the opportunity to create simple signposts for products, services and information. And it has prompted limited reaction from the community.

The question is how do they take it further?

Media discussion has been about the development of advertising on the site. The suggestion was that there would be the possibility of some simple onscreen adverts allowing people to click-thru.

But commentators may be bringing an old-fashioned mindset to a pioneering platform.

Can they further develop the idea of the promoted tweets? Twitter chief executive Dick Costolo has suggested that 5% of Twitter users will interact with the promoted tweets.

And this is the type of click thru that “traditional” online advertisers would be extremely happy with. Though it is hard to get solid research, and of course there are so many variables, but 0.5% is a good result for online advertisers. So Twitter would suggest that we are talking about being ten times more effective.

Maybe it is better to compare with other platforms like Google AdWords and similar concepts, which can have higher return rates. And sponsored links on a search engine may be more like the promoted tweets.

But of course, if you look back at how Banner Advertising started at something very similar – about 5%. Since then it fell to about 3% in the 1990s and as mentioned, 0.5% is a good result. It may be that the promoted tweets become less attractive over time.

The media is also suggesting that JP Morgan must have more of an idea of how Twitter could generate income. There is a suggestion that people are looking at the data that can be delivered by Twitter. The amount of information that people are providing could be used for other purposes.

So?

- So there may be an opportunity to make the most of the high return rate from the promoted tweets, and pull in some nice revenues whilst it lasts. The promoted tweets may represent a very effective marketing technique.

- They could make the move to deliver on the IPO. Making money for the current shareholders. So at least someone could make a profit from the development of Twitter. (LinkedIn hopes to raise $175 million, and is the first social media platform to get to this stage).

- And then they could have the funding and the time to deliver on the next phase of advertising, whatever that may be. It may be that the amount of information provided by Twitter users will allow for the delivery of the most narrow form of marketing. That next stage may be much more like personal messages.

- But all of this depends on the continuation of Twitter as a successful social media platform. It depends on us all being as interested in the micro-blogging site, and the absence of a Twitter killer.

- They need to keep it going or they will not be able to deliver the value, and $3 billion is one heck of a valuation.

"My name is Jason Wassell and I do not approve these adverts".....but I like the creativity and artwork. Well done!

2011-03-01T10:07:00.000-08:00

Another trip into US politics, and this time we are going to look at some great political advertising by one of the many, many Republican candidates.....

One of the issues that is starting to worry the conservatives within the Republican party is the lack of a clear front runner for 2012. They really need a name for President in 2012, by this time last time McCain was ready to go. Of course there are some potential candidates that are concerned about going up against President Obama, if only because of the difficulty of taking on any incumbent.

In this article I wanted to make mention one of some of the great imagery being used by one of the Republican candidates as they make their play for the place on the ticket. In particular my attention was drawn to some of the high quality political advertising of Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota. It really is the type of advert that is probably best viewed on the big screen. And by big screen I do mean a cinema screen.

If you want to read more about the Governor and hear about his new video then please read on.

He launched "Courage to Stand, which is a book and this promotional advert, earlier this year. It is high quality advert playing to the big themes of America, and he gained some mainstream coverage around the buzz.

It demonstrates the merging of politics and the elements of a big budget movie. Online there have been many comments about the advert, the use of camera flare and that it was directed in a very similar style to the successful 'Transformers' movies.

It was on the Make the Logo Bigger blog that they pointed out one youtube comment suggesting a new tag line.

“Tim Pawlenty/Michael Bay 2012. Government assistance for the few, lens flares for everyone.”

Whilst his rival Sarah Palin found herself in trouble with the mention of "blood libel", it is interesting to see this cinematic venture by Pawlenty. And remember that Pawlenty was one of the other potentials that McCain was considering as his Vice Presidential candidate.

There are good political reasons why the Midwest region is important in a Presidential election campaign, why he might have been a useful addition to McCain's team but also why he could be a contender for the Republicans.

The Northeast and West Coast of the US are now firmly in the Democratic camp. Whilst the Republicans continue to develop in the South and West.

States like Indiana and Ohio are battlefields where the statistics suggest it is close. And it is not clear what a local candidate might mean for Minnesota, and shore up some neighbouring Republican states.

And with a reasonable showing at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, he is seeking to make more progress with the fiscal conservatives within the Tea Party movement. This is a real appeal to the Republican base support - both social and fiscal conservatives.

A new video that has just been produced over the last couple of days in which Pawlenty pays tribute to the Tea Party, one of the most important factions to develop within the Republican Party.

Once again an emotive appeal. Appealing to the Republican base support, and building on already strong foundations.

I applaud the effort, and the great camera work, though I may not agree with the political sentiment.....

The third faction he needs is big business. So there may well be "Pawlenty the businessman" being produced.

There is no clear front runner and the Primary election season could be brutal for the Republicans. But hopefully we will get more of this great movie direction and the high production values we have come to expect of Holywood.

Trade Unions are out of date? Is the brand a bit tired? Not really, the trade union ideals are needed more than ever. And it is all very Big Society

2011-02-17T15:39:00.000-08:00

Over at PR Moment.com they understand that to spark debate you need to throw out the odd controversial statement. And they touched a nerve when Bell Pottinger Chairman – David Wilson – decided to have a go at the trade unions.

It is the usual stuff, about the trade unions being out of date. How they should really update and avoid industrial disputes because that damages the brand. Well, you can go over and read it for yourself.

I am happy to drive traffic to this interesting PR site. And I wonder if Mr Wilson is less worried about the damage to the reputation of trade unions, but the impact on the commercial clients of Bell Pottinger.

Mr Wilson starts by suggesting that the trade union ethos is outdated. And yet the idea of individuals coming together to have a little bit more control over their life; building a voluntary organisation so that they can be better represented; workers trying to have more of a role in their workplace; making regular financial contributions so that their members can have access to services - that all sounds a bit like the Big Society. I thought that was all the rage...

It all feels a bit counter intuitive, as the Conservatives seem to be pushing the ideas of co-operatives, mutual financial organisations, community ownership, fighting the forces of commercialism to protect local assets. Oh my. That all sounds a bit like socialism.

He also focuses in on the industrial disputes, as if it were the only activity of trade unions. You could argue that stories about trade union activism are, for many, the only communication from trade unions.

But Mr Wilson talks about the importance of the brand, and of course our view of a brand is going to be most influenced by personal experience. Anyone involved in brand strategy knows that personal contact is the most powerful of factors

And it is that personal experience, and I suspect the experience of many others, that has shaped my view of the trade union brand. On a daily basis trade unions are involved in supporting their members in discussions with employers, supporting them in local discussions about changes to conditions and helping to find legal remedy when employers step over the mark.

There continue to be a small number of industrial disputes compared to the constructive discussions, and it seems to have some success. The report he refers to as his source for the membership levels tells us that about one in three employees had their pay affected by collective agreements.

The research showing that trade union members earned on average 15.3% more than the earning of non-members.

Mr Wilson is right that every organisation needs to modernise.

There is a need to Trade Unions to develop their communication. They need to get better at presenting the positives. But most communicators will recognise that trade unions work in a highly politicised environment where there are people that want to damage them for their own ends.

The research also shows that the public are turning away from the UK Govt plans. 28% believe we are heading in the right direction according to ComRes. 55% think that they are cutting to deep and too quickly. The Unions may well become a vehicle to deliver that message.

Bell Pottinger has done a lot to engage on the Big Society idea. I am sure it is a good/useful/profitable theme to bring together their clients and the Government. It would be good to see them being consistent, and getting behind the idea of individuals coming together, seeking to work together to take more control over their own lives, creating a big society.

But I understand that Mr Wilson is sparking a debate, throwing out a controversial comment. Good on him!

Just as long he doesn't truly believe what was written in his name.

Sky News to launch in the Middle East - why Murdoch is interested in the region

2011-02-14T14:32:00.000-08:00

The news that BSkyB is about the launch a new Arabic-language station, and has made its first senior appointment, is an interesting note. And it draws us back to the Middle East just as the mainstream media turns away from the developments in Egypt.

There is a commitment to develop offices across the region, and to operate under the Sky News brand. It will be a "24-hour channel offering rolling news and current affairs programming, as well as a video-rich website and mobile applications."

So to keep the blog varied, I am going to talk a little about media in the Middle East. Looks like I will need a new tag….

I confess that media in that area is of personal interest. I was once involved in a project was looking at engaging the public within Jordan, and that led me to undertake a crash course in the media market. However, even in the last few years the situation has changed dramatically - and the involvement of BSkyB is another interesting development.

And talking of media changes, I wonder how many of us have book marked Al-Jazeera English over the last few weeks and used them as source of direct information about Egypt?

What is happening in the media world of the Middle East? How are stations like Al-Jazeera developing? Why is Murdoch’s BSkyB taking a dip in the waters?

So back to our latest experience with Al-Jazeera. It is a station that has attracted controversy. And of course there are numerous conspiracy theories about the Al-Jazeera, in particular about its political agenda.

But what is certain is that Al-Jazeera has carved a position, often in opposition to the official policy positions of Middle Eastern governments. This is in stark contrast to the State TV stations that are often controlled through state censorship.

The comparison between Al-Jazeera and Nile TV (Egyptian state TV) was stark. Shahira Amin resigned as deputy head of Nile TV when the censorship of the protest movement became too much for her.

As we have seen in Egypt, the position taken by Al-Jazeera has not always matched the policy position of the international community. Up until recently, it was clear that Mubarak was seen by the US as a stalwart ally and a partner in peace. There continues to be concern that the removal of the regime will lead to instability, and the possibility of more influence by those that might be anti-American.

For many in the US, the Al-Jazeera channel is best known for broadcasting information from Al Qaeda. In recent panel discussion on the US Fox network, the pundit Bill O’Reilly showed is disdain for the channel. During the developments in Egypt the US media had problems with how they would handle the Al-Jazeera network. Nowhere was that more apparent than on Murdoch's Fox network, which had to balance its commitment with democracy alongside the fear that the US would be damaged by the election of Islamist political parties.

For many it is difficult to separate some of the complexities of Arab politics. The uniformity of Arab opinion on the question of Palestine poses a problem for many US broadcasters who see this as hostility towards Israel - and of course US interests in the Middle East which are so closely aligned to Israel.

Whilst at the same time Al Jazeera have also been criticised as “collaborator with the Crusaders” by the pro-Al Qaeda groups. Whilst they may be willing to give coverage to the anti-government forces, that does not mean that they are supportive of the Al Qaeda objectives in creating a new Islamic Caliphate.

But there are other political forces at play in the Middle East. And we have watched the development of competition in the region from other local interests. Probably the most successful is Al Arabiya (The Arabic One), which is part owned by Saudi broadcasters.

It was Al Arabiya that President Obama chose to broadcast his first televised interview, when he appealed for a new relationship with Muslim communities. The political analysts see Al Arabiya as a more moderate alternative, providing less coverage to the campaigning elements in the Arab world.

And it may be having an interesting impact, in that some analysts would go as far as suggesting that Al-Jazeera has tempered its coverage in order to keep its more moderate viewers.

But is it all about politics? From our perspective it is so simple to boil this down to a battle between two news agendas. We see the Middle East in terms of its political implications, the possible impact on our own security, and forget that there is rich culture that continues to develop.

It is too easy to link those agendas to a political view. But Al-Jazeera and the Al Arabiya are not just news networks. They are also cultural players in the Middle East.

The Al-Jazeera network has over twenty channels, a mix of free and paid. It has taken a leaf out of the Murdoch approach and has offered football as the incentive for subscriptions. They bought the rights to the World Cup, and the African Cup of Nations. In 2009 it had 1 million subscribers, and it wants to boost that by 3 million over the next two years.

Whilst the parent of Al Arabiya - MBC - is the dominant group within the Gulf States. It has everything from Arabic talk shows to game shows; it imports US drama like Prison Break and Vampire Diaries; and has children's entertainment channel.

Why is the Middle East so important?

Of course there are the political and economic interests. And we are often tempted to look at Murdoch's move in terms of a political agenda.

But there are a number of reasons why TV in the Middle East is exciting. Not least that this would be a base for Sky News, closer to the issues and less reliant on local media outlets. And in a region that will continue to be important, there is considerable value.

There is a tradition of free-to-air TV channels, mostly satellite, and it is estimated that there are about 600 in the region. Those satellite broadcasters have a majority of the viewing audience (about 53%) over the terrestrial channels.

The emphasis on satellite means that channels are not just limited to national borders. There are opportunities to work across sub-regions, and develop regional identities for the network.

And there is money to be made. At the moment advertising revenues in the region are the lowest across the world. Whilst ad spend per person in North America is about $462, it is about $273 in Western Europe - but just $22 in the region. As GDP grows there will be opportunities to develop the advertising business. So some of the smartest people are looking at how they can tackle some of the cultural barriers.

There is also potential to bring together traditional TV platforms with the social media. It is a "young region", with about 55% of the population under the age of 25.

This is community that is grabbing social media with both hands. There are local platforms like Jeeran, originally a hosting platform it now includes an Arabic blogging platform. In a regional context it is a success, with 25 million page views a month and 1.5 million registered users.

And Magazines like Majalla have moved online, and make use of the modern mobile platforms.

There is also an important footnote to Mr Murdoch's venture, in that he is going into partnership with ADMIC, which is a private investment firm owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan. That may allow a softer landing in the region. It should open a number of doors that might be closed to BSkyB, but it is not without some complexity (but not for discussion today).

So?

Of course we would expect a news channel in the Murdoch stable to take his political stance, and for that to drive its coverage. That should be taken as read. Creation of a new news network may provide another narrative for the Middle East, set against Al-Jazeera and other broadcasters like Al Arabiya.

But another station in the Middle East provides another base for Sky News. That base also allows for coverage from a developing region, one that is politically and economically important. And we know how inter-connected the world has become. Tremors in the region can be felt right around the globe. Having 'their people' on the ground and able to provide first hand journalism fills a gap.

And the Middle East is an exciting place for the media, it has a growing audience, plenty of commercial potential, and stations with satellite reach across many countries. Overall there is the potential for further development, and for some broadcasters to carve out a new position in the region.

There are certainly commercial, journalistic and political reasons to be in the region.

PS. As an aside the print industry in the Middle East also seems to be on the up. The Editor and Publisher International Yearbook shows that from Morocco to Jordan the number of newspaper titles has risen from 144 in 2003 to 189 in 2009. With daily circulation rising from about 10 million to 12 million copies. And with literacy levels currently ranging from 50%-100% across the region, there is potential for a new generation of readers as educational standards rise.

Cautionary tale about trying to use the social media to sell things - oh and getting involved in international politics to do it

2011-02-03T14:38:00.000-08:00

Over to a story about social media, and a modern tale about the risks of dabbling with the social media and trying to use it for marketing objectives. Well in reality it is more about the problems of trying to tap into a wave of discussion. You need to think about how and when you are going to engage. And it is not always clever to grab onto the trending subject. That might be just like grabbing the tiger's tale......

The US retailer Kenneth Cole had obviously been following the twitter traffic that was being created by events in Egypt. Positioned as a twitter account written by the Kenneth himself, they went too far when they tried to link the launch of their new Spring Collection and the turmoil in Cairo.

It was not long before the Tweets of condemnation were flowing. People were quick to spot that this was not the best link between commerce and a hot political issue.

And we have our next case study for those interested in the development of social media. The development of a fake twitter account seems to be the normal reaction.

To find out a little more the please feel free to read on.

Because it took another step when a fake Twitter account was created as @KennethColePR and has then spent the time sending out parody tweets. They are a bit too close to the bone to publish on this blog. Some of them are edgy and could be funny. Some of them are just very cruel. But it makes its point perfectly.

But did Kenneth Cole react quickly enough and prevent brand damage?

The tweet came down and Mr Cole was out quickly with an apology, which he delivered on Facebook,

I apologize to everyone who was offended by my insensitive tweet about the situation in Egypt. I’ve dedicated my life to raising awareness about serious social issues, and in hindsight my attempt at humor regarding a nation liberating themselves against oppression was poorly timed and absolutely inappropriate.

Kenneth Cole, Chairman and Chief Creative Officer.

And Business Insider reports that Kenneth Cole was not immediately damaged, and they actually saw a slight rise in its share price (up 2.4%) at the end of day that they would probably want to forget. The rest of the market was pretty much flat. So the corporate world doesn't seem to be concerned.

It is the consumer reaction that could be more complicated.

The fake twitter account is funny for a day or two. It should run out of energy soon enough.

But will it leave lasting damage? Well someone who understands their business model would be able to the do the analysis.

One of the key questions will be whether those involved and influenced by Twitter. And my limited information about Kenneth Cole is that it targets the fashion conscious 20-30 year old Americans. So they are on the social media platforms, but I wonder whether they are less likely to be on Twitter - and may not be too worried about a political controversy.

And with nearly all of their business in the US, they do not need to worry about the international reaction.

So before we write this up as our case study, we need to track the impact on Kenneth Cole - and possibly check back in the next nine to twelve months.

Public swinging towards idea of further regulation for the media?

2011-02-02T03:52:00.000-08:00

Have the media left the last chance saloon?

The recent research carried out by ComRes for the Independent provided us with some interesting insights into voting intentions (to be covered in another article), but it also touched upon the public reaction to the Coulson controversy and perception of the media.

Some of the other questions grabbed the headlines - for example, 'phone hacking is unacceptable' and the 'Coulson appointment showed poor judgement by the Prime Minister'. I think those are both pretty self-evident. Though interesting to see that 61% of Conservatives also felt it was bad judgement.

However I was also interested in the question on media self-regulation, and the results showed that 67% of the public seemed to be in favour of some new regulation for newspapers.

The statement put before the public was, "The allegations about telephone hacking show that the newspaper industry should no longer be allowed to regulate itself."

As mentioned earlier, 67% agreed with that statement, whilst 24% disagreed.

Both Labour and Conservative voters were equally in favour (69%), whilst the Liberal Democrats were even more supportive of action, with three quarters of them (75%) agreeing with the statement.

The ten BNP supporters that took part in the poll were actually pretty split on further regulation. Possibly because they are torn between their concern about liberal media bias, against the impact of regulation and control of the media by the political elite.

The Scots seemed to be willing to agree with regulation (71%) than those living in the South East (60%).

Now we have seen public question self-regulation in the past, and it has come to nothing.

The media were famously warned that they were drinking in the last chance saloon, and nothing really changed. And though it is useful to understand where public opinion sits on self-regulation, that will not necessarily translate into campaigning activity.

I think if the phone hacking story drifts away, then public interest will do likewise. However, there are hints of more revelations to come and that might keep the story alive.

And if a champion emerges for media regulation, then they might be able to tap into that public opinion.

22% of online US adults engaged with politics through social media during 2010

2011-01-30T11:01:00.000-08:00

Republicans and Democrats are neck and neck amongst social media users….

Readers of this blog will know that I have a long-standing interest in US politics, and that I am also interested in how the experience from their campaigns influences the UK.

But wider than that, modern social media platforms may open new ways for the public to engage in policy issues. New ways to understand public policy and also play a part in the development of policy.

The good people at Pew Internet have carried out research into the role that social media plays in elections, the different ways in which people use social networks to engage with campaigns and also support candidates.

Republicans and Democrats

The followers of US politics will know that we have seen a bruising set of Mid-Term elections, with the Republicans making gains on the Democrats.

The research shows that it is not just in the ballot box that the Republicans have made progress. The social media environment, once a hostile place for them is now a lot more appealing.

And amongst the social media users they can boast a slight lead over the Democrats (45% vs. 41%).

Which is good news for them, as the social networking sites - and micro blogging site Twitter - are now part of the mainstream political campaigns.

The study showed that three quarters of the US adult population are online, with 61% of those using social networking sites. Amongst these social media users 35% engaged in political activity, which translates to about 21% of online US adults.

14% of social networking site users (9% of all internet users) found out more about a political candidate.
13% of social networking site users (8% of all internet users) posted content related to the campaign.
11% of social networking site users (7% of all internet users) signed up as a ‘friend’ to candidate or group during 2010.

Information from Tweetbeat is that there were 100,000 tweets about the State of the Union whilst the President was speaking. This is a demonstration of the ongoing engagement through Twitter.

But their success may be less about their persuasion and just as much about he expansion of social networking. The addition of older users, who are traditionally more likely to vote Republican, may be helping the more conservative political forces. The Republicans, who oppose being profiled as the party for older people. So they would suggest that as social networks become part of the mainstream, online opinion better reflects the mainstream US public.

Social media is as much about building relationships, and the development of communities.

In the survey the participants were asked why they would “friend” a candidate or group on a social network. Personal connection between the candidate and the social media user was the major reason for 36%, whilst another 35% said it was a minor reason.

I believe that social media could provide some new ways to engage with policy and politics.

And early analysis has suggested that there is a difference in strategy between the two main political parties.

The Republicans have been using the social media tools to listen to communities and crowd-source for ideas. They have also used the platforms to build communities, and use them for narrowcasting. Which fits in with their supporters concern that the media that has a liberal bias. Youtube has provided an opportunity to develop a range of Republican and Tea Party TV channels.

Whilst the Democrats have used the social media platforms more as a tool for organising their campaigners. They use it to carry out local canvassing, to communicate messages to their campaigners and create opportunities for face-to-face discussions.

The Republicans are playing to the engagement strengths of the social media in that they are listening and creating a community discussion. Whilst the Democrats are gaining the organisational benefits of technology. However I wonder whether the Republicans will find it difficult, down the line, to manage individuals with personal brands and great communication capabilities.

But this is only the beginning, there is further development on the way...

For the public it will provide more opportunities to find out about the candidates, elected politicians and policies. It could be a way in which individuals can really take part in public debate, and also feel that they are contributing to policy development.

For political parties and campaigns, there is the chance to build new sustainable communities of supporters. Rather than party branch meetings once a month, there are more ways to keep supporters informed, and in turn drive campaigning activity.

For more of the figures, some questions and political geekiness then please read on.

How many social media users engaged with the 2010 campaigns online?

The Pew Internet research suggests that 21% of US online adults used Facebook or MySpace to connect with the election campaign, with about 2% using Twitter. When all the figures are added together, and rounded down, that provides our headline figure of 22% of adult online users engaging with politics through social media platforms.

Are they a different voter group? Are they normal social media users? Who are these people?

The political social media users have a couple of differences to the wider social media population. They are more likely to use different forms of technology, so for example they are much more likely to be surfing wirelessly from a mobile phone or laptop (91% vs. 67%).

But more interestingly they are younger than the wider social media audience. Over two in five (42%) are under the age of 30, whilst 22% of the wider social media audience are under 30. They are more likely to have a college degree (41% v 34%), but apart from they are just a younger version of the larger social media audience.

If age is a distinguishing factor, that means that political engagement online will be important for contacting future voters.

Social media as the way into the campaigns and politics

I think we need to be interested in what social media is used for during the political campaigns. In the past I have set out the ways in which social media could play a part in the political process.

Find out more about candidates or policies
Provide or demonstrate support
Engage with the political dialogue.

The research shows that social media users are online and active across all these areas.

14% of social networking site users (9% of all internet users) found out more about a political candidate. 13% of social networking site users (8% of all internet users) posted content related to the campaign. 11% of social networking site users (7% of all internet users) signed up as a ‘friend’ to candidate or group during 2010.

Traditionally campaigns might be based on a type of pyramid of engagement, firstly you raise awareness and hope to connect with a relatively large number of voters. All about awareness and education. Then a smaller proportion will engage with the political debate, asking questions or commenting and that an equally small number will sign up as campaign supporters or seek to join a political party.

The fact that 71% agreed (to more or lesser degree) that they would friend or like a candidate because it creates a personal connection, shows that this is an opportunity to create more personal connections.

Parties closer than ever in social media space

The survey of the political opinions of social media users show that the two main political parties are now much closer than they were back in the 2008 Presidential elections.

Research carried out at the time, suggested that Obama in 2008 had a 15 point lead over McCain amongst social media users. Now the Republicans are marginally ahead of the Democrats at 45% vs. 41% amongst social users.

The political analysts would suggest that this is probably less about winning the argument online but more about the expansion of the social networking population to include groups that traditionally vote Republican (e.g. older voters).

The Democrats are still slightly more likely to use social networking sites at 58%, whilst 54% of Republicans are using the sites.

The Pew researchers suggest that about 28% of US Twitter users were using the micro blogging platform to follow or engage with the political campaign.

But are diverging on strategy

There was some useful analysis on Mashable in the Autumn of 2010 when they provided a great article from Geoff Livingston,

"It’s arguable that both parties are executing well on their strategies. Of the two, the Republican party’s efforts — focusing on the core through crowdsourcing and listening efforts, and then empowering the core to push out on a national and local level — are most likely to create groundswells of activity across the web. It’s a populist approach that can make local bloggers into national party voices, and creates encouragement across the entire country for local races.

Generally, the Democrats are fascinated with the local, but are not encouraging a national community, leaving that to the primary Obama social media accounts. Perhaps that is fitting for an election that is all about local congressional representatives and not the president. However, the larger Barack Obama accounts are being used in a messaging-focused approach that is less likely to make local Democrats feel empowered to talk about their issues and be featured by the party as individual leaders on social media sites."

And now with the gift of hindsight we can see that the Republicans seemed to have won this battle. But there may be longer term consequences for both parties.

The Democrats pulled back from national activity and focused on the local during the 2010 election. At a time when their national brand was at a low point it made sense to make the battle local. If Obama can rebuild his image then they may want to reactivate the "Obama accounts" and stimulate more dialogue.

Whilst the Republicans have taken a different route and created a number of local advocates who are developing their own brand, and building up their capability to communicate.

But what they may come to regret, is the lack of control they have over the messages being communicated by the local advocates. There are some very radical elements to be found in both parties but the Republicans have given theirs a loud-hailer.

The growth of the Tea Party faction is in part due to the development of a community within the Republicans. It will be interesting to see how they engage the mainstream...

Political communication - once again all about the media, forget wider communication

2011-01-27T10:37:00.000-08:00

This is based on an earlier posting when Labour appointed an ex-Times correspondent as Head of Communication. Now the media has a new favourite game as they place bets on who will replace Andy Coulson.

Andy Coulson in Downing Street

Of course the journalists looked to their own number for candidates, either journalists or ex-journalists.

But to accept that a head of communications may not be obsessed by media coverage would damage their own position. It would seem to accept that the political pages are no longer as influential.

But the focus on journalists narrows down the options for recruitment and ignores vast swathes of public relations practitioners with experience in corporate communications or those that are focused on engaging the consumer on a daily basis.

The selection of a journalist as spin doctor in chief tell us just as much about the nature of political communications. It explains why the focus is so much on media relations.

It ignores the fundamental problems of fighting to get your message out through the media. And it fails to recognise that communication is changing.

The politician has so many new tools at their disposal.

I think there is a time for change, and this article goes on to cover some of my views.

Westminster and the Media

Westminster is clearly a strange and often distant world. It can seem quite surreal, trivial things can seem very important and it becomes hard to know what is happening in the real world.

The political pages reflect this. And the newspaper headlines become a scorecard for the political parties. They will assess their success by the number of positive stories that appear in the papers.

A week is a long time in politics, and every day you battle to control the media agenda.

From a communication perspective it is disappointing.

How many people are actually reading the political sections of the newspapers? And as a communicator, how much can you truly communicate through the prism of political journalism?

Because we ignoring some of the fundamentals of political reporting.

There are some great big obstacles that you need to understand:

This is trench warfare. Like a battle in the Great War, the daily reporting is a series of advances followed by a push back.

A success in spinning a political story may be the gain of twenty yards, but a response over the weekend by your opposite number may see you having to retreat fifteen yards. The news cycle is always turning and moving.

It is not a grand debate. There is sometimes a belief in politics that this is a competition to win the argument. But in a world of partisan newspapers and journalists that is just not true.

There are spin doctors on all sides of the story - the newspaper correspondent is just as likely to distort the story to meet their political agenda. You are never going to make a killer argument that will win everyone over to your side. The reality is that they adopt political positions because it is expected of them by an owner or by their established readership.

New tools for communication?

The communication world is changing, and that will impact on politics as it does on every other element. The idea of narrow-casting is just as relevant to political communication. Once again there are number of trends emerging:

Politicians are becoming their own publishers. The suggestion that every company is now a media company is just as relevant to politicians. A Member of Parliament can develop their broadcast capability quite easily with some very simple tools - using wordpress to deliver content management, twitter to signpost their messages, and a myriad of packages to deliver their images.

Politics can become truly local. It is not just about the publication of information. Every office, anyone with a personal computer, has the opportunity to monitor, capture and manipulate information like never before. Every contact with a politician can provide useful insights, and be used in future communication, creating true dialogue.

And this is where the communication practitioner starts to come to the fore. With a bit of creativity, they can deliver additional information that will allow the politician to understand their audience, and to better understand the policy issues that are important to them.

Of course it already happens to a certain extent. Voters are grouped together by demographics during the election campaigns. This will be done to tailor some of the election material. Young families, in a neighbourhood of young families, will receive a tailored leaflet on the importance of supporting young families. Maybe something about the importance of school funding. All because of their postcode and some of the Mosaic data that everyone uses.

Politicians have always adopted and developed campaigns to identify potential supporters, as well as raise their public profile. For example they may fight to save the school or campaign to introduce new speed restrictions.

But the tools are now available to take this to another level.

Make communication more personal

The ability is there to engage with more people through the channels that they are comfortable with.

The website can be supplemented by Facebook and Twitter. Online polls can be used to gauge opinion, whilst e-petitions can gather in valuable information about the hot button policies.

On average I think the Scottish constituencies have about 65,000 electors. If you actually start by paying attention to those with a history of voting, then you are reducing that target group down quite considerably to about 40,000 people (being optimistic about voter turnout!).

There are ways in which we can start to slice that up into very manageable numbers. And gradually you can also bring in those that would vote if you can give them a good enough reason.

The last election showed us how social media can play a part in campaigns.

Yes of course it was the TV debates that dominated the General Election, old technology still has its place. But we saw thousands online, tweeting and taking part in the debate.

So where does my post lead us?

In the past your information about politicians might flow from the national media, from those politics pages we talked about earlier. But contact in the future should become more personal. There is an opportunity for communication from politicians to be better targeted, and the messages more appropriate.

With the expansion of the media, including the social media, there may also be additional points of contact. There will be more ways for the voter and politician to engage.

And that is before we even touch upon the new communities that are developing online. Those with political interests, or hobbies and past-times are taking their interests online. They are developing new communities, and it will be important to politicians to understand how they engage with those communities.

It will be interesting to see how the communication teams of the political parties develop over time.

Understanding the traditional media will always be important but it will be just as important to bring the broader strategic skills in order to segment the audience, develop persuasive messages and choose the best channels of communication.

The ability to write a newspaper report of a House of Commons Debate may not be the only qualification required to advise a political party on engaging the nation.

Roberts Burns, self awareness and public relations

2011-01-25T06:09:00.000-08:00

Every year the Scots mark the birth of Robert Burns - the national poet - on the 25th January.

He was a farmer, a poet, a tax collector and a celebrated freemason. And Burns has gone on to become a symbol for some many different philosophies from liberalism to socialism, and the romantic movement.

But Burns in his wisdom was clear when he tolds us that one of the most important gifts we could have would be to "see ourselves as other see us". This line comes from his poem To a Louse, and the full verse explains why this is such an important attribute,

"O would some Power the gift to give us

To see ourselves as others see us!

It would from many a blunder free us,

And foolish notion:

What airs in dress and gait would leave us.

And even devotion!"

It is this self-awareness that is vital in modern public relations. Understanding your organisation is key to successful communication, but can also be vital when developing wider strategy.

This is particularly important in crisis situations where I believe that important decisions need to be taken with a full understanding of the environment within which you are operating. A key factor has to be how you are perceived by others.

There are probably many organisations that could remove some 'airs' and benefit in terms of public perception. This is particularly important as organisations recognise the connections that bind them with their stakeholders. Very few organisations can stand alone, and even fewer can survive a crisis alone.

Good communication should always starts from a position of self-awareness. It is so important that you understand how you are perceieved by others, to identify those you must engage and shape a message that is most appropriate. Without that sound base you are doomed to fail. And there is a possibility that you give yourself "airs in dress and gait" that you certainly do not deserve and will only bring trouble.

To find out more about Burns then visit his interactive page here.

For more musings about Burns, PR and Crisis communication……

When I was asked to write a paper as part of my application to become a Chartered PR Practitioner I wanted to look at the role that practitioners could play in decision making at the top-table.

I was not as interested in the technical skills that good communicators can bring when tackling emergencies or crisis situations. That path takes you in a certain direction, where the PR team is wheeled in to develop a communication plan once the strategic decisions have been taken. It is one-way and it is all about telling the public about what has been decided.

But I was keen to tap into my experience of working with some PR practitioners who have been at the heart of tackling crisis and have been involved in making the decisions.

And there are a number of reasons why they can be so effective in shaping a solution.

They often bring a different approach, at a time when abstract thinking can beat experience.

They have access to different channels of information when the traditional processes break down, or the usual channels are just too slow.

They can spot the connections and inter-relations that become so important when a crisis threatens to get away from you.

The good communicator also brings self-awareness to the top table.

There is another essay to be written on the importance of credibility, but every communicator understands that it is a vital factor in effective communication. We can go back to Aristotle for an definition, but it is the modern PR team that seeks to manage credibility.

The best of practitioners are self-aware, always being truthful to themselves about how their organisation is perceived by others. They track credibility on a day-to-day basis.

In my paper I said that this made practitioners vital in an emergency. They know what can be confidently asked of others, be that a call for action from the public, or an appeal for support from a stakeholder.

The PR practitioner understands the environment, and ensures that decisions are not taken in a vacuum. What use is there in calling an evacuation if the public have lost confidence in your advice and will stay in their homes? Or how can you make a decision to opt for a collaborative working when you do not fully understand your partner?

My paper focussed on dealing with certain types of emergencies, but that self-awareness should really provide us all with the opportunity to avoid some blunders. It really is a call for everyone in public relations to be as truthful as they can be to their employers, but at least to be truthful to themselves and not get carried away by an untrue self-image.

How many problems are due to bad communication, and how many are more fundamental in that they do not recognise the way they are perceived?

In some ways it is about removing an arrogance that some organisations may have, and recognising the relationships that every organisation has to enter if they are seeking success. The CEO of Edelman, Richard Edelman talks about the change in the "trust architecture" in which he sets out the need to look for a sharing of values with the public, more transparency and communication at all levels of the organisation.

So much of our success as communicators, starts with self-awareness. To be the best we always need to see ourselves as others see us.

A lack of civility in parliamentary committees at Westminster and Holyrood

2011-01-11T13:48:00.000-08:00

In a week that "civility" has become a topic for debate in politics, we saw two fascinating sessions at Westminster and Holyrood where politicians were far from civil to those invited to provide evidence.

This morning the new Chief Executive of Barclays bank offered to provide evidence before the Treasury Select Committee who have been considering competition in the banking sector. Bob Diamond took on a difficult task in defending the banking industry just ten days into his new job.

Labour MP John Mann took the opportunity to run through some history of the Barclays Bank, including their involvement in supporting Apartheid in South Africa. There were times at which the questions were at the very edge.

When Mr Diamond was trying to explain how he had made his way up from humble backgrounds, and that he recognised his good fortune, he was interrupted by committee members who wanted him to get to the point and avoid the emotional appeal of his life history.

"This is very nice, but it's not getting to the point. I've got tears pouring down my cheeks... I can hear the bloody bagpipes going." - David Mudie MP for Leeds East

Whilst every one took the opportunity to take a shot at the issue of bankers bonuses. It became very clear that the Chief Executive felt that the levels of bonus were a matter for the Board, and really not for others to question. He was not going to be moved, just as the politicians were not being moved by his family history.

The committee chairman, Andrew Tyrie, pushed for a better understanding of how the chief officials were held to account by the shareholders. And suggested that the shareholders must be "half asleep" when he heard that they had never asked for information about bonuses.

Mr Diamond was asked whether he would refuse a bonus, and he managed to deflect the questioning.

And Chukka Umunna landed a couple of good punches on whether Barclays was involved in tax evasion/avoidance. It became one of those interesting debates over semantics and definitions.

But Bob Diamond stood up to the questioning, and the insults, coming out of the two hour grilling without too many wounds. He also made clear that he now felt that it was time for banks for end the period of apology and remorse. That is not going to go down well with some the Members of Parliament. However he also made clear his view that banks should be allowed to fail.

And then in the afternoon it was the turn of two academics to find themselves in a political battle in Edinburgh. Our next two contenders were:

- Professor Drew Scott, Professor of European Union Studies, University of Edinburgh;

- Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, George Mason University.

The two Professors found themselves as the heart of the political discussion about the constitutional future of Scotland, always the hottest issue in Scottish politics. Yet the witnesses had expected a tighter discussion on the draft Scotland Bill which is expected to lead to further devolution of some additional fiscal powers.

But the Scottish Government had earlier released some information quoting the two academics in support of the argument for full fiscal autonomy for Scotland - and of course full independence. This stirred up the members of the committee, and Ms Alexander took the opportunity to start pulling apart the academic findings.

At one point it seemed as if the witnesses were preparing to get up and walk out on the committee, as they kept pressing to return to the Scotland Bill but the MSPs wanted to take their best shot. Because the discussion on the Scotland Bill has become the vehicle for a debate about the future of Scotland, with further devolved powers or full independence now the two options being considered.

And like a couple of soldiers in the Great War, the Scottish Ministers had positioned them both at the very heart of the battlefield. It wasn't clear whether they wanted "to go over the top" but there was a good degree of shelling.

No prisoners were taken by Ms Alexander, who had obviously spent her time cross-referencing the academic materials. But the two professors where expecting a discussion about the Bill and not a review of their research.

And just when it seemed that they would get a rest, the questioning was passed on to David McLetchie MSP. He kept up the pressure.

It was left to the SNP members of the committee to defend the witnesses.

Mr Brian Adam MSP, said that the committee had treated them "shabbily". He went on to say that he was "ashamed" to be a member of the committee following the treatment given to the two academics.

Over time the committee moved away from the wider questions and there was an interesting discussion.

Two interesting examples of the modern political blood sport - attending a parliamentary committee. You can forget the cutting jibe of the set piece political debate, it is the committee chamber where we see the harshest and sometimes the most unparliamentary of actions.

Very modern version of the transfer of power - Pelosi drops 'Speaker' from her twitter account

2011-01-05T09:15:00.000-08:00

We know that political power has been transferred from the Democrats to the Republicans with the news that Nancy Pelosi has dropped 'Speaker' from her twitter user name. Following the defeat of many Democrats in the election, she officially lost her title on Monday as the new Congress started to take over in Washington DC.

A day later the transfer of social media power was made, when she became @NancyPelosi and no longer @SpeakerPelosi.

The mantle had been truly passed and when we saw @SpeakerBoehner appear on twitter a little time later (pictured right).

Traditionally the gavel is the symbol of power, in the future it may be the Facebook page and the twitter user name that comes to represent real power.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/05/nancy-pelosi-changes-twitter-name-loses-speaker/

Political communication - will it continue to be all about the media?

2010-12-14T09:34:00.000-08:00

And so we hear the news that the re-organisation of the Labour Party communication team will result in the appointment of a ex-Times correspondent as the head of communications, and a former political editor from the Daily Mirror to handle the media relations brief.

These types of appointments are expected, but that also tells us more about the nature of political communication which is so focussed on media relations.

Westminster and the Media

But the closed world of Westminster politics plays its part in this focus on the political pages. It can seem quite surreal, trivial things can seem very important and it becomes hard to know what is happening in the real world.

The newspaper headlines become a scorecard for the political parties. They will assess their success by the number of positive stories that appear in the papers. A week is a long time in politics not least because you are battling every day to control the media agenda.

From a communication perspective it is disappointing. How many people are actually reading the political sections of the newspapers? How much segmentation can you do using the newspapers as your starting point? Do you make assumptions about the readership and their political views? If you do, then you may find yourself taking the wrong route.

How much can you truly communicate through the prism of political journalism? Because we ignoring some of the fundamentals of political reporting.

This is trench warfare. Like a battle in the Great War, the daily reporting is a series of advances followed by a push back. A success in spinning a political story may be the gain of twenty yards, but a response over the weekend by your opposite number may see you having to retreat fifteen yards. The news cycle is always turning.

It is not a grand debate. There is sometimes a belief in politics that this is a competition to win the argument. But in a world of partisan newspapers and journalists that is just not true. There are spin doctors on all sides of the story - the newspaper correspondent is just as likely to distort the story to meet their political agenda. You are never going to make a killer argument that will win everyone over to your side. That is not reality of a media that adopts political positions because it is expected of them by an owner or by their established readership.

New tools for communication?

Politicians are becoming their own publishers. The suggestion that every company is now a media company is just as relevant to politicians. A Member of Parliament can develop their broadcast capability quite easily through simple tools - using wordpress to deliver content management, twitter to signpost their messages, and a myriad of packages to deliver the images.

Politics can become truly local. It is not just about the publication of information. Every office, anyone with a personal computer, has the opportunity to monitor, capture and manipulate information like never before. Every contact with a politicians can provide useful insights, and be used in future communication.

And this is where the communication practitioner starts to come to the fore. With a bit of creativity, they can deliver additional information that will allow the politician to understand their audience, to better understand the policy issues that are important to them.

Politicians will also develop campaigns to identify potential supporters as well as raise their profile - for example a save the school or a campaign to introduce new speed restrictions. But the tools are now available to take this to another level.

The ability is there to engage with more people through the channels that they are comfortable with. The website can be supplemented by Facebook and Twitter. Online polls can be used to gauge opinion, whilst e-petitions can gather in valuable information about the hot button policies.

There are ways in which we can start to slice that up into very manageable numbers. And gradually you can also bring in those that would vote, if you can give them a good enough reason.

The last election showed us how social media can play a part in campaigns. Yes of course it was the TV debates that dominated the General Election, old technology still has its place. But we saw thousands online, tweeting and taking part in the debate.

So where does my post lead us?

Whereas in the past your information about politicians might flow from the national media, from those politics pages. Contact in the future should become more personal. There is an opportunity for communication from politicians to be better targeted, and the messages more appropriate.

With the expansion of the media, including the social media, there may also be additional points of contact. There will be more ways for the voter and politician to engage.

It will be interesting to see how the communication teams of the political parties develop over time. Understanding the traditional media will always be important but it will be just as important to bring the broader strategic skills in order to segment the audience, develop persuasive messages and choose the best channels of communication.

The ability to write a newspaper report of a House of Commons Debate may not be the only qualification required to advise a political party on engaging the nation.

Everyone needs to be a communicator in an emergency

2010-11-08T13:58:00.000-08:00

I had an interesting time last week when I was asked to talk about crisis communication in an emergency, but rather than speaking to public relations practitioners it was to a group of lawyers.

Now at this point most communicators are running for the door - as our experience of working with lawyers is not always the best.

It is not unusual for lawyers and public relations practitioners to have widely differing views of how an organisation should communicate, when it should communicate and of course what it should communicate in terms of message.

I work for a law firm so I will be careful with what I say. But what has become clear is that the view of the legal profession is changing. The younger professional is more likely to take an overview and understand where they can help, and be less interested in hindering. So I was interested in explaining a little more about what the PR practitioner does in an emergency.

And there is another reason why we should be talking more about the basics of crisis communication. Experience and a bit of common-sense shows us that it is important that others understand the principles that we use on a daily basis. This is particularly important in emergency communication - responding to major events and incidents.

One of the interesting things that I thought about as I was developing my presentation, was that communicating in an emergency is so important and so large a task, that it becomes impossible to be managed by just the professional communication team.

I was very fortunate to have been asked to work with the Scottish Government during the Swine Flu Pandemic (H1N1) - and what I took from that experience was the sheer scale of the communication task.

This particular Flu strain was not as dangerous as had been feared, and yet it still led to illness and to deaths.

At the core of the task was an important need to explain to the public how Swine Flu would spread. Then it was more complicated by the fact that that there was no simple solution. No vaccine available. And a year earlier, when we asked the public about Pandemic Flu, about one third of respondents thought there would be a medical solution, whilst over half (56%) thought they would have some immunity from past flu outbreaks.

So there was an important message to communicate about the simple steps that we should all take (washing our hands frequently being the best), along with a difficult message about our lack of an immediate cure - and with the highest stakes possible.

But what we were all aware from our planning was that this was just one small part of the communication package. On this occasion the strain was not as dangerous as it could have been - but if we had seen a different strain develop it could have been much worse. The consequences of mass absence would have an impact on so many parts of our life.

What happens if you close schools - not least in terms of annual exams?
Who looks after the children? Is that more workers taking time off?
Who pays when public venues are closed? What is the impact on tourism?
How do you deliver public services if community/council centres are closed?
What happens when you are relying on outsourced staff for key service areas?
If you temporarily lose 1/4 of your workforce can you still deliver for your clients?
How do we keep our supermarkets open when their drivers or down - what about driving time restrictions and the working time directive?
Can you continue to deliver public services to the most vulnerable in our society?
What about all the people that take time off to look after ill family members?

The good communication practitioner should already be ahead of me on this one.

When you look at the consequences of the crisis - the number of individual communications required just heads off the scale. Now we are talking to - emergency services, public service providers, lifeline utilities, tourism bodies, hospitality industry, school authorities, teachers unions, public service unions, key Scottish companies... the list goes on.

The scale of this type of emergency - a national emergency - means that we need to think about new ways of delivering our communication strategy. There are so many inter-connections that it is impossible for a small group of communication professionals to run the system. It is now about a series of very important partnerships.

Everyone can play a part in communicating.

So the more people who understand the best principles of good crisis communication the better.

Here were some of the principles that I suggested they take away from the presentation.

Some principles to live by in a crisis

Do not wait to be asked, start thinking and start planning
It is too late to learn new skills and make new friends in a crisis
Expect to do your ordinary role in extraordinary circumstances
Bring your thinking to bear on the problem
The Plan is not as helpful as the Planning process
Confidence is vital - it is all about partnerships
Beware - It is the Consequences that will get you
You may be the person who needs to speak truth to power

I hope that some of those principles make sense. If they don't then please sign up for my next presentation !

Spot the similarity between these two adverts which are nearly a 100 years apart?

CIPR moves ahead with registration of political lobbyists

2010-11-04T04:42:00.000-07:00

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations recently wrote out to its membership to explain that the UK Public Affairs Council register was now open for registration. Members of the CIPR will have until January 2011 to sign-up or they will be subject to disciplinary action.

This is an attempt by the PR and public affairs organisations to put in place a structure that deals with the issues raised in the reviews carried out by Westminster, and to avoid the need for statutory regulation.

As always in CIPR matters, I declare an interest in this as I am a Fellow of the CIPR. And in this case I should note that some of my work would be described as public affairs.

It is still not clear whether this will head off the demand for stronger action. There is a strong campaigning voice against a voluntary code, and indeed my own firm has submitted evidence against this position.

Speaking at the committee hearing, my colleague suggested that there was no need for a change - but if it was to come then it should be statutory. He pointed out that this half-way house may cause problems for those practitioners that have other, conflicting and sometimes statutory, obligations in terms of registering client information.

The Scottish angle?

Interestingly the UKPAC includes any activity that seeks to influence the Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament or Scottish local authorities in its definition of lobbying. It will be interesting to see how many practitioners in Scotland have been aware of the discussions in London.

There are some differences in the services that many PR practitioners in Scotland provide. Whilst you may find more specialisation in London - more agencies focused primarily on media relations and others on public affairs - it could be argued there are more generalist consultancies in Scotland.

It is more likely that you will be asked to provide a holistic strategy that involves everything from grass-roots community activity, to working with the media and engaging with politicians. It is one the of interesting elements of working in Scotland.

And the UKPAC suggests that spending more than 20% of your time on public affairs means you should be registered. And lobbying covers just about any attempt to influence politicians. That breadth of scope may cover many more people than originally intended.

We will see how this develops.

Political campaigns and social media

2010-10-05T10:50:00.000-07:00

I was over at the 38 Minutes community site when I saw an interesting post by Nicola More, who was asking about the impact of the social media on politics. She pointed out how interested politics has become in social media, but I think she was asking whether they were hoping that this would be the silver bullet.

This got me thinking about why social media could be so important to political parties and I provided a response. And I thought I would also include it below....

Umm a couple of political comments when I think you were asking an interesting question about the connection between politics and social media.

There are a couple of reasons why social media excites politicians, and I think the US elections are a good example of how it can work.

First it is a new organising tool, a way of galvanising your supporters and running a more effective campaign. Second it is a new way of reaching out to the electorate, a way of avoiding the prism of political journalists and focussing on the issues that matter to individual voters.

You are right to point out that Obama came through as the most charismatic of candidates, but what social media allowed him to do was to engage with millions of individual supporters. He developed the channels in order to get his message out to his core supporters, and that caught the media attention. More importantly, he was able to ask for money from his supporters to run a Primary campaign against the establishment candidate (Hilary Clinton) and then go on to take on a well funded Republican Party.

For individuals Obama campaigners there was a bank of information - messages and organising tips available for every local team. It didn’t matter whether you lived in a small town or a big city. The Obama supporters had access to the election toolkits to run their local campaign, including social media.

And it is needed in the UK, because about 1% of the population are members of the main political parties, down from 4% in 1983. Within that small number there are even fewer that attend political party meetings on a regular basis. Maybe social media will help revitalise the local campaigns and allow for online organising.

As a campaigning tool the social media allows for more targeted communication on issues that are important to individual voters. You're interested in environmental issues? You worry about the state of the economy? You think that there is a need for a truly ethical Foreign policy? Well the candidates will provide you with their policies, and if you joined the online events you could ask them questions on this issue.

Those who had a vote in the Labour elections will have seen that in a British context. There were emails from each candidate, online discussions, interactive manifestos, campaign blogs, video from the husting meetings, and video endorsements for Party members. The campaign came to you, rather than you having to search it out.

What we find is that social media is great at bringing together existing communities, like those with an interest in social media, massive gaming communities, motorcar enthusiasts, entrepreneurs, beer lovers, train-spotters, ramblers, educationalists, fundraisers for the developing world…... You name them, there will be a community website for them somewhere with all the supporting social media tools.

So social media is a way to engage with those electors, and make them supporters. If they are captivated by a past-time or hobby then that might be a motivation to vote on a related issue. And all of this is direct communication, the chance to create a dialogue rather than watching it translated by Fox News.

So I risk sounding like evangelist. This is a response to a post rather than an prediction. We will see if this all becomes part of our future elections.

But others have already pointed out the big innovation in the 2010 General Election was not social media, it was the introduction of a debate on good old Television.

Chartered PR Practitioner

2010-10-04T13:14:00.000-07:00

At the end of 2009 I applied to be one of the first Chartered PR Practitioners, a new scheme introduced by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations as part of the ongoing creation of a new profession.

I was keen to take part, and delighted to find out that I had been successful.

A couple of weeks ago I was interviewed by the CIPR and my comments are now on their website. I think that I go on for a bit longer than is necessary but it was interesting to consider why I was involved, and it was only when I was asked by the CIPR that I really reviewed my motivations.

Some of the reasons for supporting the Chartered Status are about my personal development, but just as important is that this is the building block of the Public Relations profession. The CIPR have taken some great strides with the development of new professional qualifications, backed up by a commitment to continious professional development.

The development of the Chartered status is the next step, and at some point this will be a natural part of the career path of the PR Practitioner. Of course this will take time. We are probably talking about the next generation. But it is something to look forward to.