Captology - can the Internet be persuasive

I read a very interesting book recently on persuasive technology. The basic idea of Fogg's book is that in certain circumstances technologies can be more persuasive than human agents. Indeed, Fogg predicts that persuasive capabilities will become an increasingly important component in the design of new technology products.

Fogg introduced a new term to the persuasive lexicon, namely captology, which is where computers and persuasion meet. Conceptually, captology provides the student of persuasion with a problem. Fogg suggests that captology is based on the use of computers to intend to persuade, but all off-line definitions of persuasion refer to the need for persuasion to happen and not just be an intent. This implies either that captology cannot be considered part of persuasion theory, or as I suspect, the Internet may be creating new customs and practices in persuasive practice. These in turn may influence persuasion theory.

Fogg explains at some depth where and how persuasion occurs through the Web. Given that the book was written in 2003 I found some of the examples not that convincing, however, Fogg and his team are now looking at how Facebook might be a persuasive technology. I think that he may have something here in terms of the networking effects of social networking sites. However, Facebook is best as horizontal communication and commercial, charity and political operators are more interested in vertical communication. Here, I suspect, that Twitter may be more applicable.

The idea of captology can be applied to online political communication. Two MPs used their e-newsletters to great effect to influence the voting habits of their subscribers. In all likelihood the effective use of these e-newsletters by Steve Webb and Nick Palmer probably helped convert their marginal seats to safe seats. In the 2005 UK General Election the most powerful use of the Internet was internal, pass-protected, email/e-newsletters. These mobilised activists to offline activity such as leafleting, attending meetings and tele-canvassing. I would expect that in 2010, despite the hype, email will again be the most persuasive of technologies, but as before it will aim as supporters not the floating voters.

Pioneering Internet MP to stand down

It is likely that if you think about MPs who have pioneered the use of the Internet, you would probably mention Steve Webb, Tom Watson, Derek Wyatt, John Redwood. However, I noted recently that one MP who I consider an Internet pioneer, Robert Key is standing down at the next election due to ill health.

I doubt that Robert is personally particularly IT literate, though I may be doing him a disservice. My reason for including him amongst the early pioneers in the run-up to the 2005 General Election (some 20-40 in number) was not that he was an early adopter in all things Webby, rather he had a clear vision for how he would use the Internet, in particular his website. Moreover, his approach was not based on jumping on a bandwagon, but on enhancing the citizen's experience of dealing with their MP. He created one page which was only open to constituents which provide a range of information and services available to them. In effect he was using his website to fulfill a number of functions, which inluded as an information portal, promoting community information which mades peoples lives more interesting. Robert also publicised information which allowed visitors to track what was being said by whom on a local issue, I suspect to the chagrin of some local officials.

Representatives who are pioneers of new technologies do not, like Key, have to be in to the latest gizmo, but they do need to care about their job and recognise how they can use technology to help their constituents. Whilst not a techie, Robert Key was clearly interested in the possibilities the technology offered.

The expansion of constituency service

Constituents, both individuals, groups and organisations may want to contact their MP from time to time for information or support. The basic convention is that MPs will only deal with an issue within their constituency (this does not include non-constituency issues they might have a spoecial interest in). So if your MP is not of the political party you prefer, you can't go and speak to an MP in another constituency just because they might be from your preferred party. MPs exist to support all constituents, irrespective of how they vote, though MPs are aware that constituency service can help them develop a personal vote which might insure them against adverse national party swings in electoral support.

Therefore, if someone emails their MP regarding a constituency issue, the MPs office may ask for a local address/postcode to check that that they should deal with the issue.

I was very surprised to see that this convention may now be extending to non-parliamentarians. I recently had recourse to email a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC), and received an automail from them which stated that they could only deal with matters relating to their named constituency, and requesting confimation that the emailer did indeed live in that constituency.

I have never seen this before, but the candidate was clearly applying the constituency convention, I suspect so that they don't waste time to non-constituency matters, or from non-constituents. Is this now the norm?

Viral Twitter?

I am indebted to Darren Lilleker for pointing out to me this interesting use of Twitter. Maude the Cow appears to be Anchor Butter trying to use Twitter a bit like a viral marketing campaign. I suspect that they hope it will become a favourite for people. In effect, they are using this Twitter account as a meme whereby they seek to give their account some impact by associating it with human emotions and cultural norms. One of my favourite meme's is Frank The Cat, where the obvious emotion being tugged at is one of "aah, poor cat", as a consequence it was bit of a Web sensation for a while. Maude the Cow is aiming at another emotion, that of humour, which is hoped (I suspect) will make it a success.

This fairly innovative use of Twitter raises an interesting question at the heart of the Internet. Commercial operations have frequently been quick at seeking to use new Internet developments for competitive advantage. Websites and email easily fit within commercial culture of how to communicate, but I suggest that commercial operations can struggle with other Internet modalities, especially those essentially created to meet personal needs, not corporate. Whilst I know that companies have sought to use social networking sites and weblogs, I believe that beyond market research, these applications should not be ones companies should invest much time in. Weblogs are personal diaries and social networking sites encourage interaction between individuals. Conceptually then, how can an organisation be on Facebook or have a weblog? I know many do, but I don't think it works. Named individuals within corporations could easily have such personal communication channels, but how can a coporate facade? That said, I can see that social networking sites would work as part of internal communication within a political party.

Twitter, as a microblog site does potentially help companies square this conceptual circle. Although clearly designed originally to be a person-to-person tool, I feel it is also possible for Twitter to be an-organisation to person tool in a way that a blog or social networking site may not. As a consequence I suspect this part of the twittersphere to grow, and we may well see political parties adopt this as well as their candidates.

Is it Fair Play to FIFA?

After my post yesterday criticising the way FIFA had handled Le Hand of God affair, I note today that FIFA are at least taking the first step to possibly addressing the crisis. An Extraordinary Meeting implies that Sepp Blatter recognises he cannot ignore the crisis, even if critics might not like his solution for extra officials.

The proof as ever will be in the pudding, and I am not that confident, but at least a first step in crisis management has been taken, albeit very belatedly.

Football and a crisis

Much has been written over the last few days about Thierry Henri's use of a hand during a game of football. I note today that Henri thought about retiring from international football. Discussions about the player, the referee, the two managers and their respective national FAs is pretty much irrelevant. As a crisis for football (and it is) this is something which only the international football body, FIFA, can solve. Yet, this appears to be an issue which the one body able to deal with it, have largely ignored (they may not have behind the sences, but this is the perception many may have). Looking at their media pages, there is a press release which deals with the request to replay the game. But if you look at FIFA's home page, it would appear that nothing untoward has happened in the game of football recently requiring their attention, other than the banning of the Iraqi FA. The reality is that this incident highlights a problem which other sports have addressed, but football is perceived as dragging its feet on. How can modern technology be used to best help the referee? Until FIFA address this issue, and I am not saying exactly what they should do, the crisis will not go away.

I draw a comparision with what is happening in UK politics at present regarding MPs expenses. Personally, I take the view that MPs are not paid enough, and I would significantly increaase their salary and take away the generous expenses. But whatever is the appropriate solution, thus far, like FIFA the real problem is being ignored. Focusing on not employing family members is ignoring the real problems.

Neither MPs nor FIFA seem to get it in terms of the nature of the crisis they are responding to. One is not yet clearly and unambigously demonstrating that it understands public anger, the other does not appear to be openly addressing the issue (they may be in committees but we the public are not being told what is happening).

Who's winning the Twitter race?

In earlier posts I have referred to MPs who Twitter, and that the number is slowly rising. Today I had a look at how many Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) have a Twitter account. Tweetminster lists 151 who claim to have a Twitter account, but I found that only 129 have a 'sticky' account. Stickiness, as with my research on MPs use of Twitter, was measured by whether they had tweeted within the last month.

Nine individual party's candidates had a Twitter account, plus three Independent candidates. In terms of parties the results were:
Conservative (44)
Labour (45)
Liberal Democrat (25)
Green party (5)
UKIP (4)
Libertarian Party UK (LPUK) (2)
SNP (1)

It has been suggested that the Internet might help level the playing field between the smaller and larger parties, but the evidence here is that on Twitter there is a politics as usual, with the big 3 parties dominating.

We also note that the Conservatives, although elsewhere considered to be winning the online campaign, seem to be a bit under-represented on Twitter. The Conservatives presumably have the highest number of target seats, but this data would suggest that they are not necesarily turning to Twitter in those seats.

In terms of gender, nearly two-thirds (72.1%) of tweeting PPCs are male. I don't know what the overall gender spplit on PPCs are, but it would be interesting to compare these to see whether women are over- or -under-represented on Twitter.

The financial cost of Le Hand of God?

Sporting icons are often used as celebrity endorsers of products, but they can make me cringe. Two of the best Olympians there have ever been, Sir Chris Hoy and Sir Steve Redgrave, are in front of the camera wooden. One rare contrary example has been the ex-Arsenal footballer Thierry Henri. His delivery of 'Va Va Vroom' for the Renault Clio advert is natural and professional, way above the normal 'amateur's' delivery.

However, last night's World Cup play-off between France and the Republic of Ireland may significantly reduce (or even end) his power as a celebrity endorser in the UK (and Ireland). I suspect that, like Diego Maradona, Henri will now be tagged forever in the minds of many as a cheat. Whilst I could see him in a French or Spanish (he plays in Spain) advert, I can't see him being used as an endorser over here any time soon. I have not seen the incident (or more accurately two hand ball incidents), but what I think is irrelevant, what is salient is that in the eyes of many he is now a 'cheat'. Which company or charity would touch him with a bargepole now?

Celebrity endorsement is used because it is felt that for some audiences the credibility of the source is key to persuading them, and that a well-known or well-loved celebrity can add value to a campaign. I wonder whether we'll ever see Va va Vroom on television again?

A good use of an e-newsletter

I have felt that for some time e-newsletters can be a powerful relationship building tool. They need to be used regularly, the receivers need to subscribe for a year or so, the content must be of use to subscribers and most importantly the best ones are interactive and overtly encourage feedback or dialogue. For commercial marketers such feedback can be useful in developing new products or refining their messages, for politicians e-newsletters can help them explain their position on topical issues, seek feedback and possibly be a voter winner.

One good example of the speedy and topical use of an e-newsletter to support, as part of an intergrated communication approach, was provided by Tim Farron. By 17.30 yesterday I had recieved an email from Tim commenting on yesterday's Queen's Speech, only a few hours after Her Majesty had presented her Government's programme. What Tim said about the Government's legislative programme was esentially the party line. Therefore, he was using his e-newsletter to reinforce a message which would be presented via other media. I suspect Tim has a few thousand subscribers, so whilst they were hearing about the Queen's Speech on the television or radio, some of his constituents also receiving commentary from their MP.

My only criticism is that Tim's approach was one-way, namely his views only, but he could easily have engaged subscribers by asking for their views as well. At the very least they would have felt that their MP listened to them and wanted to hear their voice.

Adoption of Twitter by MPs

Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation sought to explain how audiences adopt new ideas/policies/technologies.

Rogers suggested that in order to be successfully adopted by society/markets, an innovation had to first be of interest to innovators, a very small (typically 2.5% of the target population) who liked to try out new things in their field. This would then lead to early adopters, and then the early and late majority. The laggards would resist that innovation for some considerable time.

We can see this approach applying to MPs adoption of the Internet. For example, Anne Campbell claimed to be the first MP to have a website in 1994. By the time of the 2001 General Election this had risen to about a fifth of all MPs (about 120), which a year later had increased to over 60% and now about 85-90% of MPs have an accessible website. So the initial website providing innovators were slowly joined by some early adopters up to the 1997 General Election (probably less than two dozen in number), then the early majority joined, and then by the 2005 General Election the late majority had adopted websites. Now only a small minority of laggards exist who resist providing a website.

If we look at MPs use of Twitter we are just moving from the early adopter to the beginnings of the early majority stage. Alan Johnson claimed to be the first MP to use Twitter in June 2007 as part of his Labour Party deputy leadership campaign, though it is interesting that he no longer appears to tweet, which is a common feature of innovators: that they often the first to adopt and then move on. In March 2009 the number of Tweeting MPs had slowly risen to 21, probably representing the innovators and some early adopters. Research conducted by myself and Darren Lilleker, found that in June 2009 51 MPs had a sticky Twitter account. Stickiness refers to whether an online presence is regularly maintained to encourage repeat visitors, for Twitter this was assessed to be tweets within the previous month. Using Tweetminster today this number has increased to 77, there are 30 MPs regularly using Twitter who did not in June, but four counted in June no longer have a sticky account. Hence the net increase is 26 more MPs.

Of the four no longer using Twitter, three were from Labour, one from the Conservatives, two were men and two women. At the point of our research in June, women were slightly over-represented, as were the Liberal Democrats (the party whose MPs were most likely to have a Twitter account proportionately) and Labour. Of the 30 new Tweeting MPs, 15 are Labour, 8 Liberal Democrat, 6 Conservative and one Scottish National Party (SNP). This maintains the bias towards the Liberal Democrats and Labour. In the run-up to the next General Election the gap between Liberal Democrats/Labour MPs tweeting and Conservatives is growing, which is not necessarily an issue if the Conservatives are using other off- and on-line channels.

I also note that the slight bias amongst the early adopters to being women, appears to be changed by the early majority, who are mostly male. Twenty seven of the newly tweeting MPs are men, and only 3 are women.

That the next election campaign is only six months or less away is proabbly acting as a spur for MPs to think about which technologies they could use. As with websites before 1997 and 2001, and e-newlsetters before 2005, a very small number of innovators have encouraged others to think about joining the bandwagon.

I have suggested elsewhere that MPs use of any Internet modality can fall into one of four categories: pioneers; magpies; bandwagoners; technophobes. Of the now 77 tweeting MPs there are probably some 20 who are pioneers using it as a normal part of their communication strategies, and shaping their representative role as a consequence. In the run-up to the next election a considerable number of the remaining tweeting MPs will probably be magpies seeking to use twitter as a means of gaining competitive advantage. Some, and an increasing number as we approach the election date, will be bandwagoners, jumping on the latest bandwagon in order not to get left behind.

Will Prime Minister Cameron use webcameron?

David Cameron has been perceived to have adopted the Internet through his use of webcameron. Although the nature of this has changed over time, with for example some of the two-way interactive features no longer present, it is still interesting that the likely next PM is aware of and uses some of the technology. I wonder, will webcameron still operate in June next year, and if so will it be hosted by Number 10 (and so be a Government broadcast) or the Conservative Party (and so a partisan broadcast)?

Political leaders have in the past used new technologies to support their policies and approaches. FD Roosevelt's fireside chats played a key role in building support for his New Deal. How will Cameron use the Internet? I would strongly caution against using webcameron as currently constituted, as it is essentially a one-way broadcast. A more radical approach would be a more two-way approach. A model of e-representation where politicians are seen to be engaging with citizens might help address the lack of public trust in the body politic. For example, using Cameron's existing broadcast approach, could not members of the public (not politicos) have the opportunity to post questions and here him as PM directly answer them?

I am intrigued by how Government leaders elsewhere have utilised the Internet. One example where the Internet, through force of circumstance, has played an important communication role is Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. Denied a fair crack of the whip by the Zanu-PF dominated media, he has had to use alternative sources of communication. Although access to the Internet in Zimbabwe is low, his use of a website to explain what is going on, and what he is doing, does provide an alternative source of material which will trickle down

I am not suggesting that David Cameron should adopt Morgan Tsvangirai's approach, though he does at least recognise the importance of two-way communciation, rather it suggests that the Internet offers Cameron some useful possibilities of opening up dialogue.

Impact of the Internet on MPs' roles

The role that backbench MPs perform evolves. Since the 1960s many MPs have given greater priority to the constituency role, both in terms of dealing with individual casework and of promoting the constituency as a whole.

The Internet has encouraged minor developments in what some MPs now do to support constituents. I have spoken before about how the Internet makes it easier for an MP to promote a hinterland, of them as an individual person, not just a politician. MPs can also use their online presence as an 'information portal' as an adjunct to their constituency role. Here MPs use their website, e-newsletter or whatever to promote what others are doing in the constituency. This might be community events, ideas, groups or whatever, but it promotes civic participation. The politician benefits indirectly in encouraging a better constituency to live in.

A recent example of this 'informational portal' role is offered by Gisela Stuart who is asking constituents who visit her webstie to 'Nominate a Community Hero'. The website does not make it clear what will happen, who will judge the competition or whether their will be a launch event, but it does appear to be a story about constituents and not the host MP.

Whilst I would not suggest that the Internet has encouraged all MPs to develop an 'informational portal' role, some do appear to have adopted such an approach. In itself this will not address the loss of trust the public have towards politicians, nor reverse the democratic deficit, but it may be a welcome development (if we asume that MPs have lost more fundamental roles within the body politic).

Clever lobbying in the beautiful game

The Premier League has rejected a proposal from Phil Gartside, Chairman of Bolton Wanderers FC, to create a two-tier Premier league and to invite the two dominant Scottish teams, Celtic and Rangers to join. Gartside, like many middle and lower ranking Premier clubs, is concerned about the huge financial gulf between the big four Premier clubs and the rest of the division.

Reading between the lines, it would appear that the Premier league may give serious consideration to some of Gartside's other proposals. This may help feed more television money to the smaller premiership clubs, and so level the playing field a bit within the Premier league. I may well be doing Gartside a disservice, but the press focused on the two high-profile proposals, and Gartside's agenda may have been actually on the less high profile. If I am correct, he has played a blinder, and created a story that might or might not be a long-term goal, but may lead to changes that improve Bolton's financial situation in the short to medium term.

If I am correct, this is a version of the door-in-the-foot (FITD) persuasion technique where you make a large request that is almost certainly going to be denied, and then come back with a smaller request. Cialdini & Ascani 1976 found that students asked to give blood every 2 months for 3 years most declined, but when asked to volunteer the next day, 49% agreed as opposed to 32% of the control group.

Why Gordon Brown won't go in March

Nick Robinson notes that the Conservative high command were concerned about whether Gordon Brown might try to surrpise them with a March election. Robinson then gives some rational reasons for why this won't happen, concerning the timeframe of the Budget.

Political decisions, be it who to vote for, where to allocate money or in this instance when to prorogue parliament, can be influenced by both rational and emotional factors. In short, is the decision made by the head following an informed and logical consideration of relevant material. Or does it reflect the dominance of the heart, not necessarily based on an assessment of the facts, but emotions such as like, trust and attraction.

I don't believe that just the head or the heart rules all 'political' decisons by voters or politician's, but in certain circumstances one or other may. When considering the merits of a particular policy a citizen may seek be more infleucned by the rational. But, as Drew Westen suggests that when push comes to shove, emotion may influence enough voting behaviour to make difference. This theory, which is contrary to the traditional Downesian rational choice model, would possibly explain why most commentators thought that the Conservative Government would lose in 1992, that when it came to it, enough people who felt Labour were the right party to govern could not actually vote for Labour at the last minute, so that the Conservatives squeeked in.

Hence, I suspect all Robinson's careful analysis is superflous, in fact human nature is that it is now unlikely that Brown will ask the Queen to dissolve parliament until he has to. If Brown was going to go early it would have been emotionally much easier shortly after he became PM. The longer he is PM, the more difficult it will be emotionally for him to risk his position.

MPs making a difference

I have noted before that MPs may seek to present a hinterland of them as human beings. I found this example of Tom Brake getting involved in the CSV's Make a Difference day very interesting. It gives a sense of Tom as a caring individual putting something back. But it also highlights what is the role of a backbencher, particularly one not on the Government side of the Chamber. I suspect this is an example of a very active element of the constituency role. That MPs, having limited policy influence and increasingly marginalised by their national parties and the media, seek an alternative justifuiation for their existence. Constituency service has helped meet this need for a purpose. The question is do we want our MPs to go further and further down this route, or do we want them to play a greater role in the development of policy and scrutiny of government actions? I suspect we do want to encourage the constituency service role, for here is where MPs can enhance the representative riole, and hence reach individual constituents. However, I also feel MPs need a more 'meaty' policy role, which might then justify a much higher salary and bypass the argument over expenses.

The role of the Internet in influencing the policy debate

Talking to many MPs about how they first got into different modalities of the Internet, be it website, e-newsletter, social networking site or microblog, one consistent theme has been the role of their staff. I have not conducted any quantitative research on how many, but anectdotally the number must account for a not insignificant minority, say 10-20% of MPs first online forays. Typically, they had a young staff member, full-time, part-time or volunteer intern who knew how to use the Internet, and was allowed to get on with it.

Research by Edelman suggests MPs staffers are infleunced by the Internet, especially the interactive Web 2.0 applications. That such staffers are influenced by certain trusted sites for news and information is not a surprise, of more interest is the fact that many turn to social networking sites, blogs and even microblogs for policy advice. This suggests that Web 2.0 applications may play a role in developing policy ideas, or shape their bosses parliamentary speeches.

Research by myself and Darren Lilleker on MPs use of social networking sites, weblogs and Twitter has focused on how they use these tools to promote their own views and interact with citizens/constituents. Edelman's research adds an interesting angle of how MPs and their staff are in turn using such applications.

The lesson is that those organisations, such as pressure groups, seeking to shape the public agenda may need to consider how they can get parliamentary staffers to view, use and trust their various online offerings.

Labour versus Conservatives online

I saw a story in today's Sunday Times which piqued my interest about the funding problems of the Labour Party. Essentially, the story suggested that Labour was unable to borrow more money and so was doing less activity, such as telephone canvassing, than it might have in the past.

I don't think that this is earth shattering news. Any party in Government for over ten years starts to lose friends. There is clear evidence that, as many did before 1997, some of those with funds to hand are more likely to put it towards the Conservatives, in the belief that they will be the next Government. And we all like to back the winner. What I think is interesting is what this means for how Labour nationally and in local target seats will communicate and campaign.

With such limited funds, one presumably looks to cheaper methods, such as media management and the Internet, and focus less on high costing advertising and direct marketing campaigns. This hypothesis would suggest that Labour could put a lot of effort into the Internet where the financial imbalance would be less of a factor. Traditionally, this level playing field hypothesis applies to the other parties versus the big two, but potentially it might apply to Labour as well.

There are two problems with this assumption. First, whilst Labour were often ahead of the Conservatives at a national level, and even more at a local level, up to about 2005/6 there is some evidence that this has been reversed in the Web 2.0 era. So they don't appear to be investing in the technology to be as innovative, and certainly don't have the breadth of delivery beyond MPs. Second, it has been the smaller parties, especially the Liberal Democrats, who have actually often been the most innovative in their use of both Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 applications.

If I am correct that a) there has been, if not a level playing field, at least an ebb and flow allowing smaller parties to have their voice heard, and b) Labour have fallen back a bit in their onine advantage over their main competitor, then this seems rather odd. It seems to me that Labour is focusing its resources on the party and MPs/PPCs online presence, and not necessarily focusing on the other semi-partisan sites which shape opinion, where the Conservatives appear to have an advantage.

This suggests that at the next election there may not appear to be a whole of difference quantitatively between how the two party HQs and their PPCs use the Internet, which might imply a false picture. Such overt, partisan sites have a limited direct effect on floating voters (though they do on supporters), rather it is the wider online public sphere, often not overtly partisan which may influence both the media and party agendas, and to some extent public opinion. It is here where the Conservatives appear to have an advantage over both Labour and the Liberal Democrtas.

The BBC and Political Education

Very interested to see that the BBC have launched on their website Democracy Live. This is a fantastic educational, and probably research tool, that should help students access and understand politics easier and in more depth. It follows on from a revamp to the Parliament website in January 2009 which added a youtube channel, social networking sites and more use of blogs.

Neither development will necessarily address the lack of interest in partisan politics within society, but they do significantly enhance the experience of those, especially students, who are interested in finding out more. I only briefly used Democracy Live today, but what I saw suggested that it was very user-friendly, and an excellent means of encouraging interest in political debate.

Legg Shoots Himself in the Foot?

If, and it is a big if, media reports are to be believe, then the crisis handling of MPs expenses is getting worse.

There is a crisis, based on real public anger at what is going on in the Westminster village, but those with an understanding of crisis management will not understand how it is being handled. First, no single person seems to be charge. Second, some of the solutions now being offered don't even address the key questions being asked.

Stopping the second mortgages is defensible, and I always thought that MPs should rent, possibly in one or two specially built locations. At one time Dolphin Square would have been ideal. But why focus on MPs employees? Yes, nepotism does go on, as it does in other sectors. There are individual cases, such as Derek Conway, that appear to the public to be seriously wrong, and possibly worthy of prosecution, but by and large this is not and never really has been systematically a major issue. Many will consider that it is perfectly legitimate for an MP to employ their spouse to help keep their marriage together, if they beleive it will and the spouse can do the job.

The real concern is with the major abuses such as flipping mortgages to avoid stamp duty, ostentatious expenses such as the moat cleaning and duck abodes and some potentially fraudulent claims. I am more interested in hearing about these, not that an MPs wife might be unfairly made constructively redundant. If an MPs spouse goes to an employment tribunal, will they cite their husband/wife or the parliamentary authorities?

Sir Thomas please reload up your gun and aim at the right target this time, or you will go down in history as part of the problem and not the solution.

Question Nick Griffin Time

Well apparently the BBC's viewing figures for Question Time were high Thursday. Having watched the show on view again I have a few comments on the show.

I have not seen much of Nick Griffin before, and ignoring what he actually says, he is not a very impressive politician, He did not appear in control of his facts, figures and ideas. In short, he had not mastered his brief. He looked like a fairly new local council backbencher, and was largely out of his depth. When faced with a difficult point his default response was to smile, laugh or use an inane grin. This suggests, erronously or not, that he does not have an answer. Again I stress my comment is more on his performance rather than what he said.

Griffin is no Oswald Mosely, Enoch Powell or even Alf Garnett.

David Dimbleby did I feel stray beyond the normal role of impartial Chair, and some of the most effective put-downs came from him, such as the "why are you smiling about the holocaust" comment he made. To be honest the panel was not that brillant. Chris Huhme was perfectly decent, but very grey and a bit anonymous. Jack Straw, in my mind got it wrong. He came across as all sound bite. Whatver, we might say, Griffin did have one high-ranking card in his hand, namely the perception (if not the reality) that immigration is rising significantly. What is slightly amusing is that the person who played that card the best was not Griffin. Rather, Baroness Warsi put Straw onto the back foot on the issue, and her comment of "you are in denial" struck home. For me the best panelist was the American-born non-politician Bonnie Greer, she used humour, detail and rational argument to pull apart Griffin's rhetoric. There was something rather ironic about Bonnie giving a Cambridge history graduate a lesson about the history of the British Isles.

That said I am not sure the BBC got the format right. As noted in the title it was not Question Time, rather it was questioning Nick Griffin time. I suspect this might have been the wrong approach. That said, I have spoken to several people not normally interested in politics and they all saw the prgramme live or later, and if it has led to more interest in politics that can be no mean thing.

There has been a lot of public wailing and gnashing of teeth over this programme (not least from the BNP themselves), but I very much doubt that the viewers of this programme are the real BNP target.

MyConservatives v MembersNet

There was some interesting discussion in PR Week recently. When the Conservative Party launched MyConservatives.com it was suggested in mirrowing Obama's campaign, the Conservatives were taking the lead in cyberspace campaigning. Yet Labour online campaigner Mark Hanson suggested that the Tories were a year after Labour's MembersNet.

Looking at both sites, there is a clear difernece in strategy, one almost mirrowing that of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. MyConservatives.com is, like Obama who used www.mybarackobama.com (MyBo), seeking to reach out to the undecideds as well as party supporters. Whereas, like John McCain, MembersNet seems to focus on party supporters and appears to ignore the floating voter. What matters, therefore, it not just the tools used, but the philosophy behind each communication channel.

Political persuasion in action

When considering political persuasion most would probably concern themselves with voting behaviour, the exercise of political power and the yah-boo sucks politics of political parties and individual elected representatives.

I am reminded by Vaughan Bell at Mind Hacks, that political persuasion is more that partisan or governing politics. Political persuasion also includes how we shape opinion and influence personal behaviour on a range of non-partisan issues. This short interview talks about how a report on climate change might influence wider opinion.

I am particularly intrigued by Robert Gifford's suggestion that an effective message is comprised of five elements. I think these, especially the fourth and fifth are achievable within such issues as personal health and global warming, but I don't think that party politicians use all of this five element approach. One, two and three - yes - but not the last two. It would be interesting to see if politcians turned matters on their heads and said that the electrorate are the real heroes.

How to handle the BNP?

I have already blogged this week my angst about whether we should ignore or directly address the BNP.

Nick Robinson in his blog takes a very interesting slant on what is a very complex, and emotional issue, by offering an analysis of the changing political communication strategy being used to combat the BNP. He notes that thus far the parties have coluded to essentially ignore the BNP, believing that this approach will starve the party of publicity. However, Robinson notes that sections of the establishment and some party figures have abandoned this strategy by taking on the BNP head on. The goalposts, therefore, appear to be moving and it will be interesting to see what happens in the months ahead.

But given that the Battle of Britain appears to have become a political football, I shall dust down my airfix model of a Spitfire MkIV and remember that the few were fighting against fascism and for a free, tolerant society.

MPs and communicating the Legg letter

I mentioned last week that Tom Levitt had explained in his e-newsletter that he had received a letter from Sir Thomas Legg. I noted that he had made a holding statement, and should ideally follow this up later with more detail.

I am pleased to say that is exactly what Tom has done (I doubt very much it has to do with this blog, rather he is committed to communicating with his constituents):

"Confirmed that Sir Thomas Legg has asked me to return £389 in respect of a 2004 claim for a sofa bed which he said was ‘extravagant.’ Agreed, but if it had been judged as such at the time I would happily have paid the difference then, without all this bother."

You can almost here the exasperation in this message. There are, I am sure, some MPs who saw their expenses as a top-up of their salary, but I also suspect many/most did not. I suspect if I was asked to pay back money for an expense I claimed, and was given, five years ago I too would be a tad annoyed.

I can't help feeling that chasing such minor claims, many of which were within the rules at the time, is hitting the wrong target. Rather, I would be much happier if the focus was on the bigger misdemeanours, and for some I think that there is a case for criminal proceedings. Putting those who have crossed the line into the dock to answer for what they have done would be much more preferable, than what is currently happening. In trying to lance the boil and address real concerns, I think they are focusing too much on patients with a mild winter cough, rather than the those with an incurable disease.

This was never an easy PR issue to address, but the startegy taken seems to be making it worse, not better.

Should we hear the BNP or not?

There has a been a lot of discussion recently about the BBC's decision to have invite Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, and MEP, to be on the flagship programme Question Time's panel for this Thursday's show. Amongst others, well-known anti-racism campaigner, Peter Hain has argued against the invite. In part, he justifies his argument that the BNPs consistution breaks equality laws. Personally I think that arguement is not central. The key question is should parties such as the BNP, that are widely perceived to promote racist policies, be allowed to have their voice heard?

I had always personally assumed that the best thing was to get the debate out in the open, and let the BNP hoist itself by its own petard. That when exposed to rational argument as opposed to relying on emotional rhetoric, they would be undermined.

However, I have one nagging concern, that by letting the cat out of the bag, we may make opinions many of us find unacceptable, have a veneer of acceptability. Elisabeth Noell-Neumann suggested in the 1970s that public opinion could be managed in such a way to encourage or discourage certain opinions. Her spiral of silence theory suggests that most individuals will keep to themselves opinions which the rest of society feels are unacceptable. This does not mean that they change their opinion, rather that they just don't voice it.

Noelle-Neumann criticised this spiral of silence by suggesting that in a mediated society, the media shapes those opinions we can voice. Therefore, she noted that in order to change, society needs individuals who don't always toe the norm. Thus when I was a child drink driving did not seem a big deal, but gradually more and more voices have been heard to suggest that it is wrong, and moreover a very big wrong.

What worries me, is that in this instance the spiral of silence theory is being turned on its head. By giving a voice to Griffin, are we encouraging more and more people to publicly agree with him. This does not mean that more citizens will suddenly become racist or support the BNP, but those who are/do privately may be more encouraged to say so publicly. This is especially so since this is not a one-off. Given the number of seats that the BNP are likely to be contesting at the general election they will have some free acess to air through Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs).

Politician's hinterland

When I saw that a minor media story was being made out of the 3 main party leaders' interest in biscuits - my initial response was "on please who cares." But when you read the story, then you realise that it is an example of two-way communciation when mumsnet visitors asked Gordon Brown the question.

However, myself and Darren Lilleker have been recently looking at how politician's might deliberately seek to create a sense of hinterland, so that citizen's get a sense of them as an individual human beings. The logic is that if politician's talk about their personal intersts such as music tastes, sporting interests and hobbies, then then are creating a fuller picture of themselves. You could argue that talking about their choice of biscuit, and whether they dunk or not, does provide some 'colpour and give a sense of this hinterland, no matter how silly and inconsequential choice of biscuit really is.

MPs surveying their constituents

The old view of the representative process was that on policy issues MPs formulated their ideas, and then sought to 'sell' these to their electorate. In other words, individual politicians and political parties sought to promote their ideology, rather than responding directly to constituents demands. This is not to say that there was not interaction with the elected representative, but it tended to be on local and/or non-partisan issues.

However, a political marketing approach stresses that political actors in constructing their policies actively seek out citizens' views. I have some problems with how this might be achieved methodologically, especially Labour's famed focus groups and opinion polls under Tony Blair organised by Philip Gould. However, of greater attraction is when individual MPs seek their constituents opinion. There are a number of MPs who do this well, and Lynne Featherstone's blog contains a recent example of such political market research.

Obviously Lynne Featherstone is shaping the answers through the questions she sets, but nonetheless it provides a good opportunity for constituents to respond on issues of relevance to them. In short, they are encouraged to believe that their opinions count. The key to this tactic of engagement working is that the results are publicised, and the MPs response to the findings made clear. My only criticism is that it is difficult to see if Lynne has made such feedback publicly available before. It may be that she has, but if so it is not easy to find (perhaps a link to it from this years survey would help).

The confusion of MP's expenses

Sir Thomas Legg's letter last week has angered a lot of MPs because of its retrospective nature in assessing some expenses. By and large I suspect most people outside of the political bubble are not that sympathetic to MPs on this issue. However, the best argument I have seen written against what is currently happening is from Frank Field. This is someone who clearly has credibility, and he is quite damming in his criticism. Moreover, his analogy concerning speeding fines is an injustice most of us could identify with.

I am not suggesting that MPs should be allowed to 'get away with it', but from the outset the whole issue of MPs' expenses has been presented in clear black and white, right and wrong terms. The reality is that this issue is much more complex than sound bites allow. This is as much a rationally based issue, as an emotive, yet so far most disucssion has focused on the emotional issues.

Part of this problem is created by the fact that MPs have increasingly become from the political class of lobbyists, PR people and others involved in the body politic. As professional communicators they want and expect salaries similar to ones they have to give up to take a seat. However, my fear is that we may get rid of this political class and replace it with a wealthy amateur political class. This is what we had early in the past, and I don't think it worked then either.

Labour's Future

Given that many commentators are now (possibly prematurely) predicting that a) Labour will lose the next election and b) be out of office for some time, I note with interest an attempt by Labour backbenchers to consider the vision of where they wnat society developing.

Labour Future founded this month by ten party names seeks to discuss ideas. It claims not to be a faction seeking to promote a particular leadership candidate, rather the pamphlet/website seeks to revitalise Labour's approach through ideas. I think this is welcome. It covers twelve topics. I would like to see more of this in politics, and some critics might argue that not all parties are transparent on where they see the future.

However, I found the analysis quite sound, but there was a lack of detailed policy ideas of how to reach a better society. Groupings of thinkers like this within all parties (and preferably across parties) is welcome, and I hope they develop some detail. Yet I suspect this initiative comes too late for the current government.

Political Stunts

Probably the most innovative and best political stunt I have heard of took place recently. Normally stunts are short-lived high impact psuedo events, that in themselves have no real meaning. To work, the visual aspect of the stunt must dovetail with the message.

To raise awareness about the impact of global warning on low-level countries such as themselves, the maldives cabinet held a meeting underwater. This is a brillant political stunt that clearly the story fits with the message. Moreover, it has gained quite significant coverage, especially given the video and photographs provided.

I look forward to our cabinet meeting takign the same approach to raise an issue they think is key in the form of a stunt.

Freedom of Speech and Trefigura

In America public relations owes its origins more to the concept of relations with publics. So organisations use communication as the means to reach their customers. In Europe, however, there is historically a different, more politically related use of PR. Ever since the seventeenth/eighteenth centuries what we now know as PR has evolved from the desire to establish freedom of speech.

It is in this light that I interpret what did, or rather what almost did not happpen, this week with the case of Trefigura. It would appear that The Guardian were facing an attempt by Trefigura not to publicise information about their activities in another country. This in itself, where companies or individuals might seek an injunction is not unusual. What I think transforms this case is the rather bizarre situation is that Trefigura, in the form of their libel lawyers, Carter Ruck, appear to have tried to prevent The Guardian and other newspapers reporting that an MP, Paul Farelly, in his normal duty as an MP will be askign an oral parliamentary question to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.

Whilst clearly Carter Ruck were not trying to directly gag an MP, it was a tactical mistake to in effect try to do so indirectly, by trying to prevent journalists reporting what was happening in Parliament. First, it would be impossible to prevent both Farelly's question and Straw's answer from getting out, as both are made public in Hansard and on parliament's website. Second, parliamentarians would jump on the issue, using parliamentary priviledge. With Sir Thomas Legg's recent letter, MPs are feeling the pressure, and this would have been an open goal. MPs could have gained public sympathy as the defender of our human rights. As Manchester United's manager Sir Alex Ferguson often blames referee's when his side play badly to distract attention, had this issue grown it would have been a gift for the body politic.

In terms of handling crises, the consistent advice is that organisations need to be open and engage with their key stakeholders. Lawyers may see how to handle crises very differently because their eye is on the courts, not the media. This seems to be an example where the advice of the legal team has held sway over that of Trefigura's communication team. I suggest that this was a tactical mistake. Rather than putting a lid on the issue, they have actually stoked it, suggesting that it will get bigger. I am sure I would have given the story a very limited glance (if the media I regulalry consult actually gave it an airing). Now I and many others shall continue to look to see what is happening. Moreover, parliamentarians are showing great interest, and the issue was even raised in Prime Minister's Questions.

I suggest that the appropriate response here tactically would have been to consult experienced crisis managers.

The lid was blown off this story because of the use of blogs and microblogs as explained by another interested party, The Independent newspaper. Once a story gets out into cyberspace then issues take off rapidly.

One aspect of this story which surprises me is that Paul Farelly does not appear to have made hay, standing up for the rights of parliamentarians to defend citizens rights. Looking on his website I see no mention of what happened, yet surely his input would be well-reported.

The Internet at the Next General Election

Most nights at present I watch BBC 2's Masterchef. Each evening the two star michelin chef Michel Roux Jnr considers each dish he tastes, and gives a highly polished critique of each one. In doing so he demonstrates a highly developed palette. And then comes comes Gregg Wallace, whose main fame is that he was well known for promoting vegetables. For each dish he tries to find a way of repeating what Roux says, but using different language. Each night my wife and I joke that all Wallace needs to do is point his eyes at his co-host and say "what he says mate".

I read Bill Thompson's piece on the BBC website on the role of the Internet at the next General Election. And despite being one of those commentators he criticises, my response is "what he says mate". I only probably disagree with one substantive point, namely that I think the Internet will have an effect in terms of mobilising resources (it did to a lesser extent in 2005). In essence, the Internet is only a communication channel , what matters more is the culture, strategy and vision behind the overall campaign of which the online arm is only a part. The Internet will not drive a party's election campaign, rather it will reflect it.

A party for independent candidates?

I was very intrigued to come across a meeting last month of the Independent Network, organised by PR firm Parker, Wayne & Kent.

The day was designed to help provide advice on media relations (would Esther Rantzen, Terry Waite and Martin Bell need this?), and on the use of ICT technologies such as social networking sites. Effectively this PR agency, presumably funded by someone, is playing one of the roles that central party organisations provide of supporting individual candidates. This outsourcing model is very interesting, and in theory suggests that party's are not as importnat as we might think. Obviously, this approach draws heavily from the US model, and i am not sure whether it will work here or not, but it does make you think.

What it does suggest, however, is that as with 2005 during the 2010 General Election campaign, we might find some of the more innovative and interactive uses of the Internet from smaller parties, who have limited opportunities to reach the electorate.

The Impact of Sir Thomas Legg

This week it was revealed that Sir Thomas Legg has written to most MPs stating that they may have to justify their past expenses. It appears that some MPs believe that Legg has overstepped his remit, and this seems to be building up pressure on the party leaders.

MPs are obviously having to respond to this issue when dealing with constituents. One typical reponse came my way from Tom Levitt, who stated in his recent e-newsletter:

"Like every other MP, I have received a letter from Sir Thomas Legg as part of his investigation into MPs’ expenses. The letter invites discussion on certain issues, it is not a bill to be paid as some parts of the press would have us believe. He will be replying to this private correspondence in due course."

Apart from the use of both "I" and "he", implying that the e-newsletter is written (not unreasonably) by the MPs staff (and I did not think that every MP had received a letter), I found this very interesting. It did suggest that the factual situation may not be exactly as reported in the press. Moreover, Levitt is demonstrating to constituents that he is not shying away from the issue. I view his statement as an initial holding statement, which later will be addresed in more depth (logically when Sir Thomas Legg publicises his report). However, if Levitt or any other MPs hope is that such statements will lance the boil, and are all they need to say, I suspect they are mistaken. This whole issue of MPs expenses has shaken the body politic, and to repair soem fo the damage individual MPs need to communciate more regularly than ever before with consitituents on matters that are of interest to constituents.

With Legg's report hanging over the election campaign, I do wonder whether things are now going too far. Do citizens now want closure? Is raking up older expenses going to serve any positive purpose? I don't know, MPs have sometimes been their own worse enemy, but there does have to be a point where you draw a point in the sand, and get on with the future.

Persuasion and selling cigarettes

This week the whole issue of access to cigarettes has come into focus when MPs passed an amendment in the Health Bill to outlaw the puiblic use of cigarette vending machines, though not everyone is happy with the move.

At the same time the BBC have produced a very interesting video on how cigarette companies have used persuasive advertising. Many of these adverts existed at a time when there were limited controls, and you can see that they try to create 'legends' which suggest using their product will enhance certain virues. Therefore, they might encourage the trait of being 'manly', or even make the user more likely to being successful in finding love. I can vaguely remember some of them, and I suspect they could have been quite powerful.

The persuasive techniques used are still being applied, you only have to look at some personal product adverts, especially for men, to see them in operation. So, the concern is currently with the product, I wonder whether eventually the concern will be with the message approach, whatever the product?

Political event management

One communciation tool used frequently by public relations practitioners is events management. An event might be organised to launch a product, raise the company profile or enhance corporate reputation, or whatever. But the reality is that events are an everyday part of the PR toolkit.

Yet in the political sphere, especially in the UK, events conceived for political reasons seem very low profile. In the US I found evidence of political event management, typically for fundraising and volunteer mobilising. One agency, EMBARK, refer to such events as a platform bringing together stakeholders. Another company Penner-Madison suggests that political events management in their area of operations, Thailand, plays a very low role, but they suggest that it should be much more important in political and electoral campaigns. They argue that events are a means for political campaigns to reach out to people. This is an interesting point, as in essence the key to Obama's use of the Internet was that he used it, a communciation channel, to reach out to people.

The fact that political event management, outside of party conferences, has a low profile in the UK, could be explained by the party as opposed to candidate system. Individual candidates need to raise their profile, secure funds and develop hype, political parties are far less likely to need to do so.

It is, however, quite possible that the role of events managemnt may increase in the UK as a means of direct communication to voters. If, and it is a big if, you accept those viewpoints that political campaigning is gradually moving away from one dominated by mass communciation channels, and hence media management, through to one where more direct communication is being used, then you can see the importance of events growing.

Whether you prescribe to the views of Blumler and Kavanagh's third age of communciation, or Pippa Norris's post-modern campaigning, this approach essentially suggests that there has been a historical development of political communications, and that the wheel is turning, if not circle, at least a crescent. Thus historically politicians relied on personal contacts/networks and public meetings. So that Gladstone is supposed to have won an election throug his Midlothian campaign, essentially a series of public meetings. Then with the advent of radio, communicators such as F.D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill were able to utilise the technology. Since the 1960s mass communciation, especially television, has dominated political communications. Commentators such as Norris and Dominic Wring, however, suggest that this dominance is being challenged. They, and many others suggest that this challenge is being driven by the use of the Internet by members of society. But I would add to this, and note that greater use of direct mail and politically motivated events can also bring citizens into closer contact with politicians or political ideas. I do not suggest that these three direct forms of communication have replaced mass communication channels as the dominant channel for political communications, but they certainly provide valid alternatives.

How do we persuade

A story on the beebs website caught my eye today about the likelihood of cigarette vending machines being outlawed.

As a non-smoker I have no active opinion on the possibility, but I am very interested in what this says about how society changes individuals' behaviour. We are all taught from a very early age that smoking is wrong, and generally most pre-pubescent children will accept that, but then around puberty some may start to see things differently. Similarly, most of us know that we should eat five pieces of fruit and vegatable a day, and why. Yet how many people actually do.?

Can you actually persuade someone to do something when it is patently goood for them? Indeed, do we as society have any right to seek to do so?

In terms of the former question, I think we come up with on the one hand what the brain says, and on the other what the heart says. Moreover, we cannot ignore the impact of socialisation, that it is seen in some peer groups as 'cool' to smoke. So is it a situation of rational arguement does not work? Or maybe we have not yet got the right rational/emotive message. For example, would a campaign aimed at encouraging teenagers and young adults to stop smoking if the message was 'kiss a non-smoker and enjoy the differnece'? I suspect not.

Rather the lesson from the smoking issue is that there needs to a stick, some sort of sanction or direct encouragement, to change behaviour.

Political Campaigning on the Net

Last Friday I was interviewed for Radio 4's technology focused programme, Click-On, on the subject of political campaigning on the net. Understandably this discussion is shaped by two events: first, the use of the Internet by Obama during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election; and second the fact that campaigning for the 2010 UK General Election has already started.

In reality, the example of Obama is not the first to get attention on the Internet, and the previous Presidential election also was viewed as a major watershed in political campaigning. During the 2004 Democrat Primaries, Howard Dean went very quickly from nowhere, to frontrunner to nowhere again. His imaginative use of the Internet, masterminded by Joe Trippi to gain funds and mobilise supporters. Trippi, as well as presumably being a fan of Gil Scott Heron , was able to substantially raise Dean's offline profile through the Internet. Yet, ultimately Dean was considered unelectable.

Obama learned the lesons from Dean, and indeed refined them so he generated more resources in terms of money and volunteers, but the key difference was that he was more electable.

The Internet is a communication channel, which in itself is not a magic bullet. The key to Obama's success in using the Internet was that his use of it fitted in very closely with his overall message and approach: namely to open out and reach people and pull them in.

Twitter: communication tool or pointless vanity?

The Hansard Society have an interesting discussion on 21st October which will discuss the potential of Twitter.

Generally, I have been sceptical of the use of digital technologies by individual politicians and political parties. Too often the politicians are jumping on a bandwagon, and the political parties want to (rather understandably) use the technology to gain a competitive advantage, and so seek to control each new medium. That said, the parties do have excellent staff who know how to use web technologies very effectively, and there is a group of pioneering elected representatives who are using these technologies imaginatively.

As a consequence, I am very interested in how Twitter might be used. There are two possible aspects to the possible impact of micro-blogs. First, it could assist elected representatives build up their relationships with constituents. The logic of this is that if citizens have a low opinion of politicians as a breed, if they have come into contact with their MP, their opinion will be modified. In short, they might not like MPs per se, but their MP is okay. Thus Twitter might help some citizens see the human side of their MP. Second, will Twitter encourage those who are not very interested in politics to become interested, almost by default.

I am not yet sure the answer to both questions, but the former is the holy grail for political organisers: can they use technology to win votes; and the latter is where academics tend to focus their attention: to enhance participation in civic society.

Sources of Persuasion

There is a lot of literature, in the form of self-help guides, sales books and academic textbooks which outline the central cognitive theories of persuasion. However, when trying to understand persuasion in general, and persuasion applied to political mesages, there is limited advice based on empirical research.

One website which is a good source of real hard-and-fast advice is influence at work, well-known academic psychologist Robert Cialdini's company. Go to the articles section and there are lots of interesting publciations, for example, on the best alternative to torture to gain information from suspected terrorists, how to get your children to tidy up at home and how to get hotel guests to use towels as often as possible to save the environment.

In the political sphere there is Drew Westen's The Political Brain which has influenced much right-wing thought about how individual's can be 'nudged' to make small changes which overall improve society. For example, in the U.S., Westen's analysis has led to a discussion on how workers can be encouraged to take out health insurance (the suggestion is that they have to opt-out, not opt-in as currently). It is argued, therefore, that such uses of persuasion can lead to societal changes but without needing strong government to achieve it.

The BBC had a fascinating series in 2002, Century of Self, which looked at the influence of the Freud's in the development of consumer society. Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays is often seen as the 'father of PR'. Bernays learned his craft during World War 1 within the American government's 'propaganda' unit, and during the 1930s he played a role in how Government's could, within a democratic society, persuade citizen's to do what they wanted.

The interesting thing about Bernays is that he started off within the propaganda school, but throughout his long career (1891-1995) gradually moved his interpretation of PR.

The Tweeting Classes

For many years those interested in politics, especially those who set the agenda, were often referred to as the chattering classes. By and large this was not a term of indearment.

I believe that the role of the Guardian reading, Radio 4 Today programme listening elite is being replaced by a tweeting elite. Lovies and others in the public eye, such as Stephen Fry, Jonathan Ross and Lily Allen, are dominating the use of Twitter. Though apparently the latter has now stopped tweeting, which in itself is interesting. I have felt that Twitter may be a fad, which to do well over a long term will take a lot of effort. If Lily Allen is no longer tweeting, is she and other high-profile users getting bored of it?

Apparently Sarah Brown is the most popular tweeter. She currently has 849,000 followers, though she only follows 3,800. Brown's use of Twitter is perfectly decent, she clearly engages with other tweeters and it promotes her charitable projects. Overall it is worhtwhile, but in all reality I want to hear from Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, not the Prime Minister's wife. Therefore, in terms of political communication, Twitter is currently a sideshow, and not necessarily worthy of all the hype about it.

Greenpeace Roof Protest

Well thought through and executed stunts are a well-tried means for pressure groups to gain media coverage for their campaigns. Greenpeace have gained some success with their latest stunt, namely a rooftop protest on the Houses of Parliament.

Ideally I feel that the message and the stunt should dovetail, and this is not necessarily the case here, but like Fathers 4 Justice's stunts, I suspect Greenpeace would say they are targeting the right people.

This has a bit of feel of the Greenpeace Germany and Brent Spar incident in the early 1990s. Then they made great use of new technology - at that time video uplinks, now they have a blog, tweet and make use of YouTube. Clearly this is a well-thought out campaign, and I suspect will not be a one-off stunt. The only question mark I have is to what extent do Greenpeace actually want to get round the table with the Government or indeed MPs, and actually discuss a solution to environmental issues? Traditionally, Greenpeace has been an 'outsider' group that does not wish to compromise their aims or principles. I always felt that the mistake Fathers 4 Justice made was to gain high-profile coverage and a lot of sympathy, and then instead of agreeing to sit around the table with politicians and civil servants they continued to think up new stunts to push further their message. Eventually the public got bored, and politicians may well have concluded that they could not do business with them.

If Greenpeace are still occupying the roof of Parliament tomorrow when MPs return from their summer recess, it will be interesting to see if Greenpeace want discussions with decision makers and influencers or not. In other words is widespread publicity alone the short term goal, or is there some practical 'real-politic' objective?

The Daily Telegraph effect

The Daily Telegraph has reported that Sir Thomas Legg's investigation of MPs expenses may not be availble until quite close to the election.

If this is the case, it could have quite an effect in some seats. Apart from the fact that we might see some MPs decide to call it all a day and not stand after-all, this could impact upon public discourse during the campaign. Whilst we might expect the media to apply some subtly to any last minute revelations, I can see that cyberspace could be awash with gossip. It is quite easy to see social networking sites, the bloggersphere and now the microbloggersphere repeating all sorts of stories. This could be from candidates themselves, but perhaps more likely from other commentators (some of whom might be aligned to a party/candidate and so have an 'agenda', and some might not).

In 2005 private blogs be they from candidates, commentators or the media were quite rare and had little impact upon the news agenda. 2010 is likely to be very different, so that political parties and the news media may face serious challenges to their control of the election agenda.

Don't Blame Mercury

The polls have been telling us for some time that the Labour Party is in some trouble, and is clearly on the back-foot. The recent Annual Conference has done little to address the party's overall image. But you know that any governing party realises that it is in trouble communciation wise, when it starts to blame the messenger. Using Twitter, Ben Bradshaw has complained that Radio 4s treatment of Conservative spokesperson was not robust enough. There is of course some irony in the fact that I found this story courtesy of the BBC.

The BBC is a major political football, but I suspect most viewers/listeners trust its covergae, by and large, to be impartial and journalists to ask appropriate questions.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that all the Conservative have to do is turn up and they will win the next election, rather I feel all is to play for. Certainly, the result of the Republic of Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon treaty has clearly put the Conservative Party on the back foot.

I suspect that the oncoming election campaign (which has in reality already started) will be quite negative in relative terms. But I am not convinced that this will be succesful. Perhaps senior Labour ministers should focus on their jobs of promoting policies, ideas and a vision, and let the journalists get on with theirs.

Is political tweeting taking off?

I was not going to comment on politician's use of Twitter for some time, but two recent items are worth highlighting.

First, Channel 4 news seem to have invested a lot of effort in covering Twitter. As well as many of their journalists tweeting from the party conferences, they have also hosted fringe meetings at conferences on Twitter. What is interesting is the assumption that Tweeting politics enhances politics as usual, and so their emphasis is on what Labour and Conservative politicians do in social networking sites and on micro-blogs, but the other parties seem largely ignored.

Second, the Congressional Research Service has published data on how Members of Congress use Twitter. This data suggests that in the US it is politcian's from the right and not the left, who are most likely to use it. They also note that those in the Hosue are more likely to tweet than Senators. A shame they did not posit why, perhaps there is a closer link to constituents.?

I am not yet convinced that Twitter is taking off, but the chattering classes do seem to becoming the tweeting classes.

One MP noted to me their view that needs to be a distinction betwen authentic and inauthentic tweeting, with the former being provided by the MP themsleves and not their staff. I beleive there is much in what they say, in that this is a fast-evolving technology, and those who just jumped on the bandwagon are facing hard choices of how they use Twitter in the run-up to the general election.

Olympic Powers of Persuasion?

Ronald Reagan was often termed 'the great communicator' and President Obama has similarly been tagged as 'the great persuader'. However, I suspect that Obama's ill-fated visit to Copenhagen last week to speak for Chicago in the 2016 Olympics bid, may have dented this reputation a bit.

Aristotle spoke of three components to persuasion: Ethos – the speaker; Logos – the message; and Pathos – the audience. Obama is clearly an effective speaker, but I think he got both the message and the audience wrong. Of what I saw of Obama's speech he seemed to focus on how much he wanted the Olympics, this did not strike me as the appropriate message. Moreover, his approach contrasted badly with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil who took a very emotive approach.

I heard it said that it spoke volumes that Obama took time out of his very busy schedule to visit Copenhagen. This makes it sound like the audience were 'lucky' to have him attend. This seems to be sending out the wrong message to the audience to me. Moroever, it would appear that Obama did not stay for long, whereas when 2012 was awarded to London, Tony Blair was assidulously arm-twisting until the last minute.

Even if Obama had stayed longer this might not have led to a different decision. It is still quite possible that the merit's of Chicago's bid was not strong enough, or that prejudices against the world's only superpower would mean that Chicago was unlikely to have won. Whatever is the case, I am not totally sure Obama went into the process 100%, adn consequently his image may be dented a bit.

Sometimes persuasive powers alone are not enough.

E-campaigning

MPs have been using e-newsletters for some years as a communication tool. As with every Internet modality, some are good (such as Steve Webb and Nick Palmer) many indifferent and some poor.

Occasionally an MP uses this technology in a way that makes you sit up and listen. Tim Farron starts his e-newsletter this month with:

"Can you help me this Saturday (3 October) in the campaign to bring a cancer treatment unit to the South Lakes? I would be really grateful if you could join me on the last leg of my walk from the Royal Preston Hospital to Westmorland General Hospital, highlighting the distance cancer patients currently have to travel for treatment. We will be handing over the 8,000-strong petition supporting a new unit in Kendal to local health bosses at the hospital.

Please come to the playing fields at Kirkbie Kendal school on Lound Road in Kendal at 10am.

When I reach Kirkbie Kendal, I will already have walked over 40 miles from the nearest cancer unit currently, which is at Royal Preston Hospital, after meeting patients and the excellent staff there. I will be walking through the night so if you see me give me a wave!

If you want to sign the petition in support of the new unit you can still do so here: http://www.timfarron.co.uk/petitions/2.html


I have noted that the best e-newsletters from MPs do more than just updating receipients on local news, outlining what they are doing on behalf of constituents and explaining their voting behaviour. I am not knocking this, as all of this information based material is at the core of an MPs representative role. But the best e-newsletters from time to time go beyond this and either seek to engage in a conversation about issues, or ask the subscriber to do something. Yes, Farron is clearly showing how hard he works, but he is actively doing something to highlight an issue, and he is calling for help. To me this is a good example of how the Internet can help support constituency based campaigns.

The importance of hinterland

I was very interested to note that Liberal Democrat Julia Goldsworthy has announced in her regular e-newsletter that she will be using a yellow campervan called 'Daisy' to provide a travelling surgery in her constituency. Falmouth and Camborne, apart from being a Conservative target seat, is also a large geographical area with a number of small villages and hamlets.

It is not uncommon for MPs representing such spread out rural areas to travel around the constituency, as many of their constituents will find it difficult to visit them. What interested me is the personal touch of how Julia presented this. She notes that the old caravan she used to use for this purpose can no longer do the job. So she introduces us to Daisy, almost giving her real character. What I believe Julia is doing, deliberately or otherwise, is trying to create a sense of hinterland. In other words, painting herself as a human being, not some faceless bureaucrat.

Since the Daily Telegraph's revelations about MPs expenses, individual representatives may be tarred with the same brush. By creating a hinterland, perhaps by talking about their hobbbies (Julia talks about Gig racing) such MPs may be protecting themselves a little bit against the general negative perceptions of politicians.

Twitter & MPs

Research conducted in June this year by myself and Darren Lilleker on MPs use of Twitter adds to the recent melting pot of new research on microblogs.

You can read the basic findings here, but there are a few observations about MPs use of Twitter that are not in this release. I have been researching MPs use of the Internet since 2002, and generally the adoption of each new modality, be it website, e-newsletter, weblog, social networking site and now microblog follows a fairly similar pattern. A few technologically interested MPs (or their staff) dip their toe into each application. Often it is the same people who try each new technology that comes along. Others start them to get on the bandwagon often because society, and especially their constituents, are making use of each new Internet modality. However, what then happens is that we see a split in how they use the Internet. Most don't really have a clear strategic purpose for why they are using each technology. Only a much smaller number have a clear vision of why and how they are using the technology to enhance their representative role, get re-elected or both.

In my PhD thesis I suggested that there are four possible characteristics of a typology of how MPs utilise the Internet:

1) Technophobes - who believe that the possible benefits of fully utilising the Internet are not outweighed by their costs. They probably have a publicised email acocunt and a basic website (though not all) but that it is it. They probably account for up to 30% of the current parliament.
2) Bandwagoners - have a lukewarm interest in the Internet, but see others going online and do so too. This group represents probably a third or possibly more of current MPs.
3) Magpies - cherry pick online communication tools if they believe that they offer them a competitive advantage. Therefore, they may use the Internet effectively, but their motive is essentially for electoral gain. This group probably represents 25-30% of MPs.
4) Pioneers - who champion the Internet not just for their own communication and campaigning benefits, but also as a means of enhancing the democratic process. They represent about 5-10% of MPs.

What I have found interesting about MPs use of Twitter is that the above analysis may not be totally applicable with this modality. The bandwagon is clearly growing very quickly, but it is not full of the usual suspects. There are MPs, such as Peter Lilley, Ed Balls and Paul Rowan who I have not previously picked up on my 'radar' as those particularly interested in the Internet. It may well be that the ease of keeping in regualr touch with constituents through microblogging is attracting more to this modality than other parts of the Internet. I also note that it seems to be quite attractive to party bigwigs, who appear to use it as a one-way communciation channel that makes clear what work they are doing. hence many MPs use Twitter as an impression management tool.

Time will tell whether Twitter becomes another minor communication channel or has a more fundamental impact on representation and political communciation, but I am looking forward to how it would be used at the next election.

The party conference season starts

Although the Green Party had their conference on 3rd-6th September, and the TUC's annual jamboree is underway now, what is often considered the real conference season starts this Saturday when the Liberal Democrats visit Bournemouth, then Labour gather in Brighton 27th September - Ist October, with the Conservatives the last to host their annual event in Manchester on 5th-8th October.

The party conference season is in reality a festival of politics which allows parties to have access to the media, moreover on issues of their own choosing. Commentators tend to focus then on this outward looking element of conference, and this is certainly important, but conference is much more than this. Indeed, most of the real business goes on away from the cameras and the conference hall. It provides delegates the opportunity to network, socialise and see old friends and acts a bit like cognitive dissonance is helping them reaffirm their political faith. The parties can also generate income from the stalls that pressure groups, lobbyists and other interested followers have. And certainly it can shape party and wider perception of the party's leadership.

Who attends conference from beyond the confines of party activists can also be a very good barometer of political opinion. The Liberal Democrast (and their predecessor parties) were able to move from smaller conference venues such as Torquay not just because their membership grew, but because as they gained control or influence on more and more councils, a growign number of organisations felt it was worthwhile attending and lobbying both activists and senior party figures. In the middle of the 1990s the attendance of other organisations, and the media, significantly grew at Labour conferences as they realised they needed to talk to the next Party of government at a range of levels. I would expect, therefore, that this year the Conservatives are likely to have the larger conference in terms of non-partisan attendees, adn quite probably the one with greatest 'buzz'..

This will be the last conference before the next election, and so it takes on an added importance. Can each of the three main partites get their internal ducks in a row, or will there be diversive arguments? How will the leaders perform? Will any new figures come to prominance as a result of an excellent rousing speech? Will the delegates go home fired up to, in David Steel's immortal words, "prepare for Government"?

Ultimately, the 2009 conferences are part of the election campaign. They won't tell us much, but they will give us some interesting pointers in what shape each party is in, and possibly how they might approach the election.

Should the BNP be heard?

The BBC recently announced that they would invite the BNP to send a panel member to their flagship Question Time programme. This raises some interesting questions.

As a researcher I have spoken to colleagues about whether or not we should access BNP material, both online or offline. I have indeed accessed the BNP's website a few times, most recently as part of CENMEP's research on the 2009 European Parliament elections. Whilst personally I find it distasteful to do so, I recognise that as an objective researcher my analysis would be incomplete if I did not. This is particularly the case given that the BNP, and other far right organisations throughout Europe, 'punch above their weight' in using the Internet, probably because they do not have easy access to the mainstream media.

Voltaire is associated with (though may or may not have said) the statement "I disagree with you, but I defend your right to say it." I am not totally convinced that most liberals (and I use this term loosely) would agree with the sentiments of this term in this case. However, I do think the BBC are right, not just for media representation purposes, but also because the BNP could well be their own worst enemy if they are forced into saying what they really believe. Of course the danger is that they will come across as 'reasonable' people and gain more support.

I find an update to this story very interesting in that Labour will not force its senior politicians to share a television studio with Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP and MEP.

Learning the lessons of PR

In different countries, and at different times of their historical development particular sectors seem to be at the forefront of using communication techniques. I would argue that in the UK, in the 1960s and early 1970s it was financial companies who made best and most innovative use of PR. In the 1990s it was politics, and in the noughties probably entertainment. But ideas are also transferred across countries, and in many sectors we hear about the effect of the techniques used by Barack Obama during the 2008 Presidential election campaign.

In particular, the focus is on his mobilising use of Web 2.0 technologies, such as social networking sites. The Plymouth Herald reporting on the bid to include Plymouth as a host city as part of the FA's 2018 World Cup proposal is headlined "Obama Style Campaign for Plymouth's World Cup bid." This is a nice snappy title, using a theme many people might be familiar with, and it makes it sound as if the bid is cutting edge. The approach seems to be based on the premise that Plymouth and the World Cup are normally words that are mixed together in polite society. Therefore, they are seeking to raise their profile, in part, by how they present there bid, as much as what they say. The use of participation from below, they presumably hope will gain them offlien attention and may snowball. In temrs of raising their profile this is probably a good idea. But, and for me there is a key but of substance, Obama was not the US Presidential pioneer of using the Internet. In the 2004 Democratic primaries, Howard Dean used the Internet, such as Meetup.com, to build a grassroots base, secure funding and gain publicity. For a short period he became the Democratic frontrunner, but once the novelty wore off and hard questions were asked of him, he lacked the political muscle, nouse call it what you will, and his support fell away.

For the Argyle bid there are, therefore, two key questions. Have they got the substance and do the lessons of political communciation apply to a bid proposal? Time will tell the answer, but fair play to them in trying to make the best of their limited hand.

The big lie

When I was studying 'A' level history I read for some strange reason Adolf Hitler's Mein Kamf. This is a turgid, difficult book to read, but one point he made stuck in my head, namely that of the big lie. Essentially, in trying to explain a Jewish consipracy which led, he argued, to Germany losing the Great War, and the economic and political ills of the country in the 1920s he suggested that a big lie had been told. The psychological argument behind his point is that whilst most people might tell small lies in everyday life, telling a big lie was beyond the pale for most people. Thus, they would be unable to conceptually accept that a politician might tell a big lie, because they themselves would be unable to do so. Therefore, the logic of what Hitler was saying, and it became the propaganda approach of Nazi Germany, was tell big not small lies.

I suspect that the political elite in many countries have taken heed of this, and reading media the past week or so this appears to be the case in Zimbabwe. Various Government mouthpieces suggest that economic sanctions are to blame for the countries ills, that most violence in the 2008 elections was caused by the opposition MDC and that it is the MDC who are violating the fragile Global Political Agreement (GPA) which is holding the country together. Such statements have very little basis, but they do just have a certain force of credibility that Hitler required for big lies to suceed. There are sanctions in place, but they are of a small number of named individuals and companies. MDC activists were clearly involved in violence during last year's elections, but nearly always as the victim not the perpretrayor. The MDC is telling anyone who will listen that there are political problems in the country. However, the Zanu-PF big lie of blaming others for the ills of the country is propaganda designed to justify certain actions (or indeed inactions). Given that Zanu-PF still control the state media, the key is how many ordinary Zimbabweans actually believe the big lies they are subject to. My suspicion is that with regional TV and the Internet, enough of a more cogent explanation gets back into the country, in a way that was not really possible in the 1930s.