My favorite use of new technolgogy at present is what I refer to as LilyAllengate.
It all started when singer Lily Allen tweeted about her love of cricket. The producers of the BBC Radio 4's test Match Special (TMS) saw an opportunty, and got Lilly to be one of their guests on the very light-hearted lunchtime programme hosted by BBC Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew.
I listened to the show during the lunch break of last week's Test Match. Whenever I have listened to it the show gives the listener an opportunity to find out more about a 'celebrity', and the role cricket has played in their lives. It was a good enjoyable interview, with an obvious rapport (I hasten to use the word relationship) between interviewer and interviewee. If I was being hypercritical it was that Allen came across at times as a big giggly, and Aggers seemed a bit star struck, but overall it was an enjoyable way of passing 40 minutes. However, overall Aggers is a good interviewer who makes his guests relaxed, and I could see him doing the job beyond cricket.
Then the wheels came off. Will Buckley posted a blog on the Observer website, which Aggers took exception to, and asked via his Twitter feed for an apology. Lilly Allen added to the debate by tweeting support for Aggers. Ultimately, Buckley had to make an apology, of sorts.
What I find interesting about this that a) the spat took place in the public domain and b) it took place via new technologies. For me it is further evidence that the role of traditional mass communication media is being fundamentally challenged by the Internet and other ICTs. Commentators and academics have for several years talked about convergence, that rather than having separate technologies they will all come together under one domimant channel, probably the Internet.
I am not totally certain that this is an example of convergence, but it does show the power of the Internet. It also suggest that the Internet opens up a voice for the public. The huge number of comments on Buckley's post were virtually unanimously against his article. It was, therefore, no surprise that he had to back down.
In the past such a difference of opinion between two journalists would probably have been sorted out in private. This makes me wonder if at the next UK general election we will witness similar public outbursts. For example, I could see candidates attacking one-another on Twitter or activists posting negative comments on a politician's Facebook wall.
The other lesson I draw from this example, is the fact that technologies such as Twitter and blogs have become such as normal part of our lives, and that of journalists, that I would expect the Internet to be a more significant communciation platform during the 2010 election than that of 2005.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Persuasion: the art of getting what you want
As a lecturer I tend to read lots of books, and so I intend to do the occasional book review, primarily for the benefit of my students.
Recently whilst on leave I read Dave Lakhani's Persuasion: the art of getting what you want. It feels a little at times a bit like I am reading a snake oil salesman's patter, so that on several occasions early on the text implies that very shortly I shall be told the secret to persuasion. But then it takes Lakhani a while to actually get to the meat having promised it several times.
I may be doing Lakhani a disservice in saying it felt early on like a how to sell snake oil guide, as he is obviously a salesperson, and I suspect that his prime audience is young sales staff, not middle aged academics.
The book is based on 19 fairly short chapters, so that it is just over 200 pages. The size of the chapters means that each idea can be read and digested fairly quickly, and I liked that approach. Moroever, on the whole the writing style is fairly punchy, and he weaves in some anecdotes. Personally the little personal vignettes did not work, but they may well for someone seeking inspiration. I also felt that 19 chapters was too many, and some of it felt a little repetitive, and dare I say less persuasive. There is some underpinning theory, but given the audience this is rightly kept to the background.
Lakhani starts by differentiating between manipulation and persuasion, but says that the difference between the two is the motivation of the communicator. I am not totally convinced of this, but I do like the insistence that for there to be persuasion both sides must gain something.
The early chapters essentially address us, the communciator, as the key to starting the process, in terms of how we look, sound and overall mannerisms. In short, Lakhani gets his readers to look at the persona they wish to project, and how to work on this. There is a lot of useful practical tips, and I found the discussionabout the transfer of power very interesting.
One chapter does not really work for me, chapter 13 headed The Quick Persuaders' which is really Persuasion-Lite, and if there is any part of the book that does come across as a snake oil sales guide, this is it. Lakhani has a chapter where he states he has an approach which he uses, what he calls The Persuasion Equation, and if it is so important I am not really sure why it is chapter 14 of 19. The actual equation has three steps, which after I read them my response, was yeah, okay that's reasonable and sound, but is it the eureka moment it was being billed as?
The latter chapters look at the application of persuasion, and I found these some of the more interesting chapters. For example, the chapter on advertising may get those new to marketing and advertising to think. I would have liked a whole chapter, and not just a few pages on persuasion via the Internet as this is an under-visited topic.
There is one brillant bit of persuasion in operation on the back cover, where there are the usual "this is the best thing since sliced bread" quotes. One really got my attention from Blaine Parker "Man, talk about persuasive. Dave convinced me to read and review his book, and I don't even like the guy."
Overall, it is not normally the type of self-help book I would read, but if I was starting out my career in marketing, public relations, sales, advertising, events management, politics or any other persuasion business I would read it if i had a quite moment on a train, plane or on the sofa. I don't fully buy the overall framework/approach, but there are some worthwhile individual nuggets of advice that could help a person be more persuasive, though I don't think any book or training course can guarantee success.
I would recommend this book to students to read, but more as young people in persuasive industries, rather than as students of persuasion.
Recently whilst on leave I read Dave Lakhani's Persuasion: the art of getting what you want. It feels a little at times a bit like I am reading a snake oil salesman's patter, so that on several occasions early on the text implies that very shortly I shall be told the secret to persuasion. But then it takes Lakhani a while to actually get to the meat having promised it several times.
I may be doing Lakhani a disservice in saying it felt early on like a how to sell snake oil guide, as he is obviously a salesperson, and I suspect that his prime audience is young sales staff, not middle aged academics.
The book is based on 19 fairly short chapters, so that it is just over 200 pages. The size of the chapters means that each idea can be read and digested fairly quickly, and I liked that approach. Moroever, on the whole the writing style is fairly punchy, and he weaves in some anecdotes. Personally the little personal vignettes did not work, but they may well for someone seeking inspiration. I also felt that 19 chapters was too many, and some of it felt a little repetitive, and dare I say less persuasive. There is some underpinning theory, but given the audience this is rightly kept to the background.
Lakhani starts by differentiating between manipulation and persuasion, but says that the difference between the two is the motivation of the communicator. I am not totally convinced of this, but I do like the insistence that for there to be persuasion both sides must gain something.
The early chapters essentially address us, the communciator, as the key to starting the process, in terms of how we look, sound and overall mannerisms. In short, Lakhani gets his readers to look at the persona they wish to project, and how to work on this. There is a lot of useful practical tips, and I found the discussionabout the transfer of power very interesting.
One chapter does not really work for me, chapter 13 headed The Quick Persuaders' which is really Persuasion-Lite, and if there is any part of the book that does come across as a snake oil sales guide, this is it. Lakhani has a chapter where he states he has an approach which he uses, what he calls The Persuasion Equation, and if it is so important I am not really sure why it is chapter 14 of 19. The actual equation has three steps, which after I read them my response, was yeah, okay that's reasonable and sound, but is it the eureka moment it was being billed as?
The latter chapters look at the application of persuasion, and I found these some of the more interesting chapters. For example, the chapter on advertising may get those new to marketing and advertising to think. I would have liked a whole chapter, and not just a few pages on persuasion via the Internet as this is an under-visited topic.
There is one brillant bit of persuasion in operation on the back cover, where there are the usual "this is the best thing since sliced bread" quotes. One really got my attention from Blaine Parker "Man, talk about persuasive. Dave convinced me to read and review his book, and I don't even like the guy."
Overall, it is not normally the type of self-help book I would read, but if I was starting out my career in marketing, public relations, sales, advertising, events management, politics or any other persuasion business I would read it if i had a quite moment on a train, plane or on the sofa. I don't fully buy the overall framework/approach, but there are some worthwhile individual nuggets of advice that could help a person be more persuasive, though I don't think any book or training course can guarantee success.
I would recommend this book to students to read, but more as young people in persuasive industries, rather than as students of persuasion.
Does sex and politics mix?
In the election campaign for the German national elections adverts are making quite stir. The Green Party are being criticised for a poster they used with a naked black women and a white person's hands on her buttocks. The party claims the poster supports their same-sex policy, their critics claim it is racist.
Getting people naked is a fairly common tactic, with a high chance of gaining publicity as long as the picture fits the message. It is fairly rarely used in politics, for obvious reasons, who wants to see some well-known politician's wobbly bits, but it is occasionally used to support a political message. This example, of trade unions claiming they have had their pensions stripped I have seen several times, once on Bournemouth beach during a party conference, and actually they had underwear on, but behind the banner they looked naked.
I find it hard to imagine that whoever commissioned the Green Party's poster did not know that it would create a stir, and so lead to media coverage. As most marketers know, and political marketers are no different, nudity and sex sells.
What is interesting for the UK is whether we will use similar tactics at the General Election? My suspicion is that this might be a step too far within UK political society, but I would not be surpised if physically attractive people, especially women did not parts to play in photo-shoots. Certainly, in their elaboration likelihood model Petty & Cacioppo suggest that the physcial attractiveness of a source can be an influencing factor. One Conservative Party Constituency Association Chairman seemed to confirm this, when he stated that he would select a an attractive woman, though he has now had to apologise for this statement.
Getting people naked is a fairly common tactic, with a high chance of gaining publicity as long as the picture fits the message. It is fairly rarely used in politics, for obvious reasons, who wants to see some well-known politician's wobbly bits, but it is occasionally used to support a political message. This example, of trade unions claiming they have had their pensions stripped I have seen several times, once on Bournemouth beach during a party conference, and actually they had underwear on, but behind the banner they looked naked.
I find it hard to imagine that whoever commissioned the Green Party's poster did not know that it would create a stir, and so lead to media coverage. As most marketers know, and political marketers are no different, nudity and sex sells.
What is interesting for the UK is whether we will use similar tactics at the General Election? My suspicion is that this might be a step too far within UK political society, but I would not be surpised if physically attractive people, especially women did not parts to play in photo-shoots. Certainly, in their elaboration likelihood model Petty & Cacioppo suggest that the physcial attractiveness of a source can be an influencing factor. One Conservative Party Constituency Association Chairman seemed to confirm this, when he stated that he would select a an attractive woman, though he has now had to apologise for this statement.
Monday, 24 August 2009
The next election campaign
Twitter appears to be flavour of the month at present, and last week the media made much of Labour's appointment of Kerry McCarthy MP as the so-called Twitter Czar. This is clearly inaccurate as the MP will be responsible for Labour's use in the run-up to the election to more than just Twitter, but makes nice headlines.
I think a more damning criticism is that it has taken Labour so long to appoint a senior politician to this role. Although Tom Watson has frequently played a key role, there is a sense that the Conservatives have stolen a march on Labour in cyberspace. Recognising the importance of e-campaigning, especially for a smaller party, in January Lynne Featherstone was appointed chair of the Liberal Democrat's Technology Board which has a fairly wide remit but clearly will be seeking to help her party utilise the Internet.
Talking to a number of back-room staff after the 2005 General Election one got a sense that the political big beasts had not fully signed up to the possibilities of the Internet. That the political parties have politicians in charge of online campaigning now is to be welcomed, not attacked. My suspicion is that a combination of factors included wider usage, generational factors among politicians and the example of Obama should encourage greater use of the Internet at the next election. The big question will be whether the Internet's time has come, or traditional mass media channels dominate election communciation.
I think a more damning criticism is that it has taken Labour so long to appoint a senior politician to this role. Although Tom Watson has frequently played a key role, there is a sense that the Conservatives have stolen a march on Labour in cyberspace. Recognising the importance of e-campaigning, especially for a smaller party, in January Lynne Featherstone was appointed chair of the Liberal Democrat's Technology Board which has a fairly wide remit but clearly will be seeking to help her party utilise the Internet.
Talking to a number of back-room staff after the 2005 General Election one got a sense that the political big beasts had not fully signed up to the possibilities of the Internet. That the political parties have politicians in charge of online campaigning now is to be welcomed, not attacked. My suspicion is that a combination of factors included wider usage, generational factors among politicians and the example of Obama should encourage greater use of the Internet at the next election. The big question will be whether the Internet's time has come, or traditional mass media channels dominate election communciation.
Politicians and Twitter
Over the weekend I read several stories which made reference to 40% of tweets being 'babble'. I posted about this and other research last week. This figure seems to have been instantly accepted, however, if this figure is accurate (and the sample was fairly small) I caution that it does not automatically apply to all types of Twitter user.
When I first looked at MP's twitter accounts there were indeed a number of pointless posts, but research myself and Darren Lilleker conducted in June of tweeting MPs suggests that those who stick with the technology (many don't) appear to have a clear purpose for using it.
We identified 51 regularly updated, or sticky, Twitter accounts by MPs, some of which were fairly patchy. But, of those MPs who regularly use it they clearly see Twitter as a means of promoting themselves. For them Twitter is not about 'babble' but about explaining what they are doing for constituents, both in Westminister and in the constituency. Moreover, what some call babble can be very illuminating. Talk about an MPs family or personal interests provides a sense of hinterland, so that people can get to know their elected representives a little better.
I have conducted research on politcians' use of websites, e-newsletters, weblogs and social networking sites with some degree of scepticism. I have to say that in many ways I found their use of Twitter the most interesting. With social networking sites, such as Facebook, many MPs used them exactly the same as everyone else and not as part of their representative role. This is not the case with Twitter. If you look at MP's tweets, easily achieved by a visit to Tweetminster, you note that a small community is building up where a small group of champions respond to each others Tweets. This provides the rest of us with a small insight into a private world. Perhaps the most interesting facet of MPs use of Twitter is that the champions have been tweeting during parliamentary set-pieces and so offer a rare inside view. For example, a number of MPs tweeted during the election process of the Speaker. Indeed, I counted 107 tweets from Sandra Gidley.
Whilst good representative or campaigning use of new technologies by political actors is not always universal, I suspect that the champions will find it a useful means of explaining what they are doing to justify their salaries.
When I first looked at MP's twitter accounts there were indeed a number of pointless posts, but research myself and Darren Lilleker conducted in June of tweeting MPs suggests that those who stick with the technology (many don't) appear to have a clear purpose for using it.
We identified 51 regularly updated, or sticky, Twitter accounts by MPs, some of which were fairly patchy. But, of those MPs who regularly use it they clearly see Twitter as a means of promoting themselves. For them Twitter is not about 'babble' but about explaining what they are doing for constituents, both in Westminister and in the constituency. Moreover, what some call babble can be very illuminating. Talk about an MPs family or personal interests provides a sense of hinterland, so that people can get to know their elected representives a little better.
I have conducted research on politcians' use of websites, e-newsletters, weblogs and social networking sites with some degree of scepticism. I have to say that in many ways I found their use of Twitter the most interesting. With social networking sites, such as Facebook, many MPs used them exactly the same as everyone else and not as part of their representative role. This is not the case with Twitter. If you look at MP's tweets, easily achieved by a visit to Tweetminster, you note that a small community is building up where a small group of champions respond to each others Tweets. This provides the rest of us with a small insight into a private world. Perhaps the most interesting facet of MPs use of Twitter is that the champions have been tweeting during parliamentary set-pieces and so offer a rare inside view. For example, a number of MPs tweeted during the election process of the Speaker. Indeed, I counted 107 tweets from Sandra Gidley.
Whilst good representative or campaigning use of new technologies by political actors is not always universal, I suspect that the champions will find it a useful means of explaining what they are doing to justify their salaries.
Saturday, 22 August 2009
al-Megrahi and the SNP?
Much has been written in the media over the past few days about the release of Abdelbasset Ali al-Magrahi on compassionate grounds. Magrahi is the only person found convicted of the 1989 Lockerbie terrorist attack, and apparently has few months to live because his has terminal cancer.
I don't intend to address the right and wrongs of this release, rather my focus is on the possible long term political fallout. I would be extremely interested in the views of Scottish people about whether this may have detrimental effect upon the reputation of the SNP.
My hypothesis is based on an understanding of political persuasion. We are often influenced by politicians in different ways on different issues. For some issues (or indeed some people) a political view is the result of a rational decision, but in other instances (and for other people) it is an emotional response. In essence, there is a potential conflict between whether the head or the heart shapes our political outlook on any one issue, politician or party. In reality it is rarely quite as simple, with both head and heart playing a role, but one may be more important than the other.
My suspicion is that many of us when faced with many policy issues, such as whether there should be an increase in taxes, take a rational or self-interested approach. We weigh up what we think by trying to assess the merits of the case (or the effect on us). However, there are some issues where the emotional response takes over. Moreover, it is quite likely that emotional based responses may actually have a greater impact on our personal impression of politicians and political decisions. If, I am correct that some people's perception of this case is based on emotion, then I suggest that this might have an impact on the view of the SNP by undecided voters.
I have no empirical evidence to back this up, and time will tell, but exercising power in the Scottish Parliament may adversely influence the SNP's chances at the next UK General Election.
I don't intend to address the right and wrongs of this release, rather my focus is on the possible long term political fallout. I would be extremely interested in the views of Scottish people about whether this may have detrimental effect upon the reputation of the SNP.
My hypothesis is based on an understanding of political persuasion. We are often influenced by politicians in different ways on different issues. For some issues (or indeed some people) a political view is the result of a rational decision, but in other instances (and for other people) it is an emotional response. In essence, there is a potential conflict between whether the head or the heart shapes our political outlook on any one issue, politician or party. In reality it is rarely quite as simple, with both head and heart playing a role, but one may be more important than the other.
My suspicion is that many of us when faced with many policy issues, such as whether there should be an increase in taxes, take a rational or self-interested approach. We weigh up what we think by trying to assess the merits of the case (or the effect on us). However, there are some issues where the emotional response takes over. Moreover, it is quite likely that emotional based responses may actually have a greater impact on our personal impression of politicians and political decisions. If, I am correct that some people's perception of this case is based on emotion, then I suggest that this might have an impact on the view of the SNP by undecided voters.
I have no empirical evidence to back this up, and time will tell, but exercising power in the Scottish Parliament may adversely influence the SNP's chances at the next UK General Election.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
The users of Twitter
Twitter has become this year's must have for celebrities, politicians and ordinary members of the public.
This huge growth in popularity is being followed by research which tries to make sense of what is happening.
Sysomos analsysed 11.5 million Twitter accounts. The findings which struck me as interesting are:
This huge growth in popularity is being followed by research which tries to make sense of what is happening.
Sysomos analsysed 11.5 million Twitter accounts. The findings which struck me as interesting are:
- 72.5% of all users joining during the first five months of 2009
- 85.3% of all Twitter users post less than one update/day
- 21% of users have never posted a tweet
- 93.6% of users have less than 100 followers, while 92.4% follow less than 100 people
- 5% of Twitter users account for 75% of all activity
- 66% of Twitter users are aged 15-24.
At roughly the same twim two Harvard academics, Heil and Piskorski published their research of 300,000 Twitter users. They found:
- Only 10% of users generate 90% of tweets
- Over half of Twitter users communicate less than once every 74 days
- Men have 15% more followers than women
- An average man is almost twice more likely to follow another man than a woman
More recently Pear Analytics sought to identify how people are using Twitter. Analysing 2,000 tweets over a two-week period they identified a typology of tweeters based on six catergories. They found that:
- Pointless Babble - 40.55%
- Conversational - 37.55%
- Pass-along Value - 8.7%
- Self-promotion - 5.85%
- Spam - 3.75%
- News - 3.60%
So what do these three studies tell us? First, that the growth of Twitter use is rapid, which makes me wonder whether it is a passing fad whose star will soon burst, or that it will become a normal part of communication for some people. Second, at present it is the preserve of the young (under 25), but we can assume like the Internet older age groups will adopt it. Third, most people with an account don't actually tweet, or if they do, they do so very infrequently. Fourth, Twitter traffic is dominated by a small elite. Fifth, there is a clear split between how Twitter is being used. For some it is an echo chamber for 'pointless babble' about what they have been doing today, and for others it is a means of engaging in a conversation with others. Twitter is both is a monologic and a dialogic communication channel.
I would be very interested in knowing more about the elite of tweeters. Are they an elite offline as well, such as celebrities, CEOs, politcians and journalists using Twitter as a promotional vehicle, or are they joe public making the most of a new technology to make a name for themselves?
Parliament and the Internet
Recently the House of Lords Information Select Committee published a report Are the Lords Listening? Set against a context of an apparent lowering of the reputation of politcians as a species, and Parliament specifically, this Committee sought to identify how the House of Lords could seek to engage with the public. In particular, the consultation process sought to address three areas:
1. outreach;
2. online communication and engagement;
3. press, media and broadcasting.
One very interesting and welcome aspect was that the Committee made use of the Internet during its consultation process. There was a YouTube page where members of the public could post their own thoughts on the call for evidence. There was also a forum where members of the public could add their thoughts to specific issues the Committee wanted feedback on.
I provided written evidence, and on the whole I find the Committee's recommendations worthy and if implemented they should be of real benefit. It scores a very credible 7 out of ten. But I also feel that they have missed an opportunity, and not fully grasped the nettle. The call for evidence made reference to how Parliament could make best use of Web 2.0 applications. This, however, provides policiticians and political organisations with a real quandry. As a concept Web 2.0 implies that visitors to a Internet presence, as well as the host, contributes. Previously, political actors have been wary of allowing full interaction online. This is not to say that there have not been exceptions, there certainly are politicians who are pioneering champions of the Internet, but most are aware of the cost in time to engage in online conversations, the potential hostages to fortune any off-the-cuff remarks might be and that there is limited evidence of the actual positive benefits.
The House of Lords clearly has clearly progressed in its use of the Internet. Lords of the Blog, for example, is an excellent blog. The use of YouTube and a Forum during the process of consultation are to be welcome, though the Forum tried to direct comments too much, and so felt more like a Government White Paper. Parliament is good at using the Internet is in providing information and education. This is clearly of benefit to citizens, and the reputation of the body politic, but is achievable with Web 1.0 applications. Web 2.0 offers so much more. The visitor to a Web 2.0 application can become a co-producer of content, not just the consumer.
It may well be that co-production of content is not what Parliamentary bodies should be about. Certainly in his oral evidence my old lecturer, Lord Norton of Louth, made reference to consultation and not conversation. He may be right, but the Committee opened up the genie of Web 2.0, and I am not convinced that they can now put it back in the bottle.
1. outreach;
2. online communication and engagement;
3. press, media and broadcasting.
One very interesting and welcome aspect was that the Committee made use of the Internet during its consultation process. There was a YouTube page where members of the public could post their own thoughts on the call for evidence. There was also a forum where members of the public could add their thoughts to specific issues the Committee wanted feedback on.
I provided written evidence, and on the whole I find the Committee's recommendations worthy and if implemented they should be of real benefit. It scores a very credible 7 out of ten. But I also feel that they have missed an opportunity, and not fully grasped the nettle. The call for evidence made reference to how Parliament could make best use of Web 2.0 applications. This, however, provides policiticians and political organisations with a real quandry. As a concept Web 2.0 implies that visitors to a Internet presence, as well as the host, contributes. Previously, political actors have been wary of allowing full interaction online. This is not to say that there have not been exceptions, there certainly are politicians who are pioneering champions of the Internet, but most are aware of the cost in time to engage in online conversations, the potential hostages to fortune any off-the-cuff remarks might be and that there is limited evidence of the actual positive benefits.
The House of Lords clearly has clearly progressed in its use of the Internet. Lords of the Blog, for example, is an excellent blog. The use of YouTube and a Forum during the process of consultation are to be welcome, though the Forum tried to direct comments too much, and so felt more like a Government White Paper. Parliament is good at using the Internet is in providing information and education. This is clearly of benefit to citizens, and the reputation of the body politic, but is achievable with Web 1.0 applications. Web 2.0 offers so much more. The visitor to a Web 2.0 application can become a co-producer of content, not just the consumer.
It may well be that co-production of content is not what Parliamentary bodies should be about. Certainly in his oral evidence my old lecturer, Lord Norton of Louth, made reference to consultation and not conversation. He may be right, but the Committee opened up the genie of Web 2.0, and I am not convinced that they can now put it back in the bottle.
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Green Army!
Writing the previous post on Vera Lengsfeld's poster has reminder me of another, though non-political, example of the linkage between advertising and PR.
Insurance company Aviva have introduced a new television advertising campaign to coincide with the start of the football season in England. Clearly, this is a full-blooded advert designed to reach television viewers, but it has also become quite a talking point especially in specialist chat rooms and Internet forums.
In the ad the central character (played by comedian Paul Whitehouse) is a Plymouth Argyle fan who saves money by using Aviva car insurance. The rationale for choosing Argyle is fairly obvious, as fans of the team based in Plymouth have to travel further than any other. For example, there nearest 'derby' match is in Bristol, a 220 mile round trip.
The ad has caused a bit of stir, and indeed some pride and humour amongst Argyle fans. What will be interesting to see is the effect of the ad. One friend, who is an Argyle fan saw it on television one Sunday night, and said to himself, "my car insurance is due soon, I'll give them a ring." One unintended effect may well be on the reputation of Plymouth Argyle. Posters to PASOTI have noted that many of their non-Argyle friends have started shouting 'Green Army', a phrase used in the ad. I would not be at all suprised if the ad raises the profile of the club amongst football fans, many of whom may now consider Argyle their second club. Some might even be persuaded to visit the Theatre Of Greens if they are on holiday in Devon.
There are limited lessons to be learnt from this example for politics in the UK, primarily because of the laws on political television advertising. However, I would expect the political parties to use humour as part of viral marketing campaigns in the run-up to, and during the next election.
COYG
Insurance company Aviva have introduced a new television advertising campaign to coincide with the start of the football season in England. Clearly, this is a full-blooded advert designed to reach television viewers, but it has also become quite a talking point especially in specialist chat rooms and Internet forums.
In the ad the central character (played by comedian Paul Whitehouse) is a Plymouth Argyle fan who saves money by using Aviva car insurance. The rationale for choosing Argyle is fairly obvious, as fans of the team based in Plymouth have to travel further than any other. For example, there nearest 'derby' match is in Bristol, a 220 mile round trip.
The ad has caused a bit of stir, and indeed some pride and humour amongst Argyle fans. What will be interesting to see is the effect of the ad. One friend, who is an Argyle fan saw it on television one Sunday night, and said to himself, "my car insurance is due soon, I'll give them a ring." One unintended effect may well be on the reputation of Plymouth Argyle. Posters to PASOTI have noted that many of their non-Argyle friends have started shouting 'Green Army', a phrase used in the ad. I would not be at all suprised if the ad raises the profile of the club amongst football fans, many of whom may now consider Argyle their second club. Some might even be persuaded to visit the Theatre Of Greens if they are on holiday in Devon.
There are limited lessons to be learnt from this example for politics in the UK, primarily because of the laws on political television advertising. However, I would expect the political parties to use humour as part of viral marketing campaigns in the run-up to, and during the next election.
COYG
Convergence of advertising and PR?
Whilst at one time advertising and PR executives would not have seen the world through similar eyes, increasingly each recognises that advertising and PR can work together. Benetton have long known that their controversial adverts will generate media editorial coverage as well.
In the political sphere, the aim of many advertising campaigns is geared more to generating media coverage than actually reaching a huge number of voters directly. Many people will remember the Conservatives 1979 'Labour's Not Working' advertising campaign, and possibly their 1997 award-winning 'Demon Eyes'. One was part of a Conservative win, and one a landslide Conservative loss, so the camapign may only have a limited effect, but my key point applies to how we get to see them. I suspect most people who remember these, and other ad campaigns, probably did not see them in their 'natural' habitat of an ad or billboard. Rather, we probably saw them because the media picked up on them. Therefore, for most voters the impact was through indirect communication.
At each UK general Election there is always a photoshoot of a politician launching a campaign or policy in front of a huge advertsing billboard, probably in London. The media turn up, take their pictures, and then the media scrum and the politicians move on. Normally shortly afterwards the bilboard poster is removed - so few will have seen it as an ad, but many may in the media. The party's hire the billboard as a media relations tool.
The German national elections in September provides another example of this blurring of the line between advertising and PR. A poster showing the cleavage of a candidate, Vera Lengsfeld alonside that of Angela Merkel is generating some interest.
This advert was not sanctioned by the candidate's party, the CDU, but it has been very succesful at generating national and international media coverage for the candidate. This use of the poster is consistent with the previous use of advertising to gain media coverage, and will get Lengsfeld's name before more people than a simple ad. It will be interesting to see what voters in Lengsfeld's constituency think, and if it affects their voting behaviour at all. I suspect not, but I also suspect that the candidate will think it was worthwhile doing in raising her profile.
Where Lengsfeld's ad is adding to the use of advertising within PR, is with an online element. Lengsfeld is quite open about the fact that the number of visits to her website have significantly increased. Moreover, this may be qualitatively different in effect than gaining media coverage. As a direct form of communciation, the website potentially enables Lengsfeld to communicate a much wider range of messages, and possibly build a relationship with visitors.
In the UK 2005 General Election I don't remember this linkage between offline ads (or indeed much other activity), and the main parties Internet presence. I suspect that at the next election there will be more of a coherent communications strategy linking what parties do offline with what they offer online.
In the political sphere, the aim of many advertising campaigns is geared more to generating media coverage than actually reaching a huge number of voters directly. Many people will remember the Conservatives 1979 'Labour's Not Working' advertising campaign, and possibly their 1997 award-winning 'Demon Eyes'. One was part of a Conservative win, and one a landslide Conservative loss, so the camapign may only have a limited effect, but my key point applies to how we get to see them. I suspect most people who remember these, and other ad campaigns, probably did not see them in their 'natural' habitat of an ad or billboard. Rather, we probably saw them because the media picked up on them. Therefore, for most voters the impact was through indirect communication.
At each UK general Election there is always a photoshoot of a politician launching a campaign or policy in front of a huge advertsing billboard, probably in London. The media turn up, take their pictures, and then the media scrum and the politicians move on. Normally shortly afterwards the bilboard poster is removed - so few will have seen it as an ad, but many may in the media. The party's hire the billboard as a media relations tool.
The German national elections in September provides another example of this blurring of the line between advertising and PR. A poster showing the cleavage of a candidate, Vera Lengsfeld alonside that of Angela Merkel is generating some interest.
This advert was not sanctioned by the candidate's party, the CDU, but it has been very succesful at generating national and international media coverage for the candidate. This use of the poster is consistent with the previous use of advertising to gain media coverage, and will get Lengsfeld's name before more people than a simple ad. It will be interesting to see what voters in Lengsfeld's constituency think, and if it affects their voting behaviour at all. I suspect not, but I also suspect that the candidate will think it was worthwhile doing in raising her profile.
Where Lengsfeld's ad is adding to the use of advertising within PR, is with an online element. Lengsfeld is quite open about the fact that the number of visits to her website have significantly increased. Moreover, this may be qualitatively different in effect than gaining media coverage. As a direct form of communciation, the website potentially enables Lengsfeld to communicate a much wider range of messages, and possibly build a relationship with visitors.
In the UK 2005 General Election I don't remember this linkage between offline ads (or indeed much other activity), and the main parties Internet presence. I suspect that at the next election there will be more of a coherent communications strategy linking what parties do offline with what they offer online.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Politician's psychology
This blog is subtitled 'The Art of Persuasion?", by which I intended to gradually pick out how political actors sought to persuade their target audiences. I was interested, and somewhat mildly amused, by a story over the weekend about the personality traits of Gordon Brown.
It would appear that Henry McLeish longtime Brown ally has a book out which includes a chapter from a psychologist Anne Ellis, who appears to suggest that Brown's days as PM are numbered in part because of his personality. This made me think, what actually is the ideal psychological profile for a politician? Are those that appear chummy best, or should we have driven Lientenant Spock's who are rational and efficient? Does the level of political actor matter? For a senior politician such as a PM, Cabinet Minister or Official Opposition spokesperson do we require different traits than from our local MP or councillor?
But this raised a thought with me, do political parties ever seek to identify any psychological flaws or strengths in their prospective candidates who seek to represent them? Many of us have been to job selection processes where we are asked to complete psychological profile tests. Can someone tell me whether political parties use them in their candidate selection process? Or indeed should they? Should a candidates election address stress how they prefer to work, rest and play so that we get a better understanding of the person, and not just their policies or party label?
Personally, I prefer diversity and believe that politics needs those with character, such as George Brown, Cyril Smith and Boris Johnson. Moreover, if there was a desired profile would politicians become some sort of Brave New World identikit?
It would appear that Henry McLeish longtime Brown ally has a book out which includes a chapter from a psychologist Anne Ellis, who appears to suggest that Brown's days as PM are numbered in part because of his personality. This made me think, what actually is the ideal psychological profile for a politician? Are those that appear chummy best, or should we have driven Lientenant Spock's who are rational and efficient? Does the level of political actor matter? For a senior politician such as a PM, Cabinet Minister or Official Opposition spokesperson do we require different traits than from our local MP or councillor?
But this raised a thought with me, do political parties ever seek to identify any psychological flaws or strengths in their prospective candidates who seek to represent them? Many of us have been to job selection processes where we are asked to complete psychological profile tests. Can someone tell me whether political parties use them in their candidate selection process? Or indeed should they? Should a candidates election address stress how they prefer to work, rest and play so that we get a better understanding of the person, and not just their policies or party label?
Personally, I prefer diversity and believe that politics needs those with character, such as George Brown, Cyril Smith and Boris Johnson. Moreover, if there was a desired profile would politicians become some sort of Brave New World identikit?
Is it what or how you say it that matters?
An almost urban myth exists that the spoken word accounts for only 7% of the impact of a message on the receiver. BBC Radio 4's statistical programme More or Less effectively rebuts this.
The oft-stated statistic suggests that 93% of communciation is non-verbal, with 38% being tone of voice and 55% body language originates from research conducted in the late 1960s by psychologist Albert Mehrabian. In the programme, Mehrabian explains how the figure came about and why it is wrong. Rather, he sugegsts that what is key in communication are three elements: vocal, facial expression and the word. In essence, commentators added up 1+ 1+ 1 and got a lot more than 3, because Mehrabian noted that the impact of each of these three factors was not equal.
So next time you are weighing up what a politician says, assess both what they are saying but also how they deliver it. This might account for why some politicians, such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are considered natural communicators, and others such as George Bush jr and Gordon Brown are not. The key question, especially for Brown in the run up to a General Election, is are such communciation skills innate or can they be learnt and 'acted' upon?
The oft-stated statistic suggests that 93% of communciation is non-verbal, with 38% being tone of voice and 55% body language originates from research conducted in the late 1960s by psychologist Albert Mehrabian. In the programme, Mehrabian explains how the figure came about and why it is wrong. Rather, he sugegsts that what is key in communication are three elements: vocal, facial expression and the word. In essence, commentators added up 1+ 1+ 1 and got a lot more than 3, because Mehrabian noted that the impact of each of these three factors was not equal.
So next time you are weighing up what a politician says, assess both what they are saying but also how they deliver it. This might account for why some politicians, such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are considered natural communicators, and others such as George Bush jr and Gordon Brown are not. The key question, especially for Brown in the run up to a General Election, is are such communciation skills innate or can they be learnt and 'acted' upon?
Saturday, 15 August 2009
What is Political PR?
It strikes me that academics and political actors are too limited in there understanding of how politicians communicate. Having recently conducted a wide literature review on this topic, I could only find six academic sources which explicitly made reference to political PR, and at least three used the term in passing without actually defining it. By and large, academics use the phrase political communication. Yet, political actors, journalists and other commentators tend to use the phrase public relations or spin or some variation of these.
On the face of it, this might seem merely a difference of semantics and usage, but I suggest that it may reflect much more than this. These two groups, although using differnet nomencultures are actually focusing on a single, and therefore too narrow a range of communication tools and techniques. Rather, what is required is a clearer understanding of political pr.
The vast majority of academic literature, from within communication, political science and journalism/media studies, which refers to political communication reflects primarily on the impact of mass media communication. Therefore, from the perspective of political actors this largely assumes that they are engaged in media management, especially television. Whilst I may be doing them a slight disservice in that many of these studies were written before the Internet took off, it still seems a very narrow definition, and certainly not one which commercial pr operators would recognise.
Similarly, political actors stress media management, though they are more likely to refer to pr or spin. Therefore, both academics and political actors focus on a very narrow front of pr activity. Whilst I accept that media management may well be, in many cases, the dominant communication tool, this is not always the case. Therefore, as with commercial pr, I suggest that a more accurate understanding of how and why politicians and other political actors communicate should not just focus on media relations and spin. That in a world of the fragmentation of both publics and media, we need to also assess how political actors use corporate reputation, issues management, crisis management, relationship building, internal communication, social responsibility, marketing pr, lobbying, event management, and online communication. This should give a more balanced understanding of the communication process within the body politic.
On the face of it, this might seem merely a difference of semantics and usage, but I suggest that it may reflect much more than this. These two groups, although using differnet nomencultures are actually focusing on a single, and therefore too narrow a range of communication tools and techniques. Rather, what is required is a clearer understanding of political pr.
The vast majority of academic literature, from within communication, political science and journalism/media studies, which refers to political communication reflects primarily on the impact of mass media communication. Therefore, from the perspective of political actors this largely assumes that they are engaged in media management, especially television. Whilst I may be doing them a slight disservice in that many of these studies were written before the Internet took off, it still seems a very narrow definition, and certainly not one which commercial pr operators would recognise.
Similarly, political actors stress media management, though they are more likely to refer to pr or spin. Therefore, both academics and political actors focus on a very narrow front of pr activity. Whilst I accept that media management may well be, in many cases, the dominant communication tool, this is not always the case. Therefore, as with commercial pr, I suggest that a more accurate understanding of how and why politicians and other political actors communicate should not just focus on media relations and spin. That in a world of the fragmentation of both publics and media, we need to also assess how political actors use corporate reputation, issues management, crisis management, relationship building, internal communication, social responsibility, marketing pr, lobbying, event management, and online communication. This should give a more balanced understanding of the communication process within the body politic.
Why Blog?
Having first conducted academic research on the use of weblogs by political actors in 2005, I have often asked myself why don't I have my own weblog? Initially, I thought that it might help my research by giving me an insight to the technology, or provide credibility with my sample. I rejected both motives as spurious.
Since 2005 the number of blogs in the political sphere has rapidly increased, and now that the bandwagon effect, of having to use a technology because ones peers do, has passed I feel now is the right time. As a result of waiting, I hope that this blog will not be a one-minue wonder, but a steady part of my life.
In terms of political blogs, and by this I mean journalists, commenters and political actors who blog, I feel that they fulfill two key functions. First, they can supplement traditional media, or even provide an alternative to it, for news sources. Second, they provide a means of self-expression, one which some political actors realise. Therefore, as a personal tool I associate blogs primarily with individuals, and not corporate bodies. So individual elected representatives can easily use a blog, but I am much less convinced that a political party as an entity can effectively use a blog.
I hope that my blog will provide snippets of information for my students, allow me to highlight stories I think are of interest and help develop my thoughts in my research areas. I intend to cover not just political PR, but also its components such as pr, marketing, marketing communications.
Since 2005 the number of blogs in the political sphere has rapidly increased, and now that the bandwagon effect, of having to use a technology because ones peers do, has passed I feel now is the right time. As a result of waiting, I hope that this blog will not be a one-minue wonder, but a steady part of my life.
In terms of political blogs, and by this I mean journalists, commenters and political actors who blog, I feel that they fulfill two key functions. First, they can supplement traditional media, or even provide an alternative to it, for news sources. Second, they provide a means of self-expression, one which some political actors realise. Therefore, as a personal tool I associate blogs primarily with individuals, and not corporate bodies. So individual elected representatives can easily use a blog, but I am much less convinced that a political party as an entity can effectively use a blog.
I hope that my blog will provide snippets of information for my students, allow me to highlight stories I think are of interest and help develop my thoughts in my research areas. I intend to cover not just political PR, but also its components such as pr, marketing, marketing communications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)