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.

Can being a pain in the bum work?

I note that students who will, or already are, starting their degree courses may experience problems over their grants, due to delays. The student loans company has taken over this responsibility, and there are a number of complaints about such delays.

I am reminded of a similar problem when student loans were first introduced. One year there was a delay in getting the loans to many students. Miraculously, things seemed to improve when somehow the private office number of the CEO got into the public domain. Largely, I do think pressure groups should play by the rules, but occasionally being a complete pain in the backside can also work. I am not proposing a similar approach in this case, but use it merely to highlight a historical example of where sometimes personally annoying decision makers can bring results, where rational discussion may not.

Whilst on the whole I would support rational persuasion, sometimes a more practical approach is required. The trick, I guess, is knowing when to do this, as such 'going nuclear' approaches rarely work more than once or twice. Over reliance on this tactic, in the long run will ruin an organisations' reputation in the policy and decision making community in which they seek to operate.

Do Public Information Films Work?

One of Grunig and Hunt's (1984) 4 models of PR is Public Information. Which essentially means that PR is used to inform and often change the attitudes and behaviour of the intended audience. Moroever, it is based on using truth rather than any form of hype of manipulation. It has been typically been used by charities and governmental agencies to inform people of key information they should know about.

Those brought up on television in the 1960s and 70s, when there was less advertising, will remember a host of pubic information films, with the ones sticking in my memory being drowning prevention. In one a cat nearly drowns and the film ends with a child saying "Charlie (the cat) says....." and another someone drowning calls for help and a man says to his wife "oh look Petunia he's waving", and then they both wave back. Clearly, they had an impact as I remember them today, but did they change mine or anyone else's behaviour?

The explosion of deaths from AIDs in the 1980s led to a number of quite strong-hitting and graphic campaigns, but I am not sure they worked. I suspect that what really changed cultural attitudes and behaviour towards AIDS, and in particular AIDS victims, was Princess Diana touching an AIDS victim as one human being to another. I suspect also that a story line in the BBC soap, Eastenders, probably changed attitudes of the disease being only for gay men. The popular character Mark Fowler was diagnosed following a blood transfusion. In these two instances a famous person and a soap storyline may have been more effective than a very expensive campaign. The AIDS message from the formal campaigns was explicit and for some uncomfortable, and I suspect they 'tuned out', whereas Princess Diana and Mark Fowler was more subtle and people may have taken in the message, without necesarily realising they were receving such a message.

Most information campaigns tend to based on rational arguement, for example, scientific research is that we should eat five portions of fruit and veg each day in order to live longer. All or nearly all of my students are aware of the message, and there is a clear self-interested message of living longer. But why then do not all people eat five portions of fruit and veg a day?

Less commonly, as with the AIDS campaign, public information campaigns take an emotional approach aiming for the heart not the brain. A clear example of this has come out recently from Gwent police . This video focuses on the consequences of a young car driver texting. It is hard-hitting, graphic and widely publicised. It is an excellent campaign, but just how succesful will it be? Will it change behaviour? My own personal observation is that making driving whilst using a hand-held phone a traffic offence has not been successful. I see people using a mobile on virtually every journey I make as a pedestrian, cyclist or car-driver. One of the campaigns which has been successful is drink drving, but this has been relentless and backedup with not just legislation but police action. I am therefore sceptical that public information campaigns alone will make a huge differnence They can, as in this example, alert peopeleto a problem, but usually there needs to be a sanction as well.

New shoots of online civic engagement

One of the key debates about the impact of the Internet on new technology has been whether it encourages political participation from those who previously had been largely uninterested in politics. Most research has suggested, however, that the Internet merely adds value for those already politically active offline, rather than reaching out to who are not politically active offline.

The highly respected Pew Internet & American Life Project has published their latest findings on this topic of civic engagement. They suggest that by and large online political activity remains the preserve of the wealthy, and those already politically active. But they do note that 19% of respondents had posted material on political or social issues on blogs or social networking sites for the first time. They note that by and large these respondents are younger. The implication is that some younger people are becoming politically active within Web 2.0 applications.

Of course the US political system is slightly different to that in the UK, and this research appears to refer to mostly mainstream party and candidate based political activity. In the UK there has been some limited research on this. Rachel Gibson and Steve Ward did research on political participation a few years ago, and found that a small number of young people were getting involved in politics first online. I interviewed about 50 MPs and asked them whether their emails from constituents appeared to encourage contact from constituents that did not write letters to them. The answer was that some did, and the traits of such emailers tended to be younger, better educated, many email from work, in rural areas and sometimes from those with less education who might be put off by the formality required of writing a letter. So quite a mixed bag.

How to promote your campaign

I mentioned before that creating stunts with naked people is an easy way of gaining media coverage for a campaign. The picture above covered in several of the national papers was of Climate Camp protesters, and the message links to the stunt. In itself this is fairly standard stuff, what tickled me was the target, and the target's response. The protesters entered the foyer of EON's PR company, Edelman, so they are using a PR tactic against a PR agency. But then reading PR Week's report I was even more amused given that Edelman's CEO, Robert Phillips accused the protesters of using old-fashioned 'make a noise' PR, whereas he seemed to imply that modern PR was about conversations. Moreover, it then appears that Edelman used new technology, in the form of Twitter, to get out their message to journalists .

In research elsewhere I have suggested the value of two-way interactive communication, but I am not totally convinced that Phillips is right that the protesters should have had a phase 2 of their plan, namely to find if there is any common ground. I always felt that Fathers 4 Justice spent too long on their high-profile stunts, that they should have accepted a bit earlier the opportunity of sitting round the table with Ministers. However, Phillips is overlooking two crucial points. First, for many pressure groups, like Father 4 Justice and The Climate Camp they usually have to make noise and be a pain in someone's backside, before they get to talk to decision makers. Second, some pressure groups because of their objectives don't want to compromise, they seek a win all at costs approach, and hence prefer to remain as outside pressure groups. Moreover, I am not really sure what these particular protesters would have gained by accepting Edelman's tea and biscuits and sitting round a table. What concessions could they have been offered?

Political PR - tactical or strategic

My observation is that political actors tend to use PR in primarily a short term tactical way, rather than a longer-term strategic form as well. The focus is primarily on media relations, which I believe is far too narrow a use of PR.

I suggest that it is legitimate to divide PR into marketing public relations (MPR) and corporate public relations (CPR), though clearly there are linkages between both. MPR is essentially designed to create visibility for a product or service, and so tends to be more tactical. Creating hype clearly has a role to play, especially when launching products and services, as you wish to grab attention.

However, CPR suggests a more sophisticated use of PR. Essentially this is about assessing, building and changing the corporate reputation of an organisation, not just focusing on its products. Whilst essentially MPR tools such as media relations and events management have a role to play in helping address corporate reputation issues, the emphasis is on PR tools such as issues management, crisis management, promoting social responsibility and potentially internal communications.

What has brought many political actors into public disrepute is the over-reliance on spin and media management. Apart from raising ethical questions, this approach narrows politics into more of a game within the permanent campaign, with each side seeking to score points. Which I suspect for many citizens makes politics a yawn gest. Yet, I suggest that greater use of CPR tools by political actors could actually help to address citizen's negative perception of politician's.

I was struck a number of years ago when I heard Howell James, then the newly appointed Permanent Secretary for the Government Communications (GKN) admit to a group of students that up to that point, civil servants have placed too much emphasis on media manageemnt through press officers, rather than utilising a wider range of communication channels to promote the work of Government. Indeed, in evidence to the House of Lords Communications Committee report on Government Communications they noted that his vision was for "cross-government comms activity" not just short term media relations. He wanted more longer-term planning. Sadly James left the GKN in June 2008, but I agree with the sentiment of what he was saying, namely that political communication needs to be wide not narrow in scope, embracing both short term and long term promotional activities and I would also add should be more interactive and based less on one-way communication.

Why the fall of the Berlin Wall may still be relevant

I read an excerpt in the Sunday Times of Peter Millar's '1989 The Berlin Wall: my part in its downfall' from Arcadia Books. Millar was a reporter in East Berlin for a number of years. There were 2 stories which I thought were interesting.

First, as a Reuters foreign correspondent in 1982, Millar recalls a story of where inadvertently he may have influenced political activity. A contact of his had vaguely mentioned the possibility of a demonstrattion in Dresden on the anniversary of the war time bombing. Millar wrote a short piece for Reuters, and it was picked up by West German television. When he attended the demonstration he became aware when talking to others that they heard about it via this television news broadcast. Millar realised that there was no actual grassroots organisation of the event, rather his news story had, in all probability, become self-fulfiling. I found this interesting, because I wonder now in how many countries access to such unathorised television would have a political mobilising impact? Not many I suspect. Rather, the Internet and other new technologies, as witnesed by the use of Twitter in Iran, are increasignly playing such a role.

Second, in describing the events of the opening of East Germany's borders in 1989, Millar suggests that the fall of the Berlin Wall did not represent a logical, coherent and rational political action, rather it was the result of accident and emotion. His support of the cock-up theory of history places a strong emphasis to emotion as opposed to rationality in shaping political decisions. I've always been more of the cock-up as opposed to conspiracy school, and I also believe that in the right circumstances emotion can be a very effective political determinant. Indeed, Drew Weston suggests that in terms of voters emotion plays a key role in choosing between candidates.