Bluegrass Consulting: Blueblog

Tuesday: 17 August

This is part 2 of a 4 part series which uses Julia Gillard and the current Federal Election to examine whether spin techniques effectively developed for the 20^th century media model are now outdated and ineffective in the 21^st century.

Gillard’s declaration she’s “going to discard all of that campaign advice and professional or common wisdom and just go for it” (in regard to “risk averse” election campaign communication) highlights the fact that old spin (controlling information by restricting journalist access, staying ‘on message’, an over-supply of information {e.g. renouncements of announcements} and over emphasising the positive) hasn’t been working.

These spinning techniques, which 10 to 20 years ago were largely a hidden and unknown art, are now a notion so familiar to the public, they no longer work. The extensive criticism and coverage of the much overused ‘moving forward’ slogan is just one example of that.

In addition, Channel 7 reporting political news, with the by-line, ‘cutting through the spin’, is another example of how widely spin it is now ‘accepted’.

You can’t be tricked when you know the tricks.

Nothing new in blaming the media

Much has been written on the role of the media in the challenge for straight forward authentic communication. The 24 hour media cycle, the demand for ‘new’ news, means journalists fail to properly cover policy due to a lack of time, and as Bernard Keane also points out, a lack of specialist skills: “The result is too much cynicism and not enough scepticism.”

Despite politicians and their advisers knowing the media is likely to misrepresent them, “gratifying them” remains the “primary purpose of the professional politician (who acquire) a crippling self-enfeeblement driven by their dependence…”

Keane also explains, and as we all know, it’s in the media’s interest for politics to remain in a “permanent cycle of spin, conflict and commentary, while actual problems are never resolved”. Good news doesn’t sell papers and conflict is essential to a ‘good’ news story.

But this is something spinners have known for a long time! That we haven’t found better ways of dealing with this is positively amateur.

Worse still…we have a major trust deficit

Spin can be defined as a type of propaganda, providing an interpretation of an event or issue to persuade public opinion in favor or against. It is between the two World Wars that spin was really pioneered, with Joseph Goebbels using it to great effect for the Nazis. Post war America refined his approach, with Eisenhower’s Republicans bringing professional propagandists into their inner circle for the first time, ensuring a decisive win.

Later, Bill Clinton and chief spinner James Carvelle mentored Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson/Alastair Campbell as they reinvented the Labour Party. And it is perhaps with Blair that we saw the beginning of the decline of 20^th century spin. Alastair Campbell, Blair’s former Press Secretary, while still in that role, spoke publically of how this new communication had become a hindrance to good government and had cost them dearly in terms of trust.

“We did make a concerted effort to get a better dialogue with some parts of the media…this was of course about reaching their readers. …but therein lay the seeds of spin. The consequences were greater than we anticipated. People stopped trusting what we had to say.”

A lack of trust virtually makes spin ineffective, as can be seen in the 2005 UK general election. The Government thought services were improving in heath and education. Polling showed the public also thought their schools and hospitals were improving. But they also thought they were lucky and that nationally things were getting worse.

They discounted their own personal experience because it was in agreement with the government line, and they were almost programmed to disbelieve anything the government said. (This example was found in Ivor Gaber’s paper Too much of a good thing: the ‘problem ‘of political communications in a mass media democracy)

Post 1 in this series began to examine the PR spin techniques of the NSW ALP Right and their role in the current campaign, as well as whether the declaration of the ‘Real Julia’ was actually just part of the strategy and part of managing perceptions around Australia’s first female leader and the way in which she took power. It concluded by questioning whether publicly rejecting the”very risk averse standard campaign model” was just more spin…

Post 3 will examine whether social media can help build trust and how the future of spinning lies in losing control. The final and fourth post will examine Ms Gillard’s apparent rejection of the “very risk averse standard campaign model” in the context of the election result.

Ruci Fixter

Friday: 13 August

Julia Gillard’s political woes shine the light on the failure of modern day spinners clinging desperately to a political communication technique invented for the 20^th century model of mass media. In the 21^st century, these techniques are proving increasingly out of date and so dangerously ineffective it could lose Labor an election when spin, ironically, should be key to winning elections…

Standard and well known spin techniques such as the ’seven second grab’, key messages, catchy slogans and carefully controlled media management have all backfired spectacularly for Ms Gillard. All of a sudden, these tricks look very dated prompting her to publicly reject this “very risk averse standard campaign model” and re-introduce herself as the “real Julia” in a desperate search for authenticity.

This move was a somewhat startling acknowledgment that the usual spin simply wasn’t ‘cutting through’. Techniques designed to win were, in fact, conspiring towards losing Labor the election.

Focus groups - unfairly dumping leaders for false infidelity?

So how is it the ALP’s crack campaign team, seasoned professionals whose job it is to know the business inside out, couldn’t predict that this ‘old spin’, on its own, wouldn’t work? They should have been even more aware of the dangers, given the current levels of cynicism around how Julia assumed office.

In fact, one almost wonders if there was even a communication strategy in place to deal with how the electorate may have responded to Rudd’s unprecedented and brutal assassination. Or was it so clever we almost missed it…?

Many people place the bulk of the blame for the campaign’s rocky ride at the feet of NSW Right leader Mark Arbib, who both secured and destroyed Rudd’s leadership. It is not only the role he is believed to have played in convincing Rudd to dump the ETS, a turning point for voters, but the risk averse, poll-centric, NSW Labor Right strategy, that he along with long term friend and campaign director Karl Bitar have continued to push as the best campaign model.

But it appears that the result has been panicky politics driven by focus group research, which has seen leaders dumped like 20-somethings dump lovers over false infidelities. Many argue their use of the focus group results is not accurate or effective.

Former staffer in the Carr and Iemma Governments, Mark Aarons, explains their technique involves targeting the least politically committed voters in marginal seats. Their theory is that “…these people determine who win government and their views should therefore predominate in policy-setting. In a bizarre reversal of conventional political wisdom, leadership is redefined as following such people by pandering to them.”

Aarons’ experience was that this strategy “led the (Iemma) government up a blind alley”, not reflecting mainstream voters who hated the policy idea” (in this instance the Kurnell desalination plant).

However, most say there is little wonder the Arbib-Bitar partnership believe in this model. Arguably it has won them office in NSW since 1995 and, maybe, even the Kevin 07 election. Why fix it if it ain’t broke? But election 2010 seems to have broken the mould. Time will ultimately tell.

Old spin doesn’t work for ‘real Julia’

These campaigns have been largely stage managed spin-fuelled fiestas, and none more than Kevin 07. And as Michael Gawenda points out in Business Spectator, Gillard 2010 is in many ways no more or no less stage managed than Kevin 07 was.

However, what is different is that she has only been PM for six weeks and the way in which Rudd was deposed. Going to the polls seems rushed…standard NSW campaigning?

What is interesting and maybe very clever spin, is this point made by Gawenda:

“Gillard had two major problems coming into this campaign: she had been involved in the assassination of Rudd and she was a woman. Gillard and her advisors, it seems, decided that any sign of aggression, of passion or even vision, would be turned against her - she would be seen as an angry, pitiless, female, political executioner. So for the first two weeks of the campaign she behaved as if she was on Prozac.”

So maybe this strategy was deliberate all along.

Play the standard orchestrated campaign cardboard cut-out; let it look like you are being played by the ‘faceless men’, because anything else would make you look like “an angry, pitiless, female, political executioner”.

And then announce the arrival of ‘real Julia’, who it now looks like has been brave enough to stand up to said men, and indulge the electorate with a soft, approachable and benevolent female leader.

Maybe sexist attitudes towards women in power have been grossly overlooked in how this campaign could and needed to be played.

It might actually be very clever indeed - an all together cleverer ‘new’ spin, a planned emergence of the real Julia as a natural evolution of the Gillard personality.

But then, the long term damage to the Labor party, brought about by the scary power of the faceless men, now emblazoned in the psyche of the electorate, still seems a high price to pay for this approach.

Using Julia Gillard and the current Federal Election as a case study, this is the first in a 4 part series examining whether spin techniques effectively developed for the 20^th century media model  are  now outdated and ineffective in the 21^st century. Post 2 looks at the ineffectiveness of ‘old spin’, the role of the media, and the trust deficit. Post 3 examines whether social media can help build trust and how the future of spinning lies in losing control. The final and fourth post will examine Ms Gillard’s apparent rejection of the “very risk averse standard campaign model” in the context of the election result.

Friday: 08 January

In the words of Ban Ki-Moon - the summit just “could not end in failure”. Why? Well the concerns for most surrounding the success of the summit lay directly at the heart of international law and international negotiation… the basis and structure for the United Nations.

With the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan all still treaties and all still in effect, the “Copenhagen Accord” is merely a piece of paper that tells the world… “We haven’t wasted your tax-payer dollars… no, really… we promise!”

Political will, national promises, economic direction and public pressure just wasn’t enough to overcome the key issue that many nations had moving into Copenhagen… National Sovereignty.

And the final outcome of the summit seems to reflect that very point.  Despite many nations coming together forging a sense of cooperation and collaboration, national sovereignty remains supreme. All nations coming together in unity is one thing… and despite everyone’s best intentions, I really cant see how binding agreements with threat of financial penalty and legal action can be made collectively with all the world cheering along, especially on such a diverse and complex issue such as Climate Change!

There have been no quantified targets for emission reduction. Even the 50% by 2050 that was in early drafts couldn’t make it through the grueling negotiations. The action plan as it currently stands is that industrialised countries will inform the UNFCCC secretariat by 31 January, the extent to which they will cut their emissions after 2012 (when the current phase of Kyoto runs out). The emerging economies or developing nations will tell the UNFCCC what they plan to do to control their emissions. However… no one will be legally bound to any commitment.

The reference to transparency in the text I guess is something significant, because what it means is that for the first time ever, actions by countries can be globally assessed for all to see. However, there is no verification anywhere of the actions undertaken in the smaller nations of the developing world… not unless they are paid for by the developed world.

And finally… there is no detail at all on any of the elements within the accord. There is a reference to the target of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, as well as the need for quantified action by both developed and developing countries. Great… BUT how will this target be achieved… your guess is as good as mine.

I guess really we will have to wait for the review of progress… in 2015.

What WAS actually achieved…? Well… see below -” The Carbon Cost of Copenhagen“

Friday: 08 January

16,500 delegates from 192 countries, 5,000 journos and 40,000 eco-campaigners amounting to over 40,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide, (roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006). The organisers laid 900 kilometers of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals were served and visitors busily sipped over 200,000 cups of coffee.

Australia sent 114 delegates to the conference (a few more than Britain’s 71 delegates).

114 people traveling to Copenhagen amounts to around 1817 tonnes of carbon emissions (or 2500 peoples annual emissions in Malawi… ouch!).

Thoughts? Comments?

Friday: 18 September

LISTEN TO ONLINE CONVERSATIONS

• Conduct a conversation audit - Analyse who is talking about you, your competitor, your issues and find out what is ‘hot’ now and likely to remain popular for a reasonable amount of time

DETERMINE KEY CHANNELS

• Find out where your audience is talking online and which of these places are most important to your campaign
• Develop a presence in these digital environments - you don’t have to invest huge amounts of money into web design I the content/purpose of the site is strong enough (content and purpose should be first priority, design: second)
• Choose tools to use in these environments that are appropriate to your campaign

CREATE AN EDITORIAL CONTENT STRATEGY

• Develop a forward focussed editorial strategy - this needs to be relatively fluid to account for the interest and issues you receive throughout your digital campaign but it should include the key messages and specific activities of interest to maintain consistently interesting and purposeful content.
• Tools can be used to schedule the publishing/tweeting of content (such as peoplebrowsr) but these tools should be used with caution
• Aggregated information from quality sources can also be used to bolster the content but should not be solely relied upon
• Content should be driven by the brand where possible

DO SOMETHING INTERESTING!

• You need to provide readers with something - whether it be you taking them on a journey, giving away prizes, recognition, a laugh etc
• Make sure that you have integrated tools into your content that will allow the user to easily virally spread your content
• Invest time to make sure the offering is a genuinely attractive, interesting and (relatively) sustainable one for the reader
• The content needs to feel unscripted, fresh, organic, instant and creative - not ‘suit language’ or marketing mubo-jumbo (bloggers and social networkers will not read this let alone spread it virally & it could be used against your brand by networkers who are keen to shoot down ‘corporates behaving badly’!)

DELIVER ON EXPECTATIONS

• If you set up expectations that you are there to listen, then you need to continue listening and responding in a timely matter
• Quite a large amount of time is required to build strong relationships
• Try to make it clear if the campaign is only a short term campaign… don’t let it die unexpectedly
• Maintain consistent updates across all channels to give readers a reason to come back to your site

Annabey

Thursday: 17 September

There are about a million reasons why your organisation should be engaging online these days… Here are five that come to my mind - let me know if you have any to add!

Online engagement is another communication channel an organisation can use to reach large numbers of people, instantly

Online engagement can be targeted to and reach specific audiences (and you can establish and connect to key influencers)

Online engagement can be useful for communicating detailed or technical information (whereas normal TV, print or digital ads cannot convey such a level of detailed information)

It forms an invaluable platform for further/future campaigns - You never know when you might need a few people ‘on your side’ online (get your positive messages out where crises often break first!)

Public third party endorsements add to your brand’s reputation and appeal

Annabey