Bluegrass Consulting: Blueblog

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Federal Election to examine whether spin techniques effectively developed for the 20^th century media model are now outdated and ineffective in the 21^st century.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

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.

After 2 months of fierce struggle, highly expensive ads and the election of a new Prime Minister (PM), the Federal Government and the resources industry have finally reached an agreement on the now scrapped RSPT.

One can wonder if it has resulted into a win-win situation or, given the new neutral name of the tax, if the resources industry is not the main winner of the deal. Is the glass half full or half empty?

From a political point of view, the MRRT appears to be the first victory of Julia Gillard’s new role as Prime Minister. Her ability and her efficiency in leading negotiations surely took a weight off the Labor Party’s shoulders for the election now being held on August 21.

The original RSPT was definitely too disconnected from the way market works whereas the MRRT shows far more respect for market conditions.

However, it appears that former PM Kevin Rudd was close to an agreement and that Julia Gillard only had to seal the deal, probably with larger concessions. So her victory has somewhat of a bitter taste for taxpayers.

From Rio Tinto’s, Xstrata’s and BHP Billiton’s point of view, the MRRT is a genuine victory. Indeed, Gillard’s Government has conceded on:

-          Lowering the rate of the tax from 40% to 30%.

-          Raising the rate at which the tax applies from 6% to 13%.

-          Removing the retroactivity of the tax.

-          Applying the MRRT only to iron ore and coal mining companies.

This is good news for big mining companies - especially for those that extract gold and base metals - and testifies of their strong lobbying power on the Federal Government.

On the other hand, medium and small mining companies have lost out given that they were not part of the negotiations.

In the end, the resources industry will have to share a bit more of its colossal profits, logically enough for the Federal Government to help, finance its flagship projects (the national broadband network, climate change, etc.) and lay down a stronger tax base during the resources boom.

The MRRT will enable a better distribution of wealth among Australian people, which was the primary goal of taxing the resources industry. But picking who won the debate seems a fairly simple task - just ask Rio Tinto or BHP. They can hardly contain their delight to have, again, emerged into positive territory.

Arnaud Eard

Arnaud comes from Paris and gained a MA in International Political Economy at the University of Sheffield. He has been interning at Bluegrass Consulting since May 2010.

This is a summary of a post more fully explored at Public relations and managing reputation.

Public relations professionals (including political lobbyists) can be both a positive social force and a facilitator for helping positive social forces take place. Climate change is a perfect example of how public relations can make, and help make, a positive difference to the world.

The core strategic remit of public relations professionals is to identify issues impacting on organisation-stakeholder relationships and undertake three activities:

• Enhance the communication between an organisation and its stakeholders to create the best possible and most business-helpful relationships between them
• Encourage organisations to adapt their processes/behaviour so that they are more in line with stakeholder expectations and wants (leading to a socially-helpful relationships)
• Encourage stakeholders to adapt their behaviour so that they are more in line with organisational preferences.

The easy way out is to brand all public relations practitioners who work for these industries such as power generation, resources and FMCG (with the latter’s love of resource-heavy packaging) as pariahs, but we are all conflicted by contemporary society.

In Australia, especially, we are dependant on coal-fired power stations (a huge emitter of carbon) to live our daily lives. And heaven forbid the politician who tries to wean us off this dependency. The result will be increased prices for electricity, at least some unemployment and plenty of local community turmoil.

Politicians, driven by votes, lack the fibre to make these calls. Voters, driven by financial issues, lack the fibre to support the hard decisions being made. And so life goes on…

It just goes to show what a heavy responsibility business has. It is they who run western democracies, not governments. What public relations professionals can do is peel the scales from organisations’ eyes:

• Identify stakeholder sentiments in wanting to reduce the impact of global warming
• Provide positives for them in changing the way business operates (enhanced stakeholder loyalty)
• Take a strong role in driving corporate social responsibility and leverage the positive stakeholder relationship benefits that result from taking such as approach.

I have said before, public relations professionals are the conscience of an organisation. We advocate stakeholders as much as we advocate organisations. By ‘working’ for both we are more likely to help encourage a win-win outcome for all parties.

Lobbyists, with their ear of both business people and politicians, arguably have a more important role to play than your garden variety PR practitioner. This strain of PR pro needs to point out, to organisations, the benefits to the environment and to society of an organisation behaving in a certain way. This then helps the organisation ’sell’ its lobbying position to politicians, making it a win-win-win situation.

Getting strategic

Go and seek the internal organisation influencers. Present them with data you have found (including through market research) on how an enhanced sustainability profile can benefit the organisation - its business outcomes, its relationship outcomes, its reputation.

“Companies that have built a strong reputation spark positive word-of-mouth,” said the Reputation Institute in their 2009 Global Reputation Pulse. And we all know positive or negative word of mouth impacts on sales and is the most potent form of marketing available.”

Influence these key stakeholders. Create your own internal advocacy campaign. Create alliances internally with those that will help get your efforts over the line. Get external third party support/credibility from those who the big decisions makers (CEO, COO) think highly of.

Yes, we can!

In short, apply best practice communication strategy to your own efforts to make a positive difference to this world. Act local, think global. Can we make a difference? Most definitely, yes we can.

[Tell me other ways in which PR pros (especially lobbyists!) and marketers can make a positive difference to the environment and society. Do you have stories of communication professionals that have been brave in advocating the environment and society to corporate behemoths?]

Craig Pearce

This is a summary of a post more fully explored at Public relations and managing reputation.

Nationalism is the antithesis of public relations. The former is inherently opposed to the notions of diversity, multiculturalism and the sharing of power. As such, it is exclusive and not representative of two-way symmetrical communication, the most meaningful and resonant underlying theory of public relations.

Nationalism, then, is bad PR. Or is it?

Superiority is not good PR

Nationalism is characterised by people bragging about their country’s superiority, not its collegiality. It is contradictory to the notion of multiculturalism, a notion that Australia and the United States (try to) position themselves as representing.

If governments adopted the tenets that underpin strategic public relations, it would lead to an enriched society, one where its indigenous and multicultural elements became more effectively integrated into our culture as a whole.

Government relations helping society

Governments have introduced a range of activities on Australia Day that are inclusive of multicultural and indigenous communities, but they seem to have little impact on the nature of its day or its mood. What hope do these superficial activities have when more fundamental, ongoing and ‘cultural connectivity’ policies and programs are clearly required?

It is these policies and programs (and legislation?) that have the potential to be the manifestation of a true public relations approach, one where structures and processes are changed to facilitate the equalisation of society and integration of its human elements.

Why can’t our governments adopt more of the essence of what public relations is about to help make our society a better place in which to exist? Applying the key themes of public relations means society would be more inclusive of difference by championing behavioural and cultural change.

What do you think about the arguments put forward in this post? Would nationalism be better if it replicated elements of best practice public relations? Are the fundamental underpinnings of nationalism inherently opposed to those of public relations?

Craig Pearce

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“

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.

Cartoon by Paul Thomas (UK Daily Mail 08/12/09)

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?

Going Places! (Source: Flickr user gwennie2006)

Who are we looking for?

• A second or third year Communications student
• Excellent communication and writing skills
• Highly computer literate, with a demonstrated personal web 2.0 presence
• Someone with a passion for issues management, media, politics, public affairs, lobbying, social media, blogging and digital grassroots campaigning.
• A strategic thinker that has intelligent curiosity

What will you be doing as an Intern?

• Researching
• Media relations
• Blogging
• Social media monitoring & engagement and more!
• Asking questions, learning and diving right in!

How to apply

Please send the following to Annabey Ehrlich - Annabey@bluegrass.com.au

• A copy of your CV and cover letter - including days you are available and how long you would like to intern for
• An example blog post, which has been written by you - can be about anything you have found interesting lately
• Any links to your digital/web 2.0 presence - eg. Twitter, Blogs, Websites etc

Any questions?

Feel free to call me (Annabey) 02 9377 1179 or drop me an email (see above)