Ed Staite blog

Lansley ambushed - media conspirators

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:45:00 +0000

The ambush of Andrew Lansley as he walked from his office across Whitehall to Downing Street has been likened to a scene from The Thick of It. It ran all day on the news channels yesterday and has given most newspapers a great picture to use today.

This stunt is emblematic of the approach taken by Unison particularly, but other unions as well, in making the fight over NHS reforms a battle between nurses/doctors/hospital workers and the 'out of touch' government.

The Mirror referred to June Hautot, the lady who confronted Mr Lansley, as a Mum-of-three, the Daily Mail called her a pensioner but acknowledged she was also a former union rep as did the BBC. The Telegraph failed to mention her union links, nor did Channel 4 News.

This was a clever, if cynical, operation by Unison yesterday. They knew what would make the news - a pensioner who used to be a public sector worker, who had also lost her husband to cancer despite the care of a 'brilliant' NHS, tearfully lambasting the health secretary as he walked into Downing Street.

It is clear that Lansley's team rebutted well by making it plain who Mrs Hautot really is but, the simple fact is, that the media like an easy story and Unison gave it to them on a plate.

3 reasons Rupert Murdoch should stay away from the UK

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:37:00 +0000

Remember when Rupert Murdoch last decided he was going to intervene in a crisis at News International? In July last year, as the News of the World teetered on the brink, Murdoch flew in to take control, went on a walkabout with Rebekah Brooks and, when asked what his top priority was, Murdoch gestured at Brooks and said: "This one". See a video of the shambles of a photo-opportunity below:

Now it is reported he will fly into the UK later today to take personal control of the crisis at The Sun after staff were arrested for allegedly making payments to police. This is a very bad idea and here is why:

1. His arrival gives the story 'legs' just when it has died down. Initially the arrest of executives and journalists at The Sun was big news but the world turns, the news stream flows. Why add something new to the mix to give rival news organisations an opportunity to run the story again?
2. He doesn't think before he speaks. I'm not one of those who is anti-Murdoch, to the man or his companies. Any man who has made as much money and become as powerful as Murdoch deserves respect. That doesn't mean he should be allowed to utter one word in public. The problem is: he is so powerful who is going to stop him? As with his comment on Rebekah Brooks being his top priority expect his words to be ill-advised.
3. He doesn't communicate empathy. When Murdoch is in town he has a bizarre way of driving around town in a Range Rover, smiling and waving to the cameras, while wearing a shiny shell suit. I can only imagine he is trying to communicate a sense of calmness - in face he communicates a remoteness and couldn't-care-less-ness which reflects badly on his UK brands.

Once in the UK it will be very difficult to control the images and messages Murdoch communicates which is why my advice is that he should just stay away.

Cameron must localise his argument on Scotland

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:24:00 +0000

The assertion by former US House Speaker Tip O'Neill that 'All politics is local' should be adhered to by David Cameron as he heads to Scotland today.

The pre-briefing, or at least the advanced coverage, of the Prime Minister's speech has centered on worries that Scottish independence would see Britain losing its seat on the UN Security Council. Alex Salmond has effectively rebutted this by referring to his LSE speech last night and saying:

"I was arguing about progressive policies to boost growth in the economy, to bring jobs to the people and prosperity. He's talking about being on the security council of the United Nations. No doubt that's important, but believe me that doesn't mean much to somebody with disability fearing the loss of their benefits, a young person looking for a job in Scotland."

It is a good line from Salmond and an approach he has used effectively all his career in positioning him and the SNP as being close to, and understanding the concerns of, the Scottish people.

David Cameron should avoid getting bogged down with arguments about concepts that are beyond the horizons of ordinary families. If he does then he will allow Salmond to define his opponent as remote and out of touch which are two of the most damaging characteristics recognised by voters in any politician. Particularly an English Prime Minister trying to win a vote on Scottish independence.

Mis Communicator of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:49:00 +0000

What’s the saying about being in a hole and stopping digging? I wonder if it translates into Spanish? It seems that what is deemed acceptable behaviour by most doesn’t translate into the world Luis Suarez, Liverpool’s Uruguay international footballer, lives in.

Just before Christmas Suarez was found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra, the Manchester United captain, and banned for 8 games. His defence had been that, while he accepted he had said certain things to Evra, where he comes from what he said isn’t abuse. This sparked a level of sympathy with some and led to Liverpool stating that they still believed their player was innocent. However, no appeal to the ban was forth-coming. A further twist in this sorry affair was that Evra also admitted to abusing Suarez but his abuse was, it appears, not the kind which warrants censure from the Football Association. All very messy and not what English football’s most intense rivalry required.

Now, fast-forward into 2012, and Suarez returns to the Liverpool team on Saturday against, you’ve guessed it, Manchester United. As is now customary, in a bid to communicate fair play, the two teams lined up to shake hands before kick-off only for Suarez to refuse to shake Evra’s hand. The faux chivalry of two teams being told to shake each other’s hand does not excuse the snub dished out by Suarez. It actually makes his stupidity even worse.

Here was an opportunity, designed by the very people who had punished him, for Suarez to draw a line under the row and move on. Put aside his grievances and be a man. Wait to make his point on the field of play. Sadly he decided he couldn’t do that and, instead, removed the doubt from the minds of those who had previously thought he’d been unlucky to receive such a lengthy ban based on one man’s word against another’s.

Footballer’s specifically, but sporting stars more generally, need to understand their huge influence and start using it more wisely. From young boys watching at home, to the men stood inside Old Trafford who could have been moved to violence by this incident, via a wider need for strong positive role models in today’s society, a simple handshake can mean and communicate a great deal.

His standing in world football has been badly diminished, as has that of his club to the millions watching this game around the world. 24 hours later he has apologised to his teammates, his manager and to Liverpool FC. These words, appear contrite, but are like closing the stable door after the caballo has bolted. This is why Luis Suarez is my Mis Communicator of the Week.

Get Lansley off the TV

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:30:00 +0000

Every time Andrew Lansley appears on television I'm sure I hear a collective groan from supporters of the Government's health reforms as yet another voter, Doctor or nurse becomes opposed to the policy. The health secretary is possibly the most knowledgeable politician to hold that post in the history of the NHS. This is the problem.

It has been suggested that the health reforms have been badly handled and poorly communicated , from a communications perspective I'd agree. It is a classic case of someone being too close to the minutiae of an organisation, meaning they find it difficult to make their story relevant to those they are trying to communicate to.

This is a common problem with lots of businesses - particularly if in pharmaceutical or high tech industries - as their spokespeople spend their days talking in jargon or about systems which are impenetrable to the average man or woman. I've trained lots of people to tell a story, making what they are doing relevant, to communicate their message rather than merely describing in detail the processes which, although ultimately important, are of no consequence to their target audience.

The UNISON NHS campaign has used NHS staff at the front line to tell their story of why the proposed reforms are wrong. It is a simple tactic but very effective. They use language people understand as well as being much more like the average voter than many politicians.

If this Bill is to go through I'd suggest the Government take Andrew Lansley off the TV. If however, the health secretary is to continue to argue in public for these reforms he must abide by these rules:

1. Don't use jargon;
2. Use compelling language to bring life to your argument;
3. Use REAL WORLD examples to make what you are saying relevant to viewers or listeners at home;
4. If on TV use a backdrop which helps to tell your story, no more bookcases please;
5. Think about your delivery. If these reforms are so essential let voters know that is the case through your choice of words but also how you are saying them.

The FA - what a shower, what a shambles

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:13:00 +0000

England football fans wake up today just three months from the second most important football tournament their team competes in, without a manager for that team. Fabio Capello has walked and the Football Association has once again turned an issue into a crisis.

Put simply, a crisis is an issue that hasn't been controlled. The FA has along track record of failing to control issues meaning they quickly become crisis situations.

The latest revolves around the allegations that John Terry, until last week England captain, racially abused another player in a Premier League game while playing for Chelsea. Those who argue John Terry should have remained as England captain deploy the 'innocent until proven guilty' argument. It was the same for the FA back in October when the case was first investigated by police. Now, with a court date set, the FA insisted Terry as England captain at a major tournament was simply unviable.

I make no judgement over John Terry's case. I do judge the way the FA has handled this process. In October, thinking ahead to this summer, they should have made the decision that Terry could not be England captain until this saga had been resolved. By acting quickly they would have added some oxygen to the row when it first emerged but then could have moved on. Instead they hesitated only to make the decision that was inevitable but in a way that was deemed unacceptable to Fabio Capello.

When an issue develops in any organisation those in power - as well as those tasked with communicating on behalf of that organisation - must think strategically not just tactically. By thinking beyond this weekend's headlines reputations are protected, crises do not erupt.

Let's hope the FA has learnt a lesson from this latest shambles but sadly I doubt it.

Mis-Communicators of the Week: Russia and China

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:00:00 +0000

The Charter of the United Nations states that the UN’s Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Clearly the UN representatives from Russia and China haven’t read their copies of the Charter recently.

In international diplomacy, the words communicated by the UN Security Council frequently set the rhythm and pace of change. Or halt it in its tracks. A firm resolution is a warning shot across the bows of a tyrant or aggressive nation; a strongly worded statement is the diplomatic world’s equivalent of crunching tackle on a talented playmaker in football. Sadly we have seen neither from the UN aimed in the direction of Syria.

The Syrian regime has been wilfully killing its own people for months and those on the receiving end of President Assad’s security crack-down are crying out for help. The UN stopped estimating the death toll in Syria after it passed 5,400 in January, saying it was too difficult to confirm. In New York this weekend it was hoped the Security Council would agree a resolution to stop the killing, put in place monitors, or, at the very least, send a positive signal to President Assad that enough was enough.

Instead, at the crucial vote, China and Russia both vetoed the resolution to condemn the actions of the Syrian security forces. As Permanent Members of the Security Council their actions were enough to stop the will of the other 13 who voted in favour of the resolution. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rightly described the veto as a "travesty". Understanding the actions of international statesmen can sometimes be difficult. Not this time. Russia and China put their own self-interest above those of the Syrian people. Instead of communicating clearly to President Assad to stop with the killing, they signalled an acceptance of the continuing violence. For this they are my Mis-Communicators of the Week.

3 ways bankers can fight back in PR war

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:31:00 +0000

The current narrative running in the popular media, with (too many) politicians and wider society is that The City and financial institutions don’t play by the rules or add anything to this country. It is commonly argued that bankers and financial firms are a drain on the taxpayer rather than a significant contributor to the exchequer and the wider economic prosperity of the UK.

There is a danger that, amongst the uninformed, the perceived wisdom will become, or worse has already become, that this country would be better off if all the banks and other financial institutions moved abroad. Fundamentally this is an issue of reputation with no one willing or able to protect the already battered reputation of banks and financial institutions. The row over Stephen Hester, the chief executive of RBS, demonstrates that if the banks, and others that make up The City, do not attempt to negate ongoing criticism in the current political, economic and social environment, no one else will.

The net result of this could be that The City’s reputation will continue to be undermined which will be to the detriment of us all, particularly if policy decisions are made which harm its competitive position in the world. Here are x ways bankers can fight back:

1. Take the fight to the regions

Those who believe in capitalism will have seen welcome Leaders in The Times and Daily Telegraph today lamenting the pursuit of Mr Hester but this battle needs to be won away from the national media as well. To watch the reports by national correspondents, such as Robert Peston, on TV you would conclude that financial services only operate in Canary Wharf or the square mile. This isn't true; 641,000 are employed in financial and professional services in London and a further 1.4 million across the rest of the UK. Regional newspapers are trusted opinion formers so it is time the argument is made to them and through them that financial services have a fundamental role right across the country. Briefings to the FT, City Am and others is preaching to the converted so it is time to look further afield.

2. Rebut the criticism

It is time they acknowledged what a pickle they are in and start reacting with a bit of urgency. Individual banks, financial services more broadly and capitalism as a way of life is continually under attack, unless these attacks go undefended they will continue to undermine the reputation of the UK's financial services industry. Someone needs to take the lead in rebuttal, using populist language, examples which resonate with ordinary families and through a spokesperson or group of spokesmen willing and able to appear on any media at any time. Don't dress these spokespeople in braces or allow backdrops of glass and steel cathedrals of capitalism, use people who a family in Crewe or Cardiff will listen to. There is currently a vacuum which needs to be filled, if it isn't then those who are critical will fill it instead.

3. Start educating

Information, education and engagement is a great tool to win arguments. There is an ongoing conversation about most topics on social media, blogs as well as the traditional media so get involved. Find ways to engage with people beyond the rhetoric and sound bites, engage with people and give them the information they need to make up their own minds rather than allowing just one side of the argument to dominate. Financial services paid £63 billion in tax last year which (roughly) pays for the UK defence and transport budgets each year or, by my rough calculation, this is worth over £2250 per household in the UK. It is time to make these arguments.

Communicator of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:47:00 +0000

It is tough for advertisers to grab people’s attention nowadays. Many of us don’t buy newspapers or magazines, TV ratings have never been so low and our attention spans are said to be shortening with each new app we download. Genuine national TV events are also increasingly rare which is why they are so important to companies wanting to make their mark. In the UK we have Royal Weddings, in the United States they have the Super Bowl.

The Super Bowl is the championship game of the National Football League (NFL), the highest level of professional American football and was watched on TV last year by 111 million Americans. Not to over-egg this: Super Bowl Sunday is epic. It is a landmark date in the nation’s sporting calendar, as a day for families to get together, for sales of beer and fast-food and for advertisers to pay millions of Dollars for a slot during the half-time show. Which brings us to this week’s Communicator of the Week.

A few days ago, over a full week before this year’s Super Bowl, one advertiser took the unprecedented step of releasing a trail of an advert to be shown during the game. The clip featured the actor Matthew Broderick resurrecting his most memorable character, Ferris Bueller, from the cult ‘80’s film ‘Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.’
“How can I handle work on a day like today?” Broderick says in the clip, standing in a bathrobe in what looks like a hotel room and uttering a middle-aged version of a classic line from the film. Then, after just 10 seconds, it ends, with the ‘2.5.12.’ Super Bowl date as a teaser.

This 10 second video went global, it went viral and has so far scored over 4 million watches on YouTube. Many more have seen it via various news websites and the return of Ferris Bueller has featured as a news story in publications right around the world including some of the biggest watched or read global news outlets: Fox News, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Daily Mail, Time, amongst hundreds of others. To pay for this kind of coverage would cost many millions of Dollars.

At half-time on Sunday 100 million Americans, and everyone else who has been grabbed by this, will discover what brand Ferris Bueller is advertising. With a week still to go until the Super Bowl the rumour and buzz around this ad will continue which is why Ferris Bueller is my Communicator of the Week.

In praise of Test Match Special

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:03:00 +0000

On firing up Twitter this morning it was clear that, as per usual, those who had spent the previous two hours or so listening to Today , BBC radio's flagship current affairs programme, were in stinking bad moods. On the flip side were those who had been engrossed in the second Test Match between England and Pakistan in Abu Dhabi, they were full of the joys of spring, cock-a-hoop and bouncing towards their day.

The reaction on Twitter to the negativity which runs through the Today programme is considerable. There is a reaction to the presenters asking the wrong questions or for their overly aggressive tone; there is the antipathy shown towards the guests; and then a general sense that Today is covering the wrong stuff and in the wrong way. What a way to begin your day, although 6 million people do.

By contrast we have Test Match Special . It is a bouquet of brilliance, a shining example of quality broadcasting which showcases some truly great communicators who clearly love their jobs. The team is a blend of characters who all approach their task with good grace and a respect of others not often heard on Today. Jonathan Agnew, Geoffrey Boycott, Michael Vaughan, Henry Blofeld, Christopher Martin-Jenkins not only understand the game of cricket - it's tempo, foibles and nuances - but are able to paint a picture of the action in a calmly compelling way.

Recent commentary via an iPad when technology failed

The positivity that runs through TMS - as fans of the show refer to it - is infectious, putting a smile on the listeners face even if England are performing poorly. If England win, great, if a good game of cricket is unfurling in front of the TMS commentary box then this is even better.

On cold, dark, dank January mornings I thank my lucky stars I have been able to wake up to Aggers and the team rather than John Humphrys and his.

3 public speaking lessons after Sir Robert Smith's stumble at PMQs

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:47:00 +0000

Sir Robert Smith, Lib Dem MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, experienced one of those awful moments when his mind went blank as he was asking David Cameron a question at PMQs. The House, which can be brutal at times, were mercifully kind to him as he struggled to remember the final part of his question about safety regulation in the North Sea oil industry.

The moment can be seen in the video below at minute 14:57:

There are three simple lessons that can be learnt from Sir Robert's unfortunate mind block:

1. Keep calm and take a pause. Those moments when the mind goes blank can seem like an eternity but to those listening it isn't ever quite as bad. Sir Robert did well to keep calm, pause, and remember the final part of his question while apologising to Mr Speaker gained him additional time. It is very easy to become flustered in these situations but if you do your mind may fail you even further.

2. Always have notes to hand. It is Parliamentary convention that speeches and questions should not be read verbatim, although increasingly this seems to be ignored by more and more MPs. Sir Robert, to his credit, attempted to ask a question without the use of notes. Unfortunately he would have been better off having his question to hand as a safety net for moments just like this one.

3. Practice. In all forms of successful communication those who have prepared and practised perform the best. Sir Robert clearly knew the point he wanted to make but his question was poorly focused. This wouldn't have been the case if he had practised his question aloud helping him to focus the content as well as drilling it into his consciousness.

The Republican Party frame the debate

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:18:00 +0000

In the wake of President Obama's State of the Union address, where he attempted to rise above the entrenched differences between the Democrat and Republican sides of American politics, the Republicans have reacted.

President Obama has always caught the eye - and the ear - with his soaring rhetoric and style of public speaking. Last night's State of the Union - at prime time for much of the US - was essentially a pitch to the American nation that he deserves a second term. He took on directly many of the issues that have been raised by his Republican challengers but the Republicans themselves reacted quickly.

Below is the video released within minutes of Obama finishing which focuses on Obama's rhetoric and uses it against him. It is a startlingly simple concept for a modern campaign video which, the Republican's hope, will nudge voters to start looking more closely at President Obama's record beyond his well delivered set piece speeches.

Communicator of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:20:00 +0000

There is a skill to getting your message across when faced with a difficult question. The best politicians or business figures do it effortlessly, while others who try and fail are often ridiculed for giving a ‘politicians answer’. A disingenuous answer to a straight-forward question is intensely damaging and undermines an individual’s reputation. The problem? Taking the question head-on often causes immense problems as well. Which brings me to Newton Leroy Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich is a politician and individual who polarises opinion in an intense way. He has built a career on telling it how it is (or at least how he sees it) and by seeking out conflict rather than working to avoid it. His straight talking style is seen by many Republicans as the perfect antidote to the slick professional politicians who have made the business of politics so unpopular in America. Hours before the latest round of voting in the presidential primary season, it emerged that one of his ex-wives had given a TV interview making allegations about Gingrich which, considering the vote was in the intensely religious state of South Carolina, should have undermined his chances considerably.

The pre-vote TV debate began with the host repeating the claims by Gingrich’s ex-wife that he had asked for an open marriage. Gingrich responded with a furious attack on the liberal media elite, stating that opening the debate with a question like that was “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine”. The audience rose to applaud him and in an instant the speculation that these allegations would derail his bid for the White House disappeared.

If this had been a baseball game Gingrich hit a home run with the first pitch he faced. He deflected the issue at hand and moved onto a core vote issue (the liberal, elitist media) which made him look like an under-dog facing a gang of bullies. I don’t think anyone has bullied Newt Gingrich all his life but that was the perception he managed to portray with his answer to this question. At the same time he successfully managed to avoid answering the substance of the allegations made against him.

Subsequently he won the South Carolina primary by a handsome margin and has real momentum going into the next rounds of voting. For that I make him my Communicator of the Week.

Do you have a crisis plan for your business?

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:19:00 +0000

I wrote earlier in the week about three crisis lessons from the Costa Concordia disaster. This was all pretty simple stuff but actions which can make a difference in the short term which will protect the long term reputation of a company.

There is however something even more fundamental than the actions and words of a corporate spokesperson: have a crisis plan in place.

It is inconceivable that a company the size and complexity of Carnival, the owners of Costa Cruises, wouldn't have in place a crisis plan but unfortunately it is all to common an occurrence. Global PR firm Burson-Marsteller has subsequently been called in to offer support and will no doubt be charging substantially marked up 'crisis rates' when the perception of incompetence has already been well planted in most people's minds. The resilience of the cruise industry to ride out this tragedy will be interesting to watch as will the major cruise businesses communication strategies.

The lesson here for any business - but even more so if you are responsible for the safety of thousands of people - is have in place a crisis plan which includes well rehearsed communications protocols. It will save you money if a crisis does hit as well as your reputation, and maybe even your business.

Communicator of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

The best media performers are not necessarily naturals and even naturals, to perform well, need to practice. Preparation is the key to success, whether being on top of a particular issue or making sure you know what else might crop up as part of your interview. This isn’t to suggest that to perform well on TV or radio you have to become a fraud, just that you organise your thoughts in advance to maximise the opportunity to get your message across.

It was a big end to the week for the education secretary Michael Gove who announced proposals to make it easier for head teachers to get rid of bad teachers as a way to boost educational performance. As part of this announcement he made a number of media appearances but it wasn’t for his – although well directed – that he caught my eye.

It was a classic ‘one final question’ question at the end of the education secretary’s interview with the BBC’s Today programme on Radio 4 where I felt he shone. After four and a half minutes of jousting over teachers, Jim Naughtie changed tack and asked Gove whether the UK government was bullying Scotland over the independence vote. Gove’s answer was perfect for the end of an interview. It was well prepared, full of easily clippable sound bites and talked out the interview without being over-long. In the context of the debate over Scottish independence, it moved on from discussing political process to introduce substantial themes over the choice facing the Scottish voters. At last a politician in favour of the Union was putting down a challenge to the SNP and his words were a powerful way, to use modern political campaigning speak, of framing the choice.

“Do the people of Scotland want to have the pound, the euro or an alternative currency? Do the people of Scotland want to have the same level of welfare benefits as the rest of the United Kingdom? Do they want to be part of the same nation that has a British Broadcasting Corporation and a National Health Service? Do they want the Royal Navy and British Army to remain institutions that embody patriotic feeling and sentiment, or do they want to sunder and separate them?” For being prepared to deliver this argument in a clear, concise and powerful way I make Michael Gove my Communicator of the Week.

It is time to leave Ed Miliband alone

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:05:00 +0000

The news today that Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, has turned on Labour leader Ed Miliband is unsurprising. Miliband was, after all, installed as leader of his party by the block votes of the unions and, thus far, he has failed to impress in the job.

Media and political commentators have increasingly compared the Miliband leadership with that of Iain Duncan-Smith's time leading the Conservatives. I'm not aware of anyone yet taking things one step further, to advise the government on how to deal with, and maximise returns on, Miliband's failure to build momentum, so here it goes.

The government should take a leaf out of Tony Blair's playbook and simply ignore Miliband. The guidance should be issued to the attack dogs to step back from the fray, while a line to take should be issued to all government ministers on how to deflect any questions about him. This is what Blair did when faced with IDS. Instead David Cameron should use this opportunity of facing a disjointed opposition to help redefine what the coalition is all about.

Again, Tony Blair used to do this brilliantly by concocting a row - mostly over public service reform - where he both set the topic for and the parameters of the debate. This allowed him to communicate to the electorate that he was striving for reforms but, at the same time, give tidbits of concessions to those in his own party who weren't happy with the pace of change. While this public debate was happening the IDS era Conservative Party was ignored.

Substitute Lib Dems for Brownites and you have a model for a constructive disagreement in government which will undermine Miliband with the electorate without overtly attacking him.

3 crisis lessons from the Costa Concordia sinking

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:49:00 +0000

The pictures of the cruise ship disaster off the coast of Italy are truly awful and a personal tragedy to all those who have lost loved ones. These images are also potentially immensely damaging to the owners of the ship, Carnival, but also to other cruise operators.

Type into Google the words "cruise ship" and the majority of results on the first page are about the Costa Concordia. All stories are full of speculation as to what went wrong and who is to blame.

Apart from the actions of the crew which resulted in the sinking, there is speculation about their actions as the ship sank as well which, even if unfounded, will have caused immense reputational damage to Carnival but maybe to the cruise industry more broadly. This could have been avoided if:

- Carnival had made a spokesperson available at the site of the disaster as soon as possible;
- This spokesperson had held regular update press briefings which would have filled the information vacuum and provided positive pictures for the 24 hour news channels;
- Carnival had expressed remorse as to what has happened rather than trying to apportion blame.

Defeat Salmond to win referendum vote

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:16:00 +0000

Nick Clegg told Sky News earlier that Alex Salmond is "terrifically slippery" over the details of what Scottish independence would mean. It is rare I say this but Nick Clegg is right, but I'm not sure those in favour of saving the Union know how to deal with this problem.

As well as slippery Alex Salmond is also calculating. Both he and Angus Robertson, the SNP group leader in Westminster, used the words "Thatcher" and "Thatcheresque" repeatedly when referring to David Cameron’s efforts to save the Union. This is just one example of where he successfully uses his TV appearances to position, manoeuvre and define his opponents.

This is a pressing issue which, talking to various government advisors yesterday, the coalition and indeed Labour have failed to grasp. If they don't soon, Salmond will go on defining the terms of the debate despite the vote possibly being over two years away. If this happens the vote will be lost.

Salmond will try to engineer the contest so that it appears to be between the SNP in Edinburgh and the Tories in Westminster. Or he will paint himself and the SNP as the underdogs with the might of London politics lined up against him. He will goad opponents on, then claim to be campaigning in a positive way and "on the issues that matter", all the time plotting and manoeuvring.

While Salmond and the SNP have one priority, all others who may be involved in the forthcoming battle have many other issues to fight over allowing Salmond to gently drip feed his view of the world into the ears of the Scottish electorate. If the Union is to be saved then this has to be rebutted and dealt with as and when it happens, not in 18 months time.

The Prime Minister fired the starting gun on the independence vote earlier this week, now it is time to take action and stop Alex Salmond having the playing field all to himself.

War Horse film review

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:59:00 +0000

I was very lucky to be invited to the royal premiere of War Horse attended by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on Sunday evening. As well as sitting just a few feet away from the Duke and Duchess the legendary director Steven Spielberg was amongst the stars helping to make it a perfect Sunday night trip.

See here for my review of the film from the Dale & Co. uber-blog to see if Spielberg managed to weave his magic on this one.

Mis-Communicator of the Week: Ed Miliband

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Opposition is a depressing, slightly sordid business, where you scrap around looking for opportunities to make a positive impact. When they come: grab them. The flip side of this is when under pressure, or a difficult issue crops up, you need to deal with it quickly so the situation doesn’t become a crisis and may actually become an opportunity to positively define yourselves to the electorate.

After a poor last month of 2011, Ed Miliband needed to get out of the blocks quickly in 2012. He has made little positive impact on voters but worse than that, in the short term, is the way commentators and political journalists are writing him off. Once this media narrative develops it is very difficult to turn around. A policy announcement, a well constructed speech or a clever intervention in the week before Parliament resumed sitting, could have provided Miliband and the Labour Party with a little bit of momentum to begin the year.

Instead Miliband dithered over what action to take after Diane Abbott’s misguided Tweet. Whatever course of action the Labour leader wanted to take, an apology, resignation or sacking, should have come way before it did. Hours passed with no word from Miliband or his team. With the Commons in recess there were no other stories around to distract journalists and bloggers so this descended into a feeding frenzy which the Labour Party looked ill-prepared to deal with.

Having cynically stoked similar ‘Tory Race Rows’ when in government Labour’s lack of urgency in shutting down the story was bizarre. That the saga was played out live on Sky News made things even worse, with Miliband calling Abbott as she was talking on camera to the news channel. Was seeing her on his TV screen the catalyst to action? For someone who aspires to be Prime Minister one day, one would hope not.

Communicators of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Tawakel Karman

It has been a year of upheaval and change in many Muslim states around the world. Despite the great changes which we have witnessed, the role of women hasn’t been as great as one might have hoped or expected, apart from in Yemen. Tawakel Karman became the international face of the uprising in Yemen which was part of the ‘Arab Spring’.

While Yemenis refer to Karman as the ‘Iron Woman’ and the ‘Mother of the Revolution’ her influence has been recognised far from Yemen itself. She is a co-recipient of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, becoming the first Yemeni, the first Arab woman, and the second Muslim woman to win a Nobel Prize and the youngest Nobel Peace Laureate ever.

She has recognised that there are multiple channels for her message of change, embracing traditional and modern techniques. She has led mass demonstrations; met with senior politicians such as Hillary Clinton; written articles for international newspapers including the New York Times and The Guardian; as well as taking steps such as rejecting the traditional niqab in favour of more colourful hijabs that showed her face and challenged some long held views on Islam. Above all she has remained focused on the aim of taking her message out to the world to deliver change.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

As we move into The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year the royal family enjoys considerable support from the British public. The Queen and her family have also made a significant and positive impact on many other parts of the world – and not just across the Commonwealth. The dark days of The Queen’s ‘annus horribilis’ and the death of Princess Diana are in the past, with the royal family learning from these, and other, mistakes.

At the forefront of the modern royal family are the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge who have consistently communicated with sparkling brilliance while under intense scrutiny. Their fairytale wedding captured the imagination of the world, representing and showcasing Britain at its very best. They have also undertaken an increasing number of public engagements including tours to America and Canada as well as a visit to Denmark. Prince William also visited Australia and New Zealand earlier in the year as those countries coped with natural disasters.

Whatever the occasion they both communicate well and are able to make connections with the people they meet. On top of this Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, has quickly emerged as a global style icon taking the royal family to an audience it hasn’t reached since the days of Princess Diana.

David Cameron

It has been an inconsistent year for the Prime Minister his critics would say, while his supporters may merely point to events being the rhythm to which a Prime Minister must set his tune. While the necessity to balance the demands of a coalition agreement with the desire for a different direction from his own party muffles his tune to some degree, there have been some strong moments for David Cameron in 2011.

There are times when the Prime Minister is at his best which includes interacting with people in a genuine and caring way that was so alien to his predecessor. Cameron is also a great media performer and strong under pressure.

It is this last attribute that sees him make this list; his performance at and immediately after the EU summit in mid-December was striking. He led: communicating with real verve his and the UK’s undoubted position. This moment shook the other EU leaders but also the British people. The aftermath saw the Conservative Party take a lead in some opinion polls and people question the future of the leader of the opposition.

The way he communicated helped to re-cast Cameron in the tabloid media as a British hero made of the same stuff as Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher. This was funny as, in the days prior to the summit, he was being described as weak and not dissimilar to Neville Chamberlain.

Steve Jobs

In many ways this is an honorary award for the impact Jobs had in changing the way we all communicate. However, even this year, just weeks before he died, he was delivering one of his classic keynote presentations which looked into the future, telling us how many are going to live, and work and share information.

To communicate effectively an individual must have passion for what they are saying, this was never a problem for Steve Jobs who took those who watched him speak on a journey of discovery. These events were as exciting to some as the products he was promoting. He was meticulously rehearsed and should be seen as a role model for anyone who wants to get noticed through their presentations.

We all know the technology which he helped introduce to the world but if his presentations can, hopefully, be the catalyst for fewer PowerPoint presentations then his service to mankind will grow even further.

Christine Lagarde

Christine Lagarde is the French President many world leaders wish they were dealing with. Out of the chaos of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn scandal, at the IMF Lagarde has brought clarity and directness to the organisation and its communications.

She has put the IMF at the centre of finding solutions to the ongoing world economic crisis and shows a refreshing level of impatience with the reluctance of others to make decisions. She is able to communicate in a way that grabs the attention of seasoned economists and tabloid journalists alike through a keen eye for a sound bite, without ever being shrill or over the top.

Sound bites, often belittled by those critical of modern political communication, are a crucial tool in setting an agenda or shaping the political narrative. With today's fast moving news stream, based around social media and 24 hour news, a great sound bite can resonate around the world in minutes. Whether through an ad-hoc doorstep interview, a TV appearance or a set-piece speech Lagarde always delivers.

Mis-Communicators of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:22:00 +0000

Anthony Weiner

Not many beyond the Washington belt-way had heard of Anthony Weiner before this year. Now you probably have and for all the wrong reasons. It was a classic political sex scandal with an added modern twist – his ‘affairs’ were all conducted via social media. The then Congressman Weiner was caught sending pictures of his crotch via Twitter to a ‘friend’ which he denied were of him. Subsequently more women came forward with similar pictures which eventually led to Weiner resigning from office.

Social media has heralded in a new level of transparency in public and business life which Anthony Weiner seemed oblivious to. He displayed extraordinary arrogance in thinking that he could deny something as obvious as pictures and messages which were clearly only sent from him. By lying in the way he did it became inevitable that he would have to resign. His cover-up was suicidal. The fact his name is Weiner gave the sordid scandal an extra element of farce and the headline writers an open-goal.

Rupert Murdoch

It is fair to say that the Chairman of News Corporation has never had a year as bad as this one. That he failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation facing his brands in the UK is clear. That he failed to understand an urgent need to communicate clearly and with humility is surprising. For a man who helped to invent modern tabloid journalism his lack of understanding of how he, his family and his businesses were being perceived was bizarre.

Murdoch could have made this list for a number of reasons; from a pure crisis communications perspective where he failed to get a grip on the problems at News International to his performance in front of the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee. One moment for me illustrates how badly Rupert Murdoch communicated during 2012: his strange appearance outside his Mayfair flat on arriving in the UK to ‘take charge’ of the phone-hacking scandal, where he announced his first priority was Rebekah Brooks.

This was in a week when it was announced the News of the World was closing with the loss of 200 jobs, with new allegations of criminal activity emerging daily. For Murdoch to state that his first priority was the then News International Chief Executive was intensely naive and communicated remoteness to the reality of the situation.

Over 6 months on and News International are yet to recover; despite many of the most severe allegations then being made now known to be false. For this Murdoch must take a lot of the blame.

The RFU

It is amazing that, despite international sport being big business, very few sports are run as such. Sports have turnovers measured in millions, sometimes billions, of pounds and dollars only to be organised and run like a training exercise in the classic sitcom ‘Dad’s Army’.

After the terrible earthquake which hit New Zealand earlier in the year it was great to see an exciting and successful rugby world cup take place. Sadly, while New Zealand communicated to the world it was still very much open for business, England as a team, and the Rugby Football Union as their bosses, signalled a renewed level of incompetence and amateurism.

For many years rugby has been lauded by football as an example of how to run a sport. Despite the England national side and the Football Association not exactly drowning in success, few will make that comparison for quite some time. The rugby world cup resulted in a damaged reputation for professional rugby in England: its players were uncontrollable (behaving like footballers); the team’s management were aloof and unengaging with supporters and the media; the administrators descended into civil war; the England team played uninspiring rugby and were deservingly knocked out in the quarter-finals.

From the boardroom to the players via the management, 2011 was a communication disaster on so many levels. What they said, how they said it, as well as how they all acted was wrong time and again. What a mess.

Herman Cain

In late summer Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza turned US presidential candidate, had soared ahead of his Republican rivals. His simple, and well communicated (to such a degree that I awarded him my Communicator of the Week) 9-9-9 tax plan, connected with ordinary voters struggling to get by in the midst of America’s ongoing economic problems.

The 9-9-9 plan coupled with dynamic performances in the televised debates cut through the mediocrity, which defines many of the Republican candidates, to such an extent that he began to attract genuine scrutiny. This is where it all went wrong. As is so often true in public life: after the rise, came the fall.

When allegations about his private life began to surface he failed to recognise, let alone deal with, the crisis that was swamping his presidential campaign. He refused to answer questions; dodging cameras and reporters. Finally he did address the allegations, hosting a press conference to face up to the media which was a great move, until it back-fired, as he was less than honest with the facts.

The great simplicity with which he had communicated his tax plan deserted him as he became muddled at best and dishonest at worst. Herman Cain is no longer running for president.

Ed Miliband

With the British economy teetering on the edge of a recession for much of 2011 – high unemployment and dire predictions of further woes from many economists – Ed Miliband should have secured a sizable lead in the opinion polls over his political rivals. That he didn’t has been much discussed, often focussing on his performances at Prime Minister’s Questions. While it is true that he rarely betters the Prime Minister, it is his failure to even be recognised by much of the electorate which should worry Labour strategists.

The most pressing problem facing this country today is the economy but Miliband and his team have failed to explain how they would make the lives of the average family better. This is a gross dereliction of duty from a leader of the opposition. Miliband’s language is often clichéd and, more frequently than that, far too obvious or tribal. He fails to connect with voters because of this but also due to his clips for the TV news being completely uninspired.

People don’t think he has good ideas, can ever see themselves having a pint with him in their local, or respect him as someone who will look after their interests. If that isn’t a politician failing to communicate then I’m not sure what is.

Communicator of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:48:00 +0000

A classic business management training course is based around the ‘7 c’s of communication’. The aim: to help leaders communicate better. Anyone who has sat through training courses built around theoretical, prescriptive lists such as this will appreciate that sometimes the reality is rather different. The ‘7 c’s’, if anyone is interested, were originally devised in the 1950s by a pair of American pioneers of the public relations industry, and are: credibility, context, content, clarity, consistency, channels and capability of the audience.

If we were marking David Cameron on his performance this week at the EU summit, using this criteria, then how would he have done? For a mark out of 7 I’d probably score him a 5, possible a 6, only dropping marks when it came to the last two on the list. This is actually all a little esoteric and lengthy discussions could be had about first, the channels used by the UK to flag a veto was imminent, and then, the capability of the audience which, in this regard, were very capable of understanding David Cameron’s position but seemingly decided to ignore it.

So, in the academic world, the Prime Minister looks to have done well. In the real world he has, to quote Boris Johnson ‘played a blinder’. The impact of David Cameron’s action looks to be enormous. With brevity and candour he stated his position and left the rest of the EU leaders shocked. The British media couldn’t quite work out how to report the events.

Sometimes a great piece or moment of communication is striking, almost brutal, in bucking the trend of mediocrity. You can imagine the private thoughts of President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel: ‘the much talked about UK veto; surely he is never going to have the guts to use it’. But he did, and in doing so re-cast himself in the tabloid media as a British hero made of the same stuff as Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher. Funny, considering that just days before he was being described as weak and not dissimilar to Neville Chamberlain.

That was the impact of what David Cameron did in Brussels this week and is why he is my Communicator of the Week.

Nick Clegg's PR disaster

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:32:00 +0000

The term 'PR Disaster' gets touted around very freely by the media as a catch-all way of describing something which backfires on an individual or business. Often it is misleading; referring to something out of that individuals control.

If anyone describes Nick Clegg's decision not to attend the House of Commons today, to listen to the Prime Minister make a statement about the EU veto, in this way they are entirely accurate.

Clegg has had a poor time over the past few days. Seasoned political watchers will be aware that the deputy prime minister agreed to the negotiating position taken by David Cameron in Brussels early on Friday morning. They will also know that Clegg then publicly backed Cameron on TV later that same day. Now they see Clegg back-tracking fast.

Those who aren't glued to the comings and goings in Westminster - the vast majority of the country - will have been aware of the Prime Minister standing up for the UK last week. Their level of understanding on the issue will be vague. Now, because of Nick Clegg's fit of pique, they will become aware that Nick Clegg has changed his mind over supporting his boss and has chosen to show his displeasure. They may wonder why but may also conclude that, as with tuition fees for instance, Nick Clegg is a bit wishy-washy.

In trying to demonstrate that he is strong and independent of Cameron, Clegg has reminded people of his great weakness: people don't know what he stands for. That isn't just poor news management. That is what is known as a PR disaster.

Clegg's track record of back stabbing

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Staite) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:00:00 +0000

Remember when Nick Clegg looked into the TV camera during the first televised General Election debate and, hours later, looked as if he had heralded an electoral breakthrough for the Lib Dems? Cleggmania it was called; the Lib Dem leader scoring a popularity rating almost on a par with Winston Churchill in 1945.

The breakthrough never came - despite this they form part of the coalition government - and subsequently Nick Clegg's star has waned spectacularly. In a poll last month, just 20 per cent of respondents approved of his performance as deputy Prime Minister. Quite a turnaround from Cleggmania.

Is there any wonder when voters like their politicians to be straight with them, communicate openly and veer away from the world of unattributable briefings and back-stabbing which seem to have become Clegg's modus operandi.

Research into the newspaper coverage of Nick Clegg's various interventions over the past months have revealed a plethora of stories based on 'sources close to' the Lib Dem leader. Anyone who has worked in or around the media know how these stories are formed. Those attributed to 'sources close to Nick Clegg' are almost exclusively used as a way to back-stab the Prime Minister or other Conservative cabinet colleagues squarely between the shoulders.

Don't take my word for it, here are just five examples where 'sources close to Nick Clegg' was used as cover to attack, mislead or undermine:

- On the AV referendum: Clegg Attacks Cameron Over the Alternative Vote (24 April 2011)
-On proposed NHS reforms: NHS U-turn big win for Lib Dems (11 June 2011)
-On education: Clegg claims victory over Gove (4 September 2011)
-On the EU veto: Clegg rages at Cameron's spectacular failure 11 December 2011)
-On welfare reforms: Cameron attacked on immigration plans (10 November 2011)

Not the kind of bravery fitting for a man once nearly as popular as Churchill.