There's been a lot of media chatter recently about the apparent disappearnce of a 'British Identity' with calls for lessons in 'Britishness' to be introduced in schools. This recent debate seems to me to fall in to a pattern of concern about the disintegration of communities and society in general. I wonder whether the situation is that bad and if it is it woudl be interesting to see how political parties might try to tackle it. How can you have a coherent political message which appeals across a broad sepctrum of society when communities are apparently increasingly disconnected? Throughout this blog i've also been considering the effects of politcial marketing in promoting self interest among voters. Of course accepting this arguemnet ineviatbly means that you believe that political communications strategies employed over recent years are central to this breakdown in society and national identity. Is the call for a renewed emphasis on British identity a desperate attempt by politicians to reverse the effects of their own strategies over the last 25 years?
Political Speeches on British Identity:
Gordon Brown speaking at the Fabian Society on 14 January 2007
http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/press_office/news_latest_all.asp?pressid=520
David Cameron speaking in Birmingham on 29 January 2007
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=134759
Saturday, 10 February 2007
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
New Module
I started a new module on politcial communications today. The first session looked at the way Bill Clinton, and then Tony Blair, used commercial marketing strategies to win elections. Essentially it was a case of find out what the people want and promise it to them. It's a formula which has worked well for business based as it is on Freudian principles of selfishness. Obviously experience has taught us that this approach works very well to win elections but not in government. All individuals are contradictory and if political parties try to pander too much to individualism they too become contradictory, and unable to produce coherent policy. We're also now at point where there is a lot of public consciousness about the marketing techniques that have ben used to win election campaigns. What happens from now on is what this module looks at, as well as taking a look at how things might develop in other countries.
Sunday, 14 January 2007
Is Brown to be Believed?
It was interesting to see the comments that came out of the Fabian Society Meeting held yesterday. It was an opportunity for Gordon Brown to set out his thoughts about a government run by him might operate. One of the striking things about Mr Brown, both in this most recent speech and over the past months has been is very public scorning of celebrity culture. He is certainly positioning himself as a man of ‘character’ and ‘values’. Perhaps this approach, a return to a more traditional way of conducting politics, might be much more effective at re-engaging the public and increasing trust in politics and voter turn out. How genuine this positioning is remains to be seen. However, as I said yesterday, more use of new media and marketing style political communications will in my view only drive people further apart and increase apathy so perhaps a return to more ‘soap box’ political debate is worth a shot.
Saturday, 13 January 2007
The Future
I’ve now managed to get quite a broad range of opinions on current trends in political communications and how these might affect political pr in the future. Obviously it’s by no means a complete picture but the fact that I have had access to the views of politicians, communications co-ordinators for politicians, journalists and individuals involved in political communications means that I am in a position to draw some speculative conclusions.
The first of these is that new media will not radically change the way in which current political communications strategies are developed. The marketing oriented style where messages are tailored for specific audiences will in my view only become more pronounced.
Of course I could be wrong and the view that online media will give people a sense of power, a feeling that their views matter, could prevail. This would reinvigorate our democracy. This is the view put forward in the comment left by Ophelia Nge. It would be wonderful if her optimism about the impact new media could have on democracy in Africa became reality.
But, as has already been mentioned previously the internet is actually a very fragile thing. The Chinese government has moved quickly to curtail its potential for political debate and I have no doubt that other undemocratic regimes will quickly follow suit.
In the UK, and in other complex economies, the ability to track people’s online movements and therefore build profiles of individuals will prove too tempting for both commercial enterprises and political organisations.
The creation of targeted messaging will increase driving people further down the road of caring about single issues that affect them only rather than taking a more global perspective of the common good.
My concern actually is that new media will actually result in membership of political parties falling further and that political communications will look more and more like consumer PR and advertising rather than serious debate.
In addition the fact that the political messages can now go straight to the audience without the mediation of journalism might aggravate the situation. Political communications has over recent years increasingly sought to avoid hard news programmes where tough questioning is guaranteed. New media offers political communicators the opportunity to intensify this shift.
In this respect though, I am not so pessimistic. The definition of a journalist and of a media outlet may have to change to include practically everyone who publishes material online. But there is no doubt that there will be plenty of sources available to challenge any views put forward by political communicators.
Like every other human invention some will use new media in a genuine attempt to engage the public in a more widespread debate on the issues of the day. But at the end of the day politicians have to win elections and I think the tools that new media offer for further segmenting and specifically targeting audiences will prove too attractive.
It seems to me that political communications, like everything else, is becoming more complex and sophisticated. But in the end I don’t see any great changes to the way political pr works nor to the way in which the wider public responds to it.
The first of these is that new media will not radically change the way in which current political communications strategies are developed. The marketing oriented style where messages are tailored for specific audiences will in my view only become more pronounced.
Of course I could be wrong and the view that online media will give people a sense of power, a feeling that their views matter, could prevail. This would reinvigorate our democracy. This is the view put forward in the comment left by Ophelia Nge. It would be wonderful if her optimism about the impact new media could have on democracy in Africa became reality.
But, as has already been mentioned previously the internet is actually a very fragile thing. The Chinese government has moved quickly to curtail its potential for political debate and I have no doubt that other undemocratic regimes will quickly follow suit.
In the UK, and in other complex economies, the ability to track people’s online movements and therefore build profiles of individuals will prove too tempting for both commercial enterprises and political organisations.
The creation of targeted messaging will increase driving people further down the road of caring about single issues that affect them only rather than taking a more global perspective of the common good.
My concern actually is that new media will actually result in membership of political parties falling further and that political communications will look more and more like consumer PR and advertising rather than serious debate.
In addition the fact that the political messages can now go straight to the audience without the mediation of journalism might aggravate the situation. Political communications has over recent years increasingly sought to avoid hard news programmes where tough questioning is guaranteed. New media offers political communicators the opportunity to intensify this shift.
In this respect though, I am not so pessimistic. The definition of a journalist and of a media outlet may have to change to include practically everyone who publishes material online. But there is no doubt that there will be plenty of sources available to challenge any views put forward by political communicators.
Like every other human invention some will use new media in a genuine attempt to engage the public in a more widespread debate on the issues of the day. But at the end of the day politicians have to win elections and I think the tools that new media offer for further segmenting and specifically targeting audiences will prove too attractive.
It seems to me that political communications, like everything else, is becoming more complex and sophisticated. But in the end I don’t see any great changes to the way political pr works nor to the way in which the wider public responds to it.
Friday, 12 January 2007
NUJ and the Rise of New Media
I’ve just had a good long chat with Lawrence Shaw who handles new media issues at the National Union of Journalists. Amazingly enough we were at the same school together. Small world!
Firstly we talked about general new media issues affecting journalists, a cause of fierce debated in the NUJ it seems. Lawrence’s personal view is that blogging has been very fashionable lately but it is already starting to level off and may start declining.
There will always be a place for it of course but the fact is that most people’s lives are pretty mundane and motivation levels to keep posting quickly drop off. This development brings forward the prospect of greater convergence between traditional media and new media.
People who are really interested in discussion will continue to blog and as they will be creating and publishing content, these bloggers in effect become journalists. In fact people are already starting to turn their blogs in to commercial enterprises. The future for journalists will certainly continue to involve more and more on line work, including preparing digital reports with video and photos. This could be a positive development as it improves the skills base of journalists and should help them to command higher salaries.
The greatest risk to traditional media seems to come not from on line media but from the media owners themselves who are more concerned with profitability. Apparently newspapers have a higher rate of profitability than leading companies such as Tesco and HSBC. This is being achieved by driving down costs and in the exaggerated belief that traditional print media is in terminal decline in the face of the arrival of new media. Fewer journalists have time to investigate stories and have increasingly become dependent on PR. It was this development that has helped corporations and political parties in their efforts to set the media agenda. (How and to what extent set the media agenda determines voting patterns is an issue which is discussed in the posting on 20 December 2006).
The internet, Lawrence argued, does have the potential to change all this. The fact that the internet could be an agent for political change is highlighted by the reaction of the Chinese government. Its potential for good should not be underestimated and with the quality of traditional media, especially print who rely more on centralised news feeds, declining the internet is increasingly becoming a source for different points of view.
Political parties are still harnessing this technology. An online presence is essential but how open can they leave debates on their own platforms. To find out what people think about issues it seems that we have to go back to the concept of either setting up sites which are related to specific issues, away from the main party website, or setting up front sites. Political parties will continue to try and influence debate and will undoubtedly make use of the technology available to track the sites people view and then tailor their messages accordingly. The ease with which individual’s online activities can be traced to build profiles is barely recognised by most people. It provides a power tool for search engine owners, businesses and politicians, to sell their products in a more targeted way.
On a more global scale the ease with which online activity can be monitored or blocked means that good old fashioned radio might still be the best way to get messages across in China.
What we have is a situations where individuals believe that the internet and new media can help open debate and challenge views. This is the great potential. Rather than undermining journalism this will make more of us journalists – even though we may not realise it! Sorting the truth from the lies online and sorting the valuable contribution from the crackpots will also ensure that there is an increased role for investigative journalism.
There also remains a great interest for variety of sources and as traditional journalists and bloggers move closer together Lawrence predicted that within five years the latter will be able to become members of the NUJ. Traditional media will also survive because of their social nature. People like to casually flick through a publication on a train or to spend their Sunday mornings reading a paper. Just like TV failed to kill radio, so the internet will fail to kill newspapers. In the process the demand for objective analysis of all that gets published will increase. We will need more journalists, not fewer and more of us without thinking will fill this role through our own on line activity.
Lawrence is a man who is optimistic about the future for journalists. For those involved in political communication life will probably become more complicated and require greater professionalism. The technology to target audiences effectively already exists and so we can look forward to the tussle between politicians and the media continuing online in much the same way it has done on traditional media, but with greater sophistication.
Firstly we talked about general new media issues affecting journalists, a cause of fierce debated in the NUJ it seems. Lawrence’s personal view is that blogging has been very fashionable lately but it is already starting to level off and may start declining.
There will always be a place for it of course but the fact is that most people’s lives are pretty mundane and motivation levels to keep posting quickly drop off. This development brings forward the prospect of greater convergence between traditional media and new media.
People who are really interested in discussion will continue to blog and as they will be creating and publishing content, these bloggers in effect become journalists. In fact people are already starting to turn their blogs in to commercial enterprises. The future for journalists will certainly continue to involve more and more on line work, including preparing digital reports with video and photos. This could be a positive development as it improves the skills base of journalists and should help them to command higher salaries.
The greatest risk to traditional media seems to come not from on line media but from the media owners themselves who are more concerned with profitability. Apparently newspapers have a higher rate of profitability than leading companies such as Tesco and HSBC. This is being achieved by driving down costs and in the exaggerated belief that traditional print media is in terminal decline in the face of the arrival of new media. Fewer journalists have time to investigate stories and have increasingly become dependent on PR. It was this development that has helped corporations and political parties in their efforts to set the media agenda. (How and to what extent set the media agenda determines voting patterns is an issue which is discussed in the posting on 20 December 2006).
The internet, Lawrence argued, does have the potential to change all this. The fact that the internet could be an agent for political change is highlighted by the reaction of the Chinese government. Its potential for good should not be underestimated and with the quality of traditional media, especially print who rely more on centralised news feeds, declining the internet is increasingly becoming a source for different points of view.
Political parties are still harnessing this technology. An online presence is essential but how open can they leave debates on their own platforms. To find out what people think about issues it seems that we have to go back to the concept of either setting up sites which are related to specific issues, away from the main party website, or setting up front sites. Political parties will continue to try and influence debate and will undoubtedly make use of the technology available to track the sites people view and then tailor their messages accordingly. The ease with which individual’s online activities can be traced to build profiles is barely recognised by most people. It provides a power tool for search engine owners, businesses and politicians, to sell their products in a more targeted way.
On a more global scale the ease with which online activity can be monitored or blocked means that good old fashioned radio might still be the best way to get messages across in China.
What we have is a situations where individuals believe that the internet and new media can help open debate and challenge views. This is the great potential. Rather than undermining journalism this will make more of us journalists – even though we may not realise it! Sorting the truth from the lies online and sorting the valuable contribution from the crackpots will also ensure that there is an increased role for investigative journalism.
There also remains a great interest for variety of sources and as traditional journalists and bloggers move closer together Lawrence predicted that within five years the latter will be able to become members of the NUJ. Traditional media will also survive because of their social nature. People like to casually flick through a publication on a train or to spend their Sunday mornings reading a paper. Just like TV failed to kill radio, so the internet will fail to kill newspapers. In the process the demand for objective analysis of all that gets published will increase. We will need more journalists, not fewer and more of us without thinking will fill this role through our own on line activity.
Lawrence is a man who is optimistic about the future for journalists. For those involved in political communication life will probably become more complicated and require greater professionalism. The technology to target audiences effectively already exists and so we can look forward to the tussle between politicians and the media continuing online in much the same way it has done on traditional media, but with greater sophistication.
Thursday, 11 January 2007
News from the Journalists' Front
Hooray, looks like I'm finally going to get to speak to someone about whether current trends in political communication, i.e. the use of new technologies are going to make journalists redundant?
Of course this is an issue that affects all PR. With so many ways to communicate with specific target audiences directly, what's the point of media relations? For those on the receiving end of information, with so many different easily accessible sources available, do we still need journalists to mediate? I'll have some thoughts from the journalists' point of view on Friday.
Of course this is an issue that affects all PR. With so many ways to communicate with specific target audiences directly, what's the point of media relations? For those on the receiving end of information, with so many different easily accessible sources available, do we still need journalists to mediate? I'll have some thoughts from the journalists' point of view on Friday.
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
Fulfilling Potential
After a couple of weeks of information gathering it's time to draw out a few initial conclusions. Politicians and those involved in political communications, like everyone else interested in communicating with the wider public, seem to view the arrival of new technologies as a great opportunity to engage, or re-engage the public. Many of these potential opportunities emerged early on from the discussion at Good Relations but also from many of the other sources.
They include opportunities for direct communication, without the mediation (manipulation?) of journalists, the ability to gauge public reaction to issues before determining policy or legislation – effectively expanding the focus group concept, the ability for smaller parties to either set the agenda for a political debate or to have their views on an ongoing issue better heard and, finally, the opportunity for MPs to increase contact with their constituents. Using new technologies also allows political parties the opportunity to communicate with those audiences (generally younger individuals) who tend not to use traditional media or to be very interested in news and politics.
Identifying the potential opportunities seems however to be as far as we have got. How are politicians going to make their content interesting enough to attract the audience that uses social networking sites or reads blogs? Many of the most famous blogs or other internet based political communications have achieved their notoriety after being lampooned in the traditional press for their attempts at trying to look modern. Furthermore, blogs such as the Guido Fawkes one may be fascinating for those who are interested in politics already but hardly seem to be attracting a wider audience. The idea of a web based TV station for the European Parliament, mentioned by MEP Joseph Muscat, raises the same problem. The station would give more people the opportunity to view the Parliament’s deliberations but how many people will bother to tune in? A look at audience figures for the BBC’s parliamentary channel should provide a good idea! With so much happening on the web, how are politicians going to make their voice heard?
They include opportunities for direct communication, without the mediation (manipulation?) of journalists, the ability to gauge public reaction to issues before determining policy or legislation – effectively expanding the focus group concept, the ability for smaller parties to either set the agenda for a political debate or to have their views on an ongoing issue better heard and, finally, the opportunity for MPs to increase contact with their constituents. Using new technologies also allows political parties the opportunity to communicate with those audiences (generally younger individuals) who tend not to use traditional media or to be very interested in news and politics.
Identifying the potential opportunities seems however to be as far as we have got. How are politicians going to make their content interesting enough to attract the audience that uses social networking sites or reads blogs? Many of the most famous blogs or other internet based political communications have achieved their notoriety after being lampooned in the traditional press for their attempts at trying to look modern. Furthermore, blogs such as the Guido Fawkes one may be fascinating for those who are interested in politics already but hardly seem to be attracting a wider audience. The idea of a web based TV station for the European Parliament, mentioned by MEP Joseph Muscat, raises the same problem. The station would give more people the opportunity to view the Parliament’s deliberations but how many people will bother to tune in? A look at audience figures for the BBC’s parliamentary channel should provide a good idea! With so much happening on the web, how are politicians going to make their voice heard?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
