Do individual brand strategies need a re-think?

Think of Unilever, Whitbread, Procter & Gamble. Nothing much comes to mind, does it? These companies feel like large, shadowy corporations to the consumer who has little handle on who they are and what they do. This makes it easy to be suspicious of their goals and motives and makes their reputations vulnerable to criticisms and attack from others. Whereas Ben & Jerry’s, Bovril, Dove and Pampers – we know them don’t we? Consumers have a relationship to those brands and receive information about them from various sources on a regular basis.

So if a strong product brand helps in marketing, it might also have a negative impact on the company’s reputation. In light of increasing evidence that reputation affects share prices, companies are putting in place all manner of communications and stakeholder strategies to protect and improve their reputations. But with evidence showing a continued trend in society of a loss of trust in large companies, perhaps they ought to be considering again the costs and benefits of their chosen brand strategies. These have often been in place for decades and haven’t kept pace with social change.

Time to stop talking about patients

The pharmaceutical industry tries hard to communicate how it works to the benefit of patients.  There is a constant desire to be, and appear to be, 'patient-centred' or 'patient-focused' which can be seen in much of the industry's communications, both verbal and written.

Author: Offical US Navy Imagery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/5759131308/

In my experience advising in this sector, this comes from a genuine commitment to improving people's lives rather than anything cynical, though of course it is recognised that there is a potential benefit to companies' images.  There is a great sense of teamwork in pursuit of this worthy goal which makes working in pharmaceuticals uniquely rewarding and that feeling would not be there if such communications were merely spinning.

Nonetheless, I have a criticism to make of this language - talking about patients misses out the public.

Now, you might be thinking, patients are the part of the public that benefit from medicines.  Well yes, but this misses out a fundamental point.  Patients are members of the public that happen to be ill at a particular point in time.  The rest of the time they are just members of the public, and don't think of themselves as patients.  In fact, most people don't like to think of themselves as potentially ill at all.

So, apart from those who suffer from long-term or chronic illnesses, communications from the pharmaceutical industry about patients are just not relevant to people.  And yet when they do fall ill, they will benefit enormously from the industry's products.  Even without falling ill, the public purchases those products through the taxes that support the NHS so they are a significant stakeholder group whichever way you look at it.  And pharmaceutical companies generally don't talk to them.

My prescription?  Start talking about the general public.  And to the general public, within the bounds of the regulations that apply.

Who made the NHS an issue and will the government be able to make it go away?

The latest Ipsos MORI issues poll is out and Political Betting have covered it, headlining with the economy.  However after over a week of media coverage of the NHS reforms and the government's change of heart over its proposals, what leaps out at me is that the NHS as an issue has not moved up or down in the poll.


Nick Clegg, David Cameron and the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, meet nurses and doctors at Guys hospital in London. Photograph: Paul Rogers/The Times/PA



The 26% of people who did mention the NHS as a top issue facing the country is no change since last month but an increase on the 20% figure in the April poll.  If we look back over 2010 as well the NHS as an issue has hovered around or just under 20% since the election.  What happened in May is that Nick Clegg made an NHS pledge following the Lib Dems' losses in the local elections leading to a slew of newspaper and TV coverage.

It is pure speculation, but I wonder if the NHS reform announcements of the last two weeks are simply too bureaucratic and boring for it to have had much of an impact above the May increase which will have represented the high-point of public concern.  What the government's announcements haven't yet achieved is any reassurance on the issue - next month's figures will be interesting to watch for any downward movement.

In the meantime, it is interesting to note how effective the Lib Dems' communications were in significantly raising public concern on the NHS.

Back at a later date

Apologies for the lack of posts.  I've become too busy to keep up with the blog unfortunately.  Hopefully I will be able to return to regular posting at a later date but in the meantime- thanks for reading so far.

Women and AV

According to this poll, 45% of women are undecided as to whether they support or oppose the Alternative Vote system for UK general elections, which is the subject of a forthcoming referendum.

The only group polled with a greater proportion of undecided voters - at 47% - is the 25-39 age group.

What tactics will the two campaigns adopt to reach female voters in particular?

Macchiavelli revisited

Can readers suggest modern politicians this passage could apply to?

"...he never consulted anybody and never did things as he wanted to; this happened because he did the opposite of what I said above.  [He] is a secretive man, he does not tell anyone of his plans, and he accepts no advice.  But as soon as he puts his plans into effect, and they come to be known, they meet with opposition from those around him; and then he is only too easily diverted from his purpose.  The result is that whatever he does one day is undone the next, what he wants or plans to do is never clear, and no reliance can be placed on his decisions"

Lobbying, but not as we know it

I would like to point readers to this Bagehot article over at the Economist about the complexities of coalition politics.  Its key point is that the ambiguous nature of the coalition government's democratic mandate for its policies (because the two parties' manifestoes were ditched to form the coalition agreement) is going to make law-making in Parliament more complex.  This is particularly the case with regards to the House of Lords and the conventions it operates under, whereby peers are more timid about interfering with manifesto commitments and primary legislation from the elected government.

This had me thinking about the ramifications for those of us on the outside who interact with Parliament.  The nature of the coalition combined with reform of the House of Lords which will increase its democratic legitimacy, will make for a much more powerful upper chamber.  What will some of the major consequences be?  I would like to venture the following:

• Diffusion of power among a greater number of players - meaning much more lobbying effort to reach the same result due to a greater number of stakeholders to talk to, and in order to build more support than was previously necessary in order to effect change
• More checks and balances - the House of Lords will present a greater hurdle than it used to, so new legislation can be more easily amended or stopped; governing will be made more difficult but legislation will also be more carefully drafted and thought through
• Greater complexity - as Bagehot points out, politics will become more complex, meaning shifting alliances and clever use of parliamentary procedure will be more important; the need for procedural understanding and knowledge of those shifting alliances will increase also (think the West Wing)
• Peers will become more important in our media and our politics - they will more often be Ministers, be more prominent in the media and think tanks and also more subject to scrutiny of both the constructive and the scurrilous kind
• Parliament will be more important to lobbyists - as a whole, the legislature will become a more important feature of our politics and lobbyists will pay it greater regard both strategically and tactically; parliamentary relations will be a more important function of external/public affairs than it is now

Why the Young Might be Rioting

The British Social Attitudes Survey was released this month and although much of the coverage focused on attitudes to benefits and inequality, it is striking that the section on age groups has not had much attention given its relevance to the university fees protests of recent weeks.

For what this summary of the chapter tells us is that the young (people in their 20s) feel both discriminated against and that they have more in common with each other than with people in other age groups.  For example, this bar chart shows incidents of age discrimination by age group and is quite telling:

I wonder how far this feeling of being discriminated against, perhaps even 'picked on' by wider society, contributes to feelings of a lack of fairness in public policy aimed at the young.  I suspect it does, and I also suspect the young are not wrong to feel this way - after all, their votes are much less important to politicians than those of the older generations.  The older we are the more certain we are to vote, and therefore the more our interests matter to those making public policy decisions:

I am about to reach David Willetts' book 'The Pinch', about the power of the 'baby-boomer' generation and the benefits they have accrued to themselves thanks to their sheer demographic weight of numbers.  I hope this will illuminate the issue further and I will bring you thoughts about this in future posts.  In the meantime, here is David Willetts' presentation about the book to the Royal Society of Arts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30AHLKKn3A (the first 30 minutes).

The key point that strikes me is whether the social contract between the generations is being visibly strained by the public spending cuts. The young, rich and poor alike, face rising tuition fees for university, fewer jobs/higher unemployment and rising mortgage deposit requirements.   Meanwhile the old receive free bus travel, free TV licences, help with fuel bills, sight tests etc. and more generous pensions under changes brought in by the government - no matter their need and no matter the spending cuts and higher taxes that are being implemented in order to pay down the public debt.

What implications does this brewing conflict between the generations have?  For businesses and communicators, this is something to ponder as the young get older and become consumers for products and services that have previously been provided to a richer, less burdened and more privileged generation.  How will their attitudes affect the public mood over the next several years?

Letter in PR Week

This letter from me has been published in PR Week this week.  It is in response to this 'soap box' in a previous issue.

Blogging will be light...

...due to heavy work commitments for the next fortnight or so.

Good news for the sisterhood

It is good to see Cameron adding some more women to the list of Britain's business ambassadors (see list here at the FT).  More recognition for such role models should help to encourage more women to reach the heights of the business world.

A former client of mine, an American businesswoman, told me that in the States successful women are called 'Sheroes'.  I won't dwell on the irony of the name Hero being hijacked for use by men...

A shero?

Audrey recommends

A very good post by Iain Dale on how No.10 failed to media plan its big policy announcement on welfare this weekend.

I wonder if this is a result of poor management or a sign of the leadership's continued isolation from backbenchers?

Woolas and Election Campaigning

There seems to be some hand-wringing over at the FT that the way election campaigns are run will have to change significantly as a result of the court's decision that Phil Woolas is guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act.

Contrary to being a 'bizarre' precedent, I think many in the business world, who must be honest with the City and consumers when trying to gain money (as dictated by laws and regulations galore), will find it amazing that politicians are not subject to similar restrictions when trying to gain votes.

Smears are nothing new, but I think it is entirely fair for politicians to be obliged not to deliberately lie about someone else's character.  The idea that this is alright because it is 'normal practice' in politics does the business of politics no favours at all.

Not lying for personal advantage is a fairly basic starting point for ethical behaviour. Indeed, many industries have imposed such rules on themselves without needing an external body such as a court to make them do so.  The communications industry and the pharmaceutical industry are two such that have Codes of Conduct promoting ethical practice, and the public affairs industry has just launched the UK Public Affairs Council to do the same.

To be clear, I don't mean my argument to apply to policy positions or promises, on which politicians must be allowed to alter their views.  Governing is a reality which simply can't be prejudged and Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament cannot be bound by pre-election promises.  The electorate are pretty savvy about this anyway, so I'm not sure people are really misled when a politician goes back on a policy pledge.  Smearing your opponent is quite another matter - and outside election campaigns would be libel.  Which begs the question - why should it be OK to libel someone in order to get yourself elected?

UPDATE: This article at Conservative Home confuses policy issues with the point of this judgement that campaigners can't lie about the other candidate: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/11/robert-halfon-mp-the-implications-of-the-phil-woolas-case.html


UPDATE 2: The public agree with me (how gratifying!)

The LGA's bleeding stumps

The Local Government Association is putting up vulnerable old people as the first to suffer from local council spending cuts, as reported by the BBC here.

The government provided an extra £2bn for social care by 2014-15 in the Spending Review, though there are fears that not all of it will reach the people who need it (if councils choose to spend it on other things).

A fairly clear 'bleeding stump' being proferred by the LGA and therefore I doubt they will have much luck with their campaign - it is too obvious.

However, I do wonder how much of the burden will end up on the NHS instead, which will be undergoing its massive transformation and unable to cope with such a significant additional demand.  If I were the NHS Chief Exec, David Nicholson, I'd want a chat with the LGA...

The Government's Plan for Growth

Apparently the expected White Paper on Growth has been delayed until the end of this year. Two things are wrong with this:

1) Governments don't drive economic growth.  As I've said before, they can only create the conditions for it. The idea of having such a paper comes instead from the need for a narrative on growth, and instead of getting on with creating one the government is going to give us this red herring of a White Paper.

2) Policies and decisions affecting economic growth are being made all the time - a specific White Paper is unnecessary and represents a fruitless attempt to capture at one moment in time the vast wealth of government policy that is relevant to the economy. Yet until it is published, everyone will be waiting for it and uncertainty will remain in the air.  Uncertainty is not good for growth.

So I think this is the wrong thing in terms of government communications and in terms of what is needed to drive growth.  The government doesn't need a White Paper on Growth. What it needs is a clear set of priorities - the most common challenge for leaders of every kind of organisation - and a large dose of common sense, one of the greatest virtues a Minister can have. This is already evident in some areas. Look at transport, where 15% cuts are being made to help trim the deficit but investment in those transport schemes that most help economic growth is going ahead. A sensible compromise that meets the government's priorities.

Where is this not happening?  I've already mentioned a few things in my earlier post, but let me just set out three areas where I am most keen for some sensible thinking and action:

Planning: lots of uncertainty and delay, which impacts on growth far more widely than just the housing sector. Obtaining planning permission with some degree of certainty and within reasonable timescales is key to many domestic and international investment decisions.

Regulation: when was the last time you heard Vince Cable even talk about the need for more effective, streamlined regulation? In his speech to the CBI he only refers to regulation that is specifically to do with enforcing competition rules - ignoring the swathe of other regulations businesses, including SMEs, have to keep up to date with. The BIS website section on regulation doesn't have anything new to say on the topic either.

RDAs/LEPs: Uniting the CBI and TUC at this moment in time is quite an achievement and shows what a mess this area of policy is at the moment. I have some sympathy on this one, because really it is an illustration of what happens when central government leaves something local up to local authorities and local businesses to sort out among themselves. Local authorities are not yet equipped to take up this role, but they never will be if central government always steps in. Having said this, there is still a need for regional and national co-ordination and that is properly BIS' job.

What is happening with the Downing Street e-petitions?

Screengrab taken today, 31 Oct 2010

The Downing Street website is no longer accepting petitions, with the site saying an improved petitions system will be launched later this year.  Given that the government has been in place for over 5 months now, there are only 2 months of 2010 left, and there was no great need for a new system, I hope there is no unnecessary delay and that people can submit petitions again soon.

Apart from anything else, it is good fun to see what the British public come up!

On a serious note, from a communications point of view once this system was launched it was always going to be tremendously difficult to go back on it without incurring a lot of unnecessary criticism.  So, the no.10 communications team may as well make the best of it.  Hiding from the public is unedifying.  If the new system is delayed for too long, people may start to suspect that is what is really happening and it would send a bad message that the PM and his team don't want to listen to the people.  I have to say, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more fuss about this already - the only thing I can find is this BBC article.

Audrey recommends

The FT's Philip Stephens has a well-judged post on the proposed reforms to the NHS.  It is a few days old  now, but doesn't go out of date that fast!  It is well worth a read and poses the question on many people's minds: why?

Plus ҫa change

This Spectator blog post gave me a strong sense of deja vu - Cameron is a leader somewhat apart from the mainstream of his party taking a bold course of action in the face of a lack of international consensus on what should be done, and at the same time morally absolutely certain that he is right to do it.

Plus ҫa change...

Spending Cuts: a couple of observations

1. The Cabinet Office sees a 20% increase in funding over five years.  I can't understand what this will be spent on, can you?   Actually, this is a large % increase but a small actual rise (in government spending terms), from 0.4 to 0.5 billion.  So probably not much happening there.

2. The security and intelligence services see a 6.6% decrease.  This is risky considering the continued high terrorist threat to the UK - the Prime Minister will be called to account if there is a terrorist attack on the mainland that, arguably, could have been prevented.  Of course we would never know if it could have been prevented with an extra bit of money or not, but it would be a very uncomfortable time for the PM nonetheless.

By the way, this table over at the FT is very handy indeed.

NHS Atlas of Risk

This tool is fascinating!  It tells you what are the things that are most likely to kill you - and puts into perspective all the newspaper warnings about allergies, chemicals etc.  Highly interesting and will definitely make me eat more vegetables.

What I found scary was personalising it to 'Female' and 'age 20-44' and then out of curiosity changing the sex to 'Male' - the 2nd cause of death suddenly becomes suicide, in a great big grey circle.  It is easy to forget how big an issue this is for young men.

The second scary thing was adding that I'm in London - suddenly the murder circle got bigger!

Ed's First PMQs - or Dr Cameron and Mr Brown

This is late, I know, but I have to comment on this week's Prime Minister's Questions.

When pressed on child benefits, David Cameron's answer was basically that Ed had no alternative policy on deficit reduction.  He didn't answer the question or acknowledge that some people will lose out (as some always will when policies are changed), so his good points about the less well-off paying taxes to fund child benefit and the deficit being paid off had no impact.

This sort of argument is depressingly familiar - it used to be Gordon Brown's favourite line when challenged by David Cameron at PMQs : 'he has no policy on the economy...'  It was weak then, and it's weak now.  I earnestly hope that Cameron isn't going to turn into Brown at PMQs and that his team will prepare him better for next week.

My advice: be human and honest.  Accept that there will be some losers and the policy isn't perfect, then people will actually listen when you go on to explain that those on low incomes should not be taxed to help middle income families look after their children.  How to deal with the losers is a problem: means testing is not practicable.  Either promise to look into it if you are prepared to compensate them, or accept that it just can't be helped.