It seems that the word special is no longer sufficient to describe the relationship between the UK and the US. Today it has become special AND essential.
Reach for a dictionary and you will find a rich description for the word ‘special’.
‘Distinguished from others of the same category, especially because in some way superior’
‘Designed, undertaken, or used for a particular purpose’
‘Specific’
‘Held in particular esteem’.
Perhaps the clue behind the need to embellish this word with another is in the final of these four definitions.
Last year there didn’t appear to be a lot of esteem between Barack Obama and the UK when he deliberately named BP as British Petroleum during the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.
He was quick to humiliate BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward when he commanded him to attend a meeting at the White House.
However, the relationship was not so special when the boss of American company Kraft, Irene Rosenfeld, refused to attend a hearing of the British parliament’s Business, Innovation and Skills select committee. They were concerned about the potential loss of jobs that were expected as Kraft completed its hostile takeover of Cadbury’s.
These incidents cause the British media in particular to question the ‘special’ nature of the relationship between the two countries. Perhaps the definition above should read ‘held in particular mutual esteem’.
Whatever the reason, it has caused the two leaders to re-define the relationship as special AND essential.
The dictionary is a little more ambiguous about the word essential.
‘Of or being (an) essence; inherent’
‘Indispensable or fundamental’
‘Of the utmost importance, basic, necessary’.
The final of these three definitions gives the feeling that this is a level of panic, even ‘backs to the wall’.
Perhaps that panic is implicit in the current economic woes of both countries as China, Asia and even Africa thrive. Or could it be that the these two politicians now realise that they have walked into a trap called the ‘Arab Spring’ which is exposing the duplicitous nature of past and present foreign policies.
Whatever the case, the people of the two countries quietly get on with a relationship that has always been close; not because the politicians tell us it is so but because of everyday contact, friendships and mutual interests.
Meanwhile, it is fascinating to watch the politicians dig themselves into every deeper holes through their use of weasel words.
The moral of the story? Your actions will always speak louder than your words.
Read More
There were a number of polls looking at different aspects of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster one year on.
A YouGov/Economist poll of 1,000 US citizens between 16th & 19th April shows that the thirst for cheap energy remains. Of those interviewed, 39% said that they strongly favour increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore in US waters.
The majority think that the oil spill was an accident, with 64% saying that the technology for oil drilling works well. More than 47% support the giving of offshore drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.
Less helpful for BP is that 40% think that only some progress has been made with a further 13% saying not much progress has been made; whilst 63% say that more work needs to be done.
When asked ‘How would you rate the job BP has done to make sure the oil spill is cleaned up?’, 31% said ‘good’, 31% said ‘only fair’ and 21% said ‘poor’. When asked the same question about the US government, they didn’t fare any better.
Another poll conducted by OnePoll of 2,000 members of the UK public for PRWeek gave some more interesting outcomes. When asked ‘How has the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a year ago affected your opinion of BP?’, 50% said more negative.
In the same poll 49% said that the oil spill was ‘damaging’ to the reputation of BP and 43.5% said ‘very damaging’.
When asked ‘How well do you think BP handled the crisis?’, 9% said very badly, 44% said badly, 40% said quite well and just 7% said very well.
Despite all of this 86% of respondents said that they had not boycotted any BP products as a result of the Gulf of Mexico Disaster.
So all of these figures would suggest a mixed bag of results. For the oil industry in general, they seem to have escaped any long term damage, but for BP there is little sign that their reputation has improved one year on.
YouGov/Economist poll
One Poll/PRWeek poll
Read More
It is just one month before the first anniversary of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. On 20th April 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, killing eleven oil workers and spreading a deadly slick of oil which took three months to contain and then cap.
Reputations were destroyed.
The Beyond Petroleum (BP) logo became a laughing stock as the oil slick destroyed wildlife and wrecked the economy of many communities.
Tony Hayward the CEO of BP at that time was ridiculed, embarrassed and shamed in the most public way by a series of politicians including Barak Obama.
Barak Obama, in turn, was damaged within the US by accusations of tardiness in his response and outside the US for his blatant attempts to move the blame beyond his government and country. His deliberate use of the title British Petroleum condemned him in the eyes of many Brits and destroyed the idea of a special relationship between the US and the UK.
The BP corporate communications team were condemned, probably unjustly, by just about everyone for failing to respond appropriately to the crisis.
There were many more reputations both within the oil company and outside who suffered.
A year on what can we expect?
Well, hopefully BP corporate comms have got their act together and are prepared. Perhaps the saving grace is that the political turmoil in the Middle east and North Africa (MENA) will sideline the anniversary. For BP to hope that it will all be forgotten will be a mistake. They should prepare and here are some thoughts they might be considering.
1. Nuclear power is not oil, but it is linked in the minds of many. The recent events in Japan and the problems with their nuclear reactors have led to more than one article about the dangers around the use of dangerous fuels
2. The relatives of eleven men will be mourning their loss. How have they been treated since the disaster and how have the oil companies involved treated their memories?
3. What has happened to the oil that spilt into the Gulf? Is it lying at the bottom destroying marine life and what is BP doing to clean it up? What about all of the dispersants that were used, how have they affected the environment?
4. What happened to all those communities affected by the oil spill? Are they still suffering, have they received the help promised or are they languishing in poverty forgotten by a Federal government too busy fighting wars in MENA and by BP?
5. What happened to all of the money? Was it spent as expected or are there dozens of court cases enriching American lawyers whilst poor local businessmen struggle?
6. What has BP done since the disaster? Have they cleaned up their act or are they still making mistakes and getting into trouble? They sold a lot of assets after the oil spill. What is their latest strategy, where are they investing and how safe are their sites today?
For sure there will be journalists looking at all of these areas and more over the next month. They will be preparing their articles and finding the controversial aspects of the intervening year.
This blog has looked at the areas that might be rich pickings for the media to investigate. Next week, how BP might seek to respond and prepare for the anniversary.
Read More
Looking at a communication plan recently, from the very beginning it was clear that it was overambitious. It was obvious what the writer was trying to achieve and the aims were honest, it was just that they were unattainable.
Many communication plans fail for that one simple reason. On paper they look good; in reality they are impossible to achieve. Here are some of the reasons why communication plans fail when they are put into action.
Poor strategy. It is worth pointing out the difference between strategy and tactics. A strategy describes where you want to go and in broad terms how you want to get there. A strategy paper is usually no more than two or three pages long.
A tactic is the means and methods by which you will achieve your strategy. Most people confuse the two, writing very long ‘strategy’ papers which are, in reality, tactical papers which are poor in strategic thinking. Clarity of thought in knowing what it is that you want to achieve is most important for a successful communications plan.
Poor tactics. All too often the tactical element contains everything including the proverbial ‘kitchen sink’. Simplicity is key at this point. Another mistake made by many is the headlong rush to ‘do’ social media because ‘that’s the modern way’.
In one recent conversation it became clear that the traditional method of advertising in a local newspaper was achieving far more than all of the money being spent on online resources. The local newspaper is where the audience found that particular product.
Too much, too quickly. Trying to do too much, too quickly is another problem with a lot of communication plans. A well planned, phased and protracted campaign will achieve a lot more success than a big impact, all at once, approach.
Getting buy-in. Not buy-in from senior executives; for a communication plan to be put into action that is a given. The real problem is that not enough communication plans are presented and discussed with the very people who could, all to easily, scupper them – the employees. Spending time involving team members and employees in what is being planned can produce good ideas and a sense of ownership. When the communication plan is agreed spending more time telling employees about the plan will get further support and prevent them from accidentally undermining the initiative.
Over ambition. Finally, over-ambitious plans lead to poor execution, disillusion and failure. It is a common human trait to think that things are easier to deliver than is the case. Goals are often over-ambitious and the ability for individuals to deliver on core areas can easily be thrown out by unexpected events.
In short, little steps rather than big steps are the best approach. Realistic goals are essential. Getting buy-in is a must. And tempering ambition with a touch of reality will lead to an achievable and successful communication plan.
Read More
Politics has always had the ability to provide important lessons for business, none more so than during elections.
Elections are, in essence, massive communications campaigns. Those who communicate loudest, across the broadest numbers of mediums and most effectively to their audiences will be the winners.
Elections are also sales campaigns. If the product is good, looks attractive, is moderately priced and is better than the competitor’s offering then it is more likely to be bought (in this case, voted for).
Parties that get it wrong and don’t provide what the consumer (voter) wants will find that their product will be ignored. Indeed, there will be an active effort to undermine the product by refusing to purchase it (when people decide to vote against a party). In commercial terms this is similar to a supermarket losing customers because of poor products and lack of service. The customer will shop almost anywhere other than the bad supermarket.
The best example of the latter, after all these years, is the way in which people stopped shopping at Ratners jewellers after Gerald Ratner’s comments about the quality of his products.
A similar meltdown is taking place in Ireland today. If the opinion polls are to be believed the ruling party Fianna Fáil is about to be decimated. Their standing in the last general election was around 42%, today they will be lucky to get 14%.
The new leader of Fianna Fáil, Micheál Martin, has been rather good on the television debates and public events. But after thirteen years in power and a disastrous few months where the Irish were forced to accept an EU/IMF bailout almost anything he says will not be believed.
Fianna Fáil have been wrong footed by their opponents throughout the campaign. Parallels can be seen in business every day. Take the disastrous BA strikes last year. Both EasyJet and Ryanair were quick to put out advertisements enticing passengers on to their airlines.
The canny Fine Gael, the almost certain winners of today’s election, haven’t waited for Fianna Fáil to get it wrong. They, like EasyJet and Ryanair have been ‘sticking the boot in’ at every opportunity for months.
However, Fine Gael has also been canny on another front. They have grasped the importance of social media. With 65% penetration of the internet in Ireland this is now a powerful force.
Fine Gael went into listening mode (covered in another blog) and received over 40,000 comments from the public (not bad in a country with around 3 million voters. But they didn’t stop there. They took the information they received from those comments and developed a ‘Five Point Plan’, their main selling point during the campaign. They developed their campaign slogan ‘Let’s get Ireland Working’ from the comments they received.
They set up Facebook campaigns, used Twitter, developed ‘Take Action web pages’ and developed a You Tube channel (paid political adverts on TV are not allowed). This became the most popular political party channel in Ireland and, according to PRWeb, reached the 6th highest ranking in all of Ireland by reports as well as growing by 3,000% in the final weeks of the campaign.
Meanwhile, some really clever techies have been looking at Twitter using Tweet Sentiments, a service which looks at the positive or negative nature of Tweets on a certain topic area. In the final 24 hours of the election campaign Enda Kenny (the Fine Gael leader) was mentioned positively in 66% of Tweets although Micheál Martin didn’t do so badly on 62%.
The techies used another free service called Klout to look at how influential and what reach each party has been having. The third party in Irish politics (at least up to now), the Labour Party, came top with 65% (measured as 65 out of a possible 100), Fianna Fáil second with 64% and Fine Gael third with 63%; all very close.
It doesn’t take too much imagination to imagine how the techniques and measuring tools being applied by the political parties could be used in crisis or reputational repair situations. These ideas and techniques could also be applied to sales campaigns, product launches and marketing campaigns.
Nor is this the domain of large business any more. You don’t need massive ITC departments. Many of the techniques are available free of charge or at affordable prices which put them into the reach of small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) as well.
Read More
January was a surprisingly quiet month with no major businesses suffering crises.
The same cannot be said for the world of politics where major eruptions across MENA (Middle East and North Africa) have shocked, enthralled and enlightened the world.
Arguably the dominoes started tumbling in Tunisia when a street seller doused himself in petrol and set himself alight. Tunisia followed a similar pattern of increased unrest, small demonstrations becoming large demos, attempted police suppression and then ultimately rage and immense bravery by a few. The regime fell.
In Egypt the pattern started much as in Tunisia, but then the police abandoned the streets and the army refused to kill innocent civilians. Backed into a corner by massive demos the government made small and patently reversible concessions.
With the world watching the government seemed to act in a measured but self interested way. Behind the scenes we discovered later that the secret police have been busy closing down NGOs and arresting political opponents.
Stalemate appears to have been reached. An impotent international community seem unwilling to force President Mubarak out of office and the protesters are going nowhere until he leaves.
In Yemen, Jordan, Serbia and Albania other opportunists have seized on the domino effect whether it is against autocrats or democratically elected governments.
But what of the communications angle?
Perhaps the most obvious is that dictators don’t listen to people and are then surprised when trouble brews. A lesson more politicians should take on board.
Then you get governments trying to suppress communications.
In Egypt the Al Jazeera team were arrested and banned from reporting on the crisis. Clearly, in this linked up world, a pointless gesture which was swept aside. The Al Jazeera reporting is at the cutting edge of this crisis.
The Egyptian government also tried to stop internet and mobile phone conversations. People got around this through the use of old fashioned techniques such as word of mouth, and the facilities provided by Google and Twitter. Again, their attempts to stop communication failed.
Then they tried intimidation. During the past few days we have seen police beating people, behind the scenes arrests and torture, quasi cavalry charges by (paid for?) supporters, low level fly pasts by jet fighters, and tanks on the streets. This told the protesters that they had got the government rattled. This point was reinforced when Mubarak started to make concessions. By then the protesters got a clear message that if they kept pushing they would, eventually, win.
The international community have given the clearest messages of all.
Over the past two to three weeks the Obama administration has changed its tack at least three times. Sometimes criticising, other times supporting the regime, and on other occasions trying to distance themselves from the whole affair. But when you have supported an administration for the past thirty years, poured money in to keep the regime alive and turned a blind eye to undemocratic elections it must be tough trying to be consistent.
Prime Minister David Cameron showed how easy it is to be two faced. At one point he was saying that the Egyptian government should listen to the will of the people. With so many protesters on the streets it was clear that the Egyptian government had to listen. So why hasn’t the Cameron government listened to the similarly large crowds who have come out onto the streets of the UK protesting against student tuition fees.
It is the inconsistencies and blatant hypocrisy of the international community which sends a loud message that they cannot be trusted and will change their message depending upon the circumstances.
But the loudest message comes from the protesters themselves. If you don’t like what is happening to you then speak out with every means available. There is a whole world ready to listen.
Read More
Listening is an important part of any communications process. It means you value the message of the other person and suggests that you may benefit from what they have to say.
Therefore it comes as no surprise that political parties like to use listening campaigns in the lead up to elections. I have advised a number of politicians and governments on listening campaigns over the years, including organising the mailing of a questionnaire to over 2.5 million households, telephone and internet campaigns.
The Labour Party prior to the 1997 general election went on the offensive with a big listening campaign. The Conservative Party did likewise in the run up to last year’s general election, although they did theirs through policy groups.
The latest, and cleverest, example of a listening campaign comes from the overheated political atmosphere in Ireland. As a result of all the economic turmoil last year the Irish government has been pushed into promising an election in the very near future, the likely date is late March.
Fianna Fáil the party of government appears to be in terminal decline (at least for this election) as they drop in the opinion polls; as MP’s choose not to stand again and as calls get louder for a new leader to replace the current leader and Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Brian Cowen.
On the other hand the main opposition party Fine Gael looks upbeat and is doing well in the opinion polls. Cleverly they have chosen to run a very public listening campaign. If you go to http://finegael2011.com/ you will see what I mean.
The website is bright, airy and easy to view. On the right hand side there is a continuous scroll of messages from people who agree to have their comments published.
The site has three sections:
‘What do you think of Ireland’s current problems?’; a perfect opportunity to build up a stockpile of ammunition to fire at the government party come the election.
‘How can we improve the country?’: an opportunity to tell people what they have been telling the party and hence reinforce policy statements in the lead up to and during the election.
‘How can we earn your support?’; an interesting and sneaky approach to building support. Those people that register and say ‘you have my support’ can quickly be recorded as supporters, giving a valuable database once the election has started. Those people who say what Fine Gael needs to do will be bombarded with emails and letters directed at the precise policy area they mentioned in their email.
Most people are bright enough to work out that pre-election listening campaigns have little to do with wanting to find out their views and more to do with grabbing their votes. But at least Fine Gael is doing it in some style.
The Fine Gael approach is an interesting example for others to learn from, both politicians and businesspeople.
Read More
Today the Plain English Campaign has announced its 2010 Golden Bull Awards. Top of the list in terms of gobbledegook is London Mayor Boris Johnson with his reference to London as a ‘cyclised’ city.
Perhaps Boris has been treated a little harshly. Another award went to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for their advert for a ‘Reputation Manager’. It described the duties as,
‘Maintenance and development of job narrative around FCO and its value proposition, using insights from research and evaluation as well as knowledge of the evolving FCO strategy to inform resonant messaging….’
I think that perhaps the Plain English Campaign has been a little generous to the public sector this year – not a single private sector winner.
There are, of course lots of private sector examples. Here is a small example from the McKinsey Quarterly which is always worth a chuckle,
‘To remain true to her personal values, Andrea rejected the “more efficient” approach of delegating to managers the responsibility for communicating with employees about the restructuring and sharing of information only on a need-to-know basis.”
Read it a couple more times and you will get the gist – I think!
For now though we would all do well to linger on some of the classics to be found in the 2010 Golden Bull Awards. Here is the link for your entertainment: Golden Bull Awards
Read More
Social media seems to be taking up more and more of our lives. It isn’t just for the young, it is for everyone and its uses and applications are growing daily.
For an excellent read on what is happening in the world of social media and the changing trends then I suggest you check out the Universal McCann report on social media – Wave 5 – The Socialisation of Brands.
http://www.umww.com/global/knowledge/view?Id=128
Read More
Many years ago I agreed to a ‘fly on the wall’ package during a parliamentary by-election. Never again. The eventual package bore no relation to what happened on the ground.
Since then I have marvelled at the capacity for normal, seemingly sane people to agree to allow the cameras to come into their everyday working life and film their activities.
There have been a number of high profile CEOs and MDs who thought it would be a great idea, even companies who thought that it would enhance their reputation. Perhaps the most lasting of these has been ‘Airline’, the day to day documentary of Britannia Airways and subsequently EasyJet. They get away with it because of the sheer volume of programmes which have led to a balance between the customer relations horror stories and the cuddly people stories.
The most damaging form of ‘fly on the wall’ is the single documentary. Just one episode exposing the work of an individual or team in their daily interactions with other people. All media is about selling their particular product. Boring doesn’t enter into it; it has to be lively and interesting and the easiest way of doing that is by being controversial.
So if you agree to a ‘fly on the wall’ documentary, be prepared. There will be days, weeks even months of filming taking place in your offices and meeting rooms. There will come a point where you won’t notice the cameras because they have become part of the norm. You will find it very difficult to be on your guard throughout these long periods. And that is where the documentary producers win.
Last night I sat fascinated as I watched the fourth part of a ‘fly on the wall’ documentary about English Heritage. In this final part, entitled ‘Full Steam Ahead’ the documentary looked into the English Heritage involvement in the London Kings Cross station redevelopment.
Communication is all about perception, so here is my perception of ‘Full Steam Ahead’.
English Heritage came over as muddled in their thinking, a bit dull and very intransigent. Most of the documentary was about some 19th Century cast iron brackets and the pillars of a lift to a bridge. Also, they appeared to change their minds on several occasions.
Network Rail’s architects, John McAslan + Partners, came across as flippant (at one point they were joking about ticket collectors wearing walrus moustaches and their team needing to meet English Heritage in tweed tie and Italian summer hunting outfit), a bit unprofessional (it seems that no-one had taken any notes of a meeting, let alone sent minutes to English Heritage for confirmation of decisions reached) and equally intransigent (it took a whole year for them to come up with a rather attractive design to show off the 19th Century cast iron brackets after numerous meetings where they seemed to present over and over the same design).
There is one poignant moment at the end of the documentary where John McAslan is on his own in an empty room and he says “. . at some point you have to think, well maybe I’m the only one out of step. Maybe the other people could be right actually. Very odd that Patrick (the programme’s director). You might not have come through that moment in your life and realising that maybe somebody else could be right”
Argent, the developers and Network Rail came out of the documentary quite well, probably because they weren’t involved in the ‘brackets’ controversy.
So was the documentary worthwhile? Well, I sat there fascinated. Apart from the entertainment of watching controversy build out of nothing, the re-development of London Kings Cross station is fascinating.
Should you ever agree to a ‘fly on the wall’ documentary? Only if you understand the following:
1. It is a show. It is there to entertain and not to sell you, or enhance your reputation
2. The job of the producers of the documentary is to make it lively and interesting and that means bringing in mistakes, problems, controversy and conflict
3. The cameras will pick up things that you haven’t noticed and, back in the producer’s office, they will be looking for these extra little snippets to make the show more lively
4. You are quite sure that everyone in your team is well trained and understands what will be expected of them
5. Your stakeholders, suppliers, contractors, regulators etc don’t have hidden agendas of their own which will scupper your contribution
6. You don’t try and control the cameras – once they are in, they will not take kindly to any sort of restrictions being placed upon them
7. There is no second chance – this is like live TV, what is filmed is there for all to see
8. You remember that there will be a voiceover giving the documentary maker’s interpretation of what is happening
9. You rarely get the opportunity for input or to make changes once the original agreement is signed
10. And if you do really still want to go ahead with it, then make sure that you think through exactly what access you are prepared to give, what you want to get out of the encounter, what your worst case scenario is and where your balance lies between free, exclusive exposure and risk to reputation.
On balance the players in ‘Full Steam Ahead’ didn’t come out of the encounter too badly. One or two looked a bit silly, but as ‘fly on the wall’ documentaries go, that isn’t too bad.
Can you be sure that you will do as well?
Read More
