The pharoah who got up everyone's nose

The king is dead. Long live the new pharaoh.  And as Vice-President Omar Suleiman said, “May God help everybody.”

Hosni Mubarak finally relinquished his throne as president of Egypt, handing over power to the military who now  will serve the interest of the new Egypt.

A local government official said Mubarak was in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, 250 miles from the capital Cairo.  By Saturday it was rumoured his was in the UAE.

In the lead up, the  recent events in Cairo and other cities kept the world spellbound to their TV and mobile screens.

Throughout the crisis, beleaguered President Hosni Mubarak, devoted practically all of his political airtime to classical propaganda.

And why not?  He had lorded over his people since 1981.

In an attempt to cling to power, the country hijacked international mobile phone networks, broadcasting communications described by the Egyptian government as ‘messaging concerning national security and general safety’.

For example, France Telecom, which runs mobile carrier Mobinil, involuntarily broadcasted text messages such as: “ Egyptian youth beware of rumours and listen to the voice of reason.  Egypt is above everyone – so protect it.”

(Quite a departure from the routine “get a 100 texts free” brand messaging that you would usually expect from a mobile phone company).

Yet are we being played a double-bluff by those who claim that this revolution was a new-social media one?  The US media claimed that USA companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google  helped free the Egyptian people.  However  taccording to the New York Times,  only .09% of Egyptians have Twitter accounts.  Moreover,  Twitter and Facebook had  been off for most of the recent events.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s own state run TV channel presented footage of charming views of a bridge spanning the Nile, alongside film of ‘evil protestors who were ‘traitors’ to the country – or maybe Israeli infiltrators?…  (Cue sinister music a ‘la ‘mode of ‘independent’ TV stations like PRESSTV). [NB – I was censored by PRESSTV  last month when I defended News Corp as a better alternative than state-controlled tv).

One senior reporter, Nile TV anchor-woman Shahira Amin quit her job with Egypt’s state-run Nile TV saying that she did not want to be part of their “propaganda machine.  I am on the side of the people”.
Amin told the world press: “We (Nile TV) were only allowed to report the pro-Mubarak rallies that were going on, as if nothing was happening in Tahrir Square…”

Here comes the new boss  – same as the old boss – We all get fooled again – and again…

Less than 12 hours afer the revoluiton, an official daily  Chinese newspaper  warned  that: “Social stability should be of overriding importance. Any political changes will be meaningless if the country falls prey to chaos in the end.”

Propaganda techniques  employed by the outgoing Egyptian government – as well as incoming opponents are discussed in my book, Soul Traders.

The worrying thing is that, come the next national revolution for change, (think any number of possibilities including Bahrain) political parties may once again return to techniques which are as old as PR Spin itself.

… And that dates back to days of sand dunes and stone pyramids built to honour men in glass houses and guarded by militia whose remit was to protect the new order for a promised better world to come.

JJ@gabaynet.com      Jonathan Gabay

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

I have reached that age when it’s really difficult to sleep through the entire night in just one drop of the eyelids.

When I was a fit and slender boy  – long, long ago – I lived with my family in a bungalow.  At night from my room I could always hear the sounds of the TV in the lounge, or my brother and sister bickering over teenage anxieties.

The voices of the night carried me to ‘Planet Sleep’ where each continent had strange and wonderful people, and lands that were painted and speckled with bumpy roads of worries, warm seas of hope, mountains of struggles or valleys of possibilities.

Whatever concerned the people of ‘Planet Sleep’, eventually every one smiled the same smiles – which bizarrely looked a lot like mine.

The problem was that every night, I failed to notice them.   (After all, I was too busy with other things like getting over bumpy roads, skinny-dipping in the sea and scaling new heights).

Nowadays, most nights I lay on my pillow facing the yellow glow of my DAB radio displaying the station name of either LBC 97.3, Radio Four or Radio Five Live.

If it is LBC, as the night gets increasingly tangled within its own bed sheets, phone-in callers become increasingly wrought and lonely.

Come daybreak, the Eleanor Rigbys give way to Angry Normans who complain about everything from increased taxes to incoming immigrants, outrageous politicians, on-going crime waves and ultimate deflated ambitions.

The diet of misery is relentless. The wireless wails are only occasionally punctuated by radio phone-in hosts announcing what a wonderful, caring community of souls London is.  The hosts remind me of how nurses in a hospital ward deliver a cheery smile to patients wrought with diarrhea and drugs,who would give up everything he or she ever owned for just five minutes of normality.

With such an endless drip-feed of audible misery, it came as little surprise to me to learn that a recent Ipsos Mori survey of 24 countries pointed to the British being among the most pessimistic  in the world.

Watching the figures that point to a radical diet

Only 17 per cent expect their financial position to improve in the next six months – half the number in Australia (35 per cent) and the United States (34 per cent) and behind Germany (29 per cent).

Britons share little of the optimism of citizens from fast rising economies like Brazil (91 per cent), India (69 per cent) and China (51 per cent).

The only countries with gloomier attitudes were Belgium (16 per cent), Italy (13 per cent), Japan (11 per cent) and France (8 per cent).

So what’s bugging the Brits?

Seventy three per cent of Britons feel less secure in their jobs than six months ago.

Only 27 per cent expect job security to improve. (17th out of 24 in the international table).

I dare to console myself that given the evidence of shoppers during the endless bank holiday that was Christmas and New Year, people are at least confident to buy.

Not quite.  Rather than buy with self-assurance seventy-five per cent said they felt less comfortable when making a major purchase than six months ago.

Around 45 per cent defined their finances as weak, with only 26 per cent believing it to be strong.

From April the UK government gashes £81 billion from public spending – marking the start of the final years of employment for some 300,000 public sector jobs – due to be all but lost by 2015.

Reportedly many economists believe the VAT increase to 20 per cent will spur the Bank of England to instigate a faster set of increases in official interest rates.  Worse still, it is widely expected that various tax rises will in turn prompt brand names to quietly increase prices, simply to cover running costs.

… And it still gets worse.  Through a report commissioned by the development charity, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that the number of people living in absolute poverty in the UK will rise by 900,000 by 2010.

Recalling the mad rush to the shops during Christmas and the New Year, it was as if a community-wide sense of expectation of doom and even more gloom around the corner compelled the throng to buy-buy-buy because tomorrow we all die-die-die.

More than two to one (70 to 30 per cent) Brits fear the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Asked what issues worried them most, 45 per cent said unemployment and jobs, 40 per cent said immigration and 30 per cent said crime and violence.

Immigration was named as a cause for concern by more Britons than the citizens of any other country, with only Australia (33 per cent) coming close, and more than double the level of concern in Germany (19 per cent) and France (11 per cent).

Yet, in a quirky British way, few Brits – apart from those able to conceal their identities on the radio – openly discuss their anxieties publicly.

To stem the fermenting crisis, the social Stasi, who in  hope for any kind of social control, appeases as many people as they can; checking words said in public for correctness and appropriateness.

The result is that everyone is forced to be like everyone else and so live a soup of blandness and fear of ‘rocking the boat’ – and thereby losing any chance for prosperity.

When left unchecked, that neurosis can give rise to fundamentalism promising to offer redemption to disenfranchised groups at every part of the social scale.

Where nationality or even religion can’t provide identity – entrepreneurs can and do – through branded products and services – all assuring salvation and escape.

If you’re happy and you know it and you really want to show it – complete a form

The bells of hell go ting-a-ling for you but not for me

Messrs. Cameron and Clegg seek to understand the depths of depression unexpressed by brand-UK.

From April 2011, the Office for National Statistics will ask citizens to rate their well being, with the first official happiness index due in 2012.

The Prime Minister quoted US senator Robert Kennedy, who said GDP measured everything “except that which makes life worthwhile.”

However, responding to this, the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan warned that surveys trying to measure happiness could make us selfish, introspective and dissatisfied.

He said that UK government plans to monitor mood would “encourage people to dwell on their own needs” rather than others.

America has a General Social Survey.  There is also a Euro-barometer.  Such surveys ask people to assess their lives as well as how they feel at any particular time.

Putting all this data together points to some interesting finds.  Take for example the NBER Working Paper: Subjective Well Being Income, Economic Development and Growth. It suggests that richer countries are generally happier.  However, Asians are less happy than you would expect from their income levels.

This despite the roaring ‘Peking Pound’ that accounted for almost a third of post-Christmas purchases of high end brands such as Burberry, Mulberry, Louis Vuitton and Gucci.

For example, Hong Kong and Denmark enjoys similar income per person, yet Hong Kong’s average life satisfaction is 5.5. on a 10-point scale.  Denmark is 9.

Latin Americans are ebullient, whilst the ex- Soviet Union could do with a stiff vodka, with just over 6 on the scale.

Then there’s Bulgaria, which – according to reports on Sky TV allegedly has gangs netting over 200 million pounds of income per year by coming over to London to pickpocket locals.

Bulgarians relative to their income per person, turns out to be the bluest place in the world.

All is not totally lost however.

By lucky coincidence the Royal Family  announced that April 2011 will see the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

This will apparently give everyone just the ‘feel good’  tonic they need, including a day off from work.  (Something the hundreds and thousands who expect to take extended garden-leave, will relish as they care for their specially cultivated Royal Wedding Celebration roses).

We're all in this together

Up, down and up again

The most fascinating finding is called ‘The U-bend on Well Being.’  The Economist magazine recently devoted its main cover story to it.

Contrary to popular belief, the happiest days of our lives are not necessarily those of our youth.  Nor the most cantankerous once we hit the crinklies of old age.

During late teens we reach quite a high (about 6.8 on a USA ‘well-being index).

Young adulthood is when hope is supposed to be future perfect.  We can’t wait for things to start happening.  Such yearning for immediate gratification spurs an entire culture of goods and services designed to squeeze time into little boxes of easily attainable satisfaction.

The far-reaching effects of such time crushes are profound:

• Why travel to meet people in a dingy disco when you could summon ‘time crushers’ like internet dating sites to sort out the wheat from the chavs into neat little video messages and personal statements?
• Why wait to accumulate knowledge when the all-knowing Google can deliver at a click?
• Why have conversations across a table when you can have an internal dialogue between your id, super-ego and ego via the web?

Whatever image of perfection we are searching for – modern brands and policies promise to deliver.  The more you invest into a branded (political or commercial) ideal and regularly update it – the closer you’ll get to your end-quest.

The ‘The U-bend on Well Being’ bottoms out at 6.3 (around the age of 46- 50).  Thereafter it slowly creeps up again. Reaching 7.0 in the late seventies and early eighties.

By that point, to identify ourselves or prove to others that we belong, we no longer feel compelled to buy more and more stuff.

The older we get, the more past hopes are traded for present happiness  – whilst we can still get it.

Rather than worry if people will love them when they are sixty-four, the older generation doesn’t necessarily crave for an iPod or games console in same the way more uncertain youth do to show inclusiveness.

Self-perceptions no longer need to be maintained solely by constantly upgrading technology, working out at the gym, wearing your heart on your latest Nike trainers or enduring others to network onto the next square of the game of life.

They don’t even blink when people don’t particularly like them –aged 64 or even 74.  They are as chilled and fly as a G6.  (Even if they confuse the aircraft model with the bus route number to the local post office).

Eventually we all become the brand smile of confidence and assurance that we always knew was hidden somewhere within us.

Last night I flicked on LBC. The conversation was about losing weight after the excesses of the Christmas and New Year season.

The interviewer asked a fitness expert about the holy grail of gaining a ‘six- pack’.  Could the ordinary person in the street really ever hope to get a ‘six-pack’ stomach?

The expert replied, “Every person on the planet already has a six-pack.  It’s just gets covered by the excesses of modern living – junk food, fast living …  Remove the fat.”

So we are all equal after all.

With a smile, I closed my 48-year old eyelids and rolled onto my suddenly rather comforting overweight middle-age spread.

Jonathan Gabay

www.jonathangabay.com

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The final showdown

The general election debates have come to a climax.

Three weeks ago it looked like it would be a two-leader shoot out at the OK Coral.  Then, as with the best spaghetti westerns, out from nowhere rode a new kid into town. Everyone was for themselves.

The debates, the first of their kind in the UK, marked a milestone in British political history.  From the start, pundits and commentators, cast aspersions over the merits of each leader’s presentation style.

Before the first line was drawn in the first debate, the press eagerly scoured the annals of political debating history in search of classic political golden clanger or debating debacles from the past.

You Tube clips from the Nixon vs. Kennedy debate of 1960 received record numbers of hits.

The crucial question was, would this turn out to be more of a political beauty contest offering brand buff than a serious showdown delivering product substance?

In terms of brand delivery, the first debate, which attracted nine million viewers, felt ‘clunky’.  The austere poker-faced PM hedged his bets, repeatedly saying, “I agree with Nick”; leaving the TV audience with no real choice than to concur with Mr Brown’s sentiments.

The second debate attracted some four million viewers. In addition to witnessing a son et Lumiere branding spectacular on behalf of SKY TV, the audience was treated to the leaders gaining greater confidence in their saddles.  Undoubtedly advised by his brand image consultants, Mr Cameron fired off round after round of promises starting with the line: “If I was your Prime Minister…”

Even the media trained Mr Clegg, looked assertively down the barrel of the TV camera – in an attempt to connect directly with the viewing audience.

The third debate had to concentrate on the deal clinching key issues of recession, immigration, housing, the national debt and employment.  The ritzy brand pitches had set the agenda, now people needed to know, one way or the other, what was meant by policies such as, ‘The Big Society’, amnesties for illegal immigrants, jobs for the long term unemployed, or what the parties would do in the event of a predicted hung parliament or what a fair future for all actually meant?

From style or substance to recession or Rochdale

Throughout the three-week debating period, the media had clung on in desperate hope for that ‘golden clanger’ which would lay a media egg for them to hurl with a reassuringly gooey ‘splat’ in the politicians’ faces.

Their opportunity finally arrived within 24 hours of the final debate, in the shape of a 65 year old from Rochdale  – Mrs Gillian Duffy.

Gillian asked Mr Brown what would his party do about immigration?

Whilst initially the PM handled the question with professionalism, in private – but caught on a microphone, he called Gillian a ‘bigot’.

It was exactly what the media yearned for – mud – glorious mud – ready to enliven the debate the next day.

Working on the premise that when credibility is rock bottom the only way one can go is up, the PM opened his ‘pitch’ with the words: “There’s a lot to this job and as you saw last night – I don’t always get it right.”

Once in the swing, the leaders agreed that difficult decisions would need to be made in order to help the economy recover. Rather than accept responsibility for political mismanagement, bankers instead were universally made scapegoats.

In supporting his tax pledges and policies, rather than pointing to economists and think tanks, Cameron turned to high street brands as his greatest advocators (A sure sign of an era where high profile brands rather than anonymous ‘civil servants’ are used to carry weight for the public in national debates).  Even Clegg lamented over how workers at a great British brand, Cadbury’s, had been short-changed by government policy.

Within minutes of the debate an instant poll from YouGov revealed:

Leaving aside your own party preference, who do you think performed best in tonight’s debate?

• David Cameron: 41%
• Nick Clegg: 32%
• Gordon Brown: 25%
• Don’t know: 2%

YouGov questioned 1,151 viewers of the TV debate among the party leaders immediately after tonight’s debate. The data were weighted to the profile of all those ‘absolutely certain to watch’ the debate from a nationally-representative sample.

The real change in Britain

In hindsight, the debates turned out to be less of a media circus and more of a stage which helped opened up politics to a much greater conversation -including on the web – than may have remained under stimulated without the televised pitches.

For example in 2005, voter turnout only reached 61.28%  (although that was better than the 2001 election which only saw a 59.17% turnout out at the ballot boxes).

So now the studio lights have been switched off all that is left for the leaders is to make their way home in the Birmingham rain and wonder who this time next week will be looking forward to a ministerial saloon and who will have to ride off into the sunset.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

It’s a classic tale.

A given brand promises to deliver exactly what consumers need. That brand appears to truly reflect those consumers’ passions. It demonstrates value, empathy and the chance for genuine choice, consistency or change.

The brand presents its cause through polished advertising, marketing and so on – all designed to show steadiness, lucidity and most importantly, understanding with its targeted group of consumers.

In other words, ‘Everything we do, we it for YOU.’

From the consumers’ point of view, the vital thing is that, given the presumption that the brand’s services or goods are of a high enough quality, the ‘YOU’ in the brand’s slogan, accurately reflects the ‘ME’ in the consumers’ mind.

Any seed of doubt through a lack of transparency, and so tangible value, leaves the all too often promiscuous consumer seeking an alternative brand offering a similar service or range of goods with greater depth, practical use and meaning.

From top to toe
All brand values must be sincere and embraced by everyone directly connected with the brand’s ethos.  This is especially important for the brand’s figurehead.

In the UK Labour party’s case, that brand ethos is captured in the slogan:

‘A future fair for all.”

Throughout the political campaign leading to the May general election, as with all the party leaders, the Labour’s figurehead – Gordon Brown presented what his team planned as a carefully managed platform.

The campaign was designed to encourage the electorate – through a series of policies offering to improve the nation’s circumstances.

Debates offered the opportunity to slickly, and with humility, summarise such policies as well as enthuse the electorate through a leadership approach.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
The recent gaffe, in which the PM was caught privately calling Gillian Duffy, a 65 year old potential voter, a ‘bigot’ simply for asking what she thought was a reasonable question regarding immigration, shows a chink in the hitherto albeit shakey but reasonably consistent brand message.

With less than 200 hours left until the actual election, that PR blunder is potentially disastrous for the Labour brand.

Firstly, it throws out the eagerly anticipated political gaffe ‘bone’ that the press pack has been baying for during the last month.

Secondly it offers a huge electorate perception gap that opposing political brands such as the Conservatives, can quickly step in to fill for a voting public which, according to the polls, is so confused that currently it is more than happy for the political parties to hang themselves.

Thirdly it goes spectacularly against what every great brand must deliver: empathy with the ordinary working class (essential to Labour’s demographic) man or woman in the street.

For example, Mrs Dufy, said:

“He’s supposed to be leading the country and he’s calling an ordinary woman who’s come up and asked questions that most people would ask him… It’s going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he’s calling me a bigot.”

Once a brand’s kinship with its core market is lost , everything else suddenly becomes jeopardised.

Pictures of a bewildered elderly lady insulted by the Prime Minister become spread throughout the land quicker than you can say, “Twitter”.

MP3 recordings of the PM’s gaffe become top of the iPod pops…

All the Mr and Mrs, Jones and of course Duffys, start thinking ‘well, the brand says one thing but, based on the contrary evidence I think it actually believes something else’.

A vital final ‘last chance to pitch a brand promise’ debate becomes hijacked by a leader’s own perturb.

So what could/should Labour do?

Classically – apologise – which he has.  But it must be a strong apology, delivered with modesty. Backed with simple clarification of what the true Labour brand message and values are.

Once a positive message is clarified and steps are publicly seen to rectify any misunderstandings and clarify true intents, the brand can begin to recover.

However, an apology alone – worst still one that sounds more of a desperate confession than a rational admission of human error- can actually weaken the brand.

In this case, Mr Brown said:

” I’m a penitent sinner”.

Not exactly the words of a positive leader one week away from renewing his morning milk delivery orders.

On the other hand, to the brand’s favour, within hours of Mr Duffy’s complaint, the press reported that she was being represented by by a public relations agent and would not be giving any further comment that evening on her dealings with the prime minister.

(Now who is manipulating who?)

Duffy: Why chase pavements when you could chase media deals?

What not to wear on your sleeves

What a brand must not do is attempt to spin itself out of situation – especially blaming others or worst still, name calling – as in the case of Mr Prescott’s response to ‘Duffygate’:

“Yet again, the dying Murdoch empire is doing all it can to influence a British election. First, Murdoch’s News of the World editor Andy Coulson joined Cameron – to use the same tricks for the Conservatives that his old newspaper employed.

“Then the Sun came out for the Tories during our conference. What an effect that had! The Tories have seen their poll rating go from 41% poll to 33%!
So then the News of the World backed the Tories. Effect? Nothing!

Murdoch’s son James and News International head (and former Sun Editor) Rebekah Brooks then resorted to bullying the editor of the Independent (oh, the irony) in his own office to stop him criticising daddy!

But today, the Murdoch family reached a new low in their desperate attempt to turn the election for the Tories. News International’s Sky News broadcast a private conversation between Gordon and his staff.”

Such a move by Mr Prescott only serves to exacerbate a situation, creating even greater confusion in a voter’s (consumer’s) mind.

Labour’s brand slogan, ‘A future fair for all’ suggests that everyone has the right to ask the advocates of such a promise questions.

As with life, not all answers will be liked.

However, just as with all other brands, not all parties can please everyone – neither should they.  (We live in a democracy offering choice to suit different tastes and needs).

As the closing days approach, it is more crucial than ever for any political party to deliver a clear and consistent message that is understood and practiced by everyone: from the very top to the humble helper who switches on and off public microphones.

-      A fair and timelessly classical vote winner for any brand.

Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

We are born to trust.

For example, to have faith that a mother will provide milk. It is after all, instinctive. However, as we we grow older that same parent will teach us to be wary of the world – not to trust everything or every person.
 Yet, when society trusts itself, wonderful things happen. Economies boom, infrastructures repair and unity strengthens.

It is a two-way street where the trustee and trusted depend on each other with mutual respect in favour of a greater good for all.

Ever get the feeling you're not trusted?

Smile you are on CCTV
Increasingly we live in a mistrusting society.  Once given bastions of truth such as politicians, police, clergy and big brands are now dispraisingly looked upon through cynical eyes.

Brands for example on one hand broadcast messages infused with sincerity and empathy and then on occasion are found to recall not just products, but their trust in consumers to accept mistakes, which if caught early enough, could have been rectified and forgiven.

Too often, social responsibility turns out to be little more than neatly painted whitewash to present a more acceptable face of what business is, after all, in business for – to make profits.

Politicians, especially during an election period, offer sound bites promising ‘big societies’, ‘a future fair for all’, ‘government we can trust’…

Like brands, parties deliver a stream of images and packaged promises designed to give a sense of what the party truly believes.

However such messages are in constant conflict with societal signifiers that may suggest an opposite underlying point to the sanitised or idealised political one.

Bursting scandals, revelations and commentaries train us to learn to expect spin to invariably follow pledges.

We develop a kind of in-built radar that recognises not the lies from the truth, but the truth from the lies.

In the past, politicians could easily manage perceptions through well-defined media channels.  Today thanks to the 24 hour news, web, blogs, Tweets and so on… politicians can’t hide from the stage that stretches across the wide web and reaches the inner psyche of a confused voter who is so bombarded with so many similar choices that he or she becomes not just bewildered but bitter.

Through instantly scrutinising every painfully extreme detail of a political message we get so close to nuances that we can no longer judge the bigger picture.

Truth lives only as long as a given moment or click.

Without a longer period to view in retrospective, we no longer judge the bigger picture.  We naturally conclude that every confusing fuzzy detail must simply be further proof that it is, in the end, all spin and no substance.

So what can politicians do to garner our trust?
Political brands must be consistent in what they preach. Not all policies will please all voters.  This is actually good- it creates integrity and clear water between one political brand and another.

Just as with brands, political values need to be understood and practiced not just be leaders but everyone allied with the party.  In so doing, manifestos become social causes.  (All sincere causes are greater than promises).

Just as with business leaders, political leaders need to be seen and appreciated through context and content as being responsible lions addressing confident communities rather than lapdog chameleons addressing transient drifters.

Such leaders need to be themselves, complete with humility, human faults and quirks – not just managed alter egos.  By being – not acting – genuine, leading not exclusively from the front or back – but centre of the pack, they can set examples accepting mistakes and giving credit where it is due.

In branding, consumers must be able to recognise themselves in a product and so feel aligned with a brand.  In political branding, parties need to reflect what a nation is and what every individual can become.

Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

With great thanks for support  in writing this article to Roger Steare- Europe’s premier corporate philosopher

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The direct mail piece went to named recipients at 250,000 households. Before long some of the indignant recipients were on the phone to the media complaining about the inappropriateness of the leaflets – given that they personally suffered from cancer.

In terms of campaigning, this seemed to be the lowest of the low strategies- using scare tactics on people who were suffering from what could be a fatal disease. (It felt like Labour was now down to desperate measures for desperate times).

Within moments the Conservatives and Liberals were pushing out press releases condemning the under-handed Labour ploy.

On its part, Labour categorically refuted that it had purposely targeted cancer patients.

On their parts, the Liberals and Conservatives were suddenly locked in a contest to be the first to throw stones at Labour.

The mailshot was indeed a complete debacle and totally ill conceived – but for other reasons than first assumed.

Out of context

Diane Dwelly, the 48 year-old lady whose picture was featured in the mailing said she had initially presumed her photograph was being taken to be used in a magazine for the National Health Service – rather than part of Labour’s election campaign.  This could potential pose serious issues with the UK advertising standards authority.

Putting the pieces together

Reportedly the list for the mailing was based on Mosaic data. Mosaic is one of the UK’s leading sources of direct marketing data. Using a combination 85 variables, such as census, housing, financial and electoral roll data, it classifies households into 12 lifestyle groups – broken into 52 sub-groups. This delivers demographic and psychographic profiles which as accurate as possible. (In direct marketing, the correct or incorrect spelling of a recipient’s name can make or break a campaign).

Mosaic data is commonly used by major parties.

More broadly, in terms of direct marketing, the other parties such as the Conservatives are certainly no strangers to highly targeted messages on, for example, the web.

Last year, the Conservatives specifically targeted people enjoying incomes up to the mid -£40k who were looking for dates on match.com. (Not the most romantic of suitors). It also targeted young adults via the music download site, Spotify.

So what went wrong with this specific targeted mailing? Simply put, the data -driven number crunching direct marketers behind the campaign were more concerned with the technical accuracy of names on the list than the campaign’s core creative message -certainly in terms of who would be reading it.

According to the charity, Cancer Research, about .05 per cent of the population is annually diagnosed with breast cancer. That’s around 45,500 people (2006) figures.

So if you wrote to 250,000 people, approximately 200 would have been diagnosed with cancer.

Write to a household and you can multiply that figure by around four. (Spouses, etc, who suffer from the disease). That also does not take into account people diagnosed in previous years to the last 12 months.

By naming a recipient rather than addressing the household as a whole, it can come across that a mailing is picking on them – so creating the much-publicised panic. (Incidentally one man who had treatment for a form of cancer recently told the BBC that he received another leaflet on policing – but – even despite the mailing being addressed personally to him – he didn’t feel that he was being personally picked upon).

So the lesson from all of this is firstly:

When campaigning – consider the message as well as the recipient of the message – will one compromise the other?

Secondly – when it comes to scares – know your facts before being goaded by the opposing teams.

Finally, when it comes to ‘big Cs’ stick to carefully considered campaigns.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The political brands get into second, third and in one case, even fourth gear with their marketing communications.

In second gear rolls in the Liberal Democrats

Within hours of the election being announced, the Yellow doves turned their website homepage into a clear series of manifesto promises. However, having ‘borrowed’ Labour’s slogan referring to fairness, their message could come across as confused – and to exacerbate matters further they mixed in the ‘change’ message from the Conservatives.

Checking the site at 17.10, the first article about their progress in the election was still discussing how their President, Ros Scott, was resting on Easter – (Not exactly an encouraging start for would-be voters checking to see how fast their team would be off the starters block).

Most worrying was how they marketed their leadership team: mainly through a collection of curriculum vitaes – as if they were candidates for a local management job.

When it doubt - plagiarise

In third gears revs up Labour

In addition to introducing a new icon of a rising sun to go with their ‘a future fair for all’ slogan, the party site features a picture of a rolling landscape and neatly designed words graphically set out to appear like an extract from a holy book quoting a spiritual leader:

From now until polling day I will travel

the length and breadth of Britain with one clear message:

Britain is now on the way to economic recovery.

And now is not the time to put it at risk. -

Gordon Brown

Once inside the site a clearly marked section called, ‘inside our campaign’, gives hot breaking, up to the minute – well at least, ‘hour’, views from Labour’s top leaders on how the campaign is progressing,

By 17.25 on the first day, the latest piece was three hours old from Douglas Alexander, along with piece from the PM (six hours old) and even one from Peter Mandelson (four days old). The usual social networking links to Twitter et al appear, along with a link to something called, ‘Labourmembersnet’, which apparently is still in BETA. (Hmm someone needs to tell their branding coordinator that the election is officially under way).

In fourth gear speeds along The Conservatives

Within24 hours of the election being called, the campaign team put up a YouTube movie of Mr Cameron’s wife Sam, pottering about the house helping her man ‘Dave’, prepare for various engagements.(Mumsnet ladies will admire it – but will the girls shopping at Primark?)

This was closely followed by an email from Conservative HQ pointing to yet another video – shot, edited and broadcast within hours – showing Mr Cameron rallying his team that very morning.

The official Conservative blog also features posts from Samantha Cameron along with the top brass at CHQ (no doubt a planned branding touch to show that this is a family as well as business affair).

So, the end of first day branding report reads:

Liberals – could do better, very neatly laid out CV but suspect copying from the other students.

Labour – needs to concentrate on areas outside religious liturgy, and update their workbook.

Conservatives – excellent understanding of IT and Web 2.0 but do try to keep your mind on work and not home.

Jonathan Gabay www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Within hours of the design being revealed, The Conservative’s aimed to turn the Ashes-to-Ashes debacle into a blue-streaked phoenix flying the flag for Tory principles.

Spin 'n' spiv poster

The Labour poster was suggested by an ordinary party supporter, rather than ad men.  As such it was meant to herald the UK’s first truly democratic piece of political advertising.   The concept was to bring about anxiety throughout the electorate over the threat of a Conservative win; causing the country to regress to the old days of 1980s Tory spiv ‘n spin.

However lack of understanding of psychographics meant the creative execution failed to grasp that the central character upon which the poster was based, was actually considered as a modern day straight talking cult hero.

David Cameron was so pleased with the handiwork of his opposition’s campaign team that he even offered to chip in some money for the campaign.

His party was quick to draw PR capital from the blunder.  It produced its own version of the poster – which cleverly featured the line:

“Idea kindly donated by the Labour Party”.

Conservatives jab back at jibes

However by responding with even more images of the near-same thing.  In some ways both parties fell into an open branding trap.

Certainly in its initial stages, negative political campaigning receives media and voter attention.  However by constantly having one party use advertising to take a jibe at each other, the net effect can be the electorate feeling rather like children caught in the middle of a messy divorce and coming to the conclusion that there should be a plague on both houses (parties).

Message not meanderings

A strong political branding campaign requires a clear political message based not just on taunts but appreciable relevant tactics.

From Labour’s perspective, the new poster isn’t the first time the party miss-calculated public perceptions surrounding campaign headlines.

1979 Labour poster

In 1979 Labour produced a poster warning of “the last time the Tories said they had all the answers” (referring to the three-day working week of the 1970s).  However at the time of the poster’s publication, the country had just suffered from ‘The Winter of Discontent – accredited to Labour’s miss-management.

The ‘war’ battled throughout the winter of 1978–1979, during which time there were extensive strikes by local authority unions.

In the end, the 1979 election went to the Conservatives with the largest overall swing in the popular vote (5.2%) since 1945 and resulted in a working majority of 43 for Margaret Thatcher.

(Interestingly enough 1979 was also the first time in British politics that the Conservative Party employed the services of an advertising agency to manage its election campaign).

Classical political point scoring in general elections

Just as consumer brands use classic communication tactics to woo consumers and so defeat competition, so political brands have certain campaign approaches that, over the years have swayed the electorate.

These include:

Contradiction

This focuses on disagreement and division either between parties or within parties.  (For example Blair versus Brown).

Human Interest

When political brands manipulate political leaders to show the ‘human face’ of a party’s approach to key issues.

Consequences

When political campaigners warn the electorate of dire consequences – usually in taxation – that would occur if votes go to the opposition.

Morality

This is when political campaigns take the moral high ground by pointing to the ethical lows of the opposition.  For example, in the last election, the war in Iraq or currently Hamas in the Middle East  placing innocent children in the front line behind terrorists and then blaming a (from its point of view) defensive Israel  for resulting casualties.

Responsibility

This places responsibility for a cause in the hands of the people rather than government alone.  For example the Conservative party’s  ‘Big Society’ campaign that calls on ordinary people to stand up and be counted through volunteer work, rather than relying on local authorities alone.

Once the Easter break is over, the real crusades will begin.  Then the electorate will decided which party offers a life of real sustainable change and which a life that may as well be lived on mars.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: