Wednesday, 30 April 2008
A sideways look at the Democrat's Presidential contest
From the Art of the Possible blog comes an amusing piece on the battle between Hilary and Barack.
The art of PR
Excellent piece from across the pond on the Hannah Montana 'scandal'. If you don't know who she is or what it is all about simply read on...
Sunday, 27 April 2008
The Brown narrative
"BROWN TRIUMPHS AT LISTENING"
I am sure Team Gordon would love to see that headline. I am also sure that they haven't placed a bet on getting it any time soon.
As far as I know, the dithering epitaph was started by David Cameron. It was then repeated regularly by the Conservatives. The media picked it up around the time of the general election that never was. After that events came thick and fast that meant that the word could be applied liberally.
Brown keeps saying he is listening and making long-term decisions that are best for Britain.
Clearly, the media aren't interested in that narrative. Why should they be? It is much more fun to create a narrative around the idea that the Prime Minister cannot make up his mind.
I have never met Gordon Brown. I know a few people who have had some contact with him. I have no idea if he dithers or not. Cameron does see him regularly and he says Brown is a ditherer.
It is unlikely that the man himself regards his actions as dither and one might argue that if anyone should know it is him. Unless he can't decide if he is or not.
You would have thought that for someone to get to the top of a political party, to have been Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister, the last thing they would be is indecisive.
But for some reason the dithering jibe resonates with us all. If is isn't true, something else needs to be fixed by his communicators to make sure the voters start seeing things in another way.
Does he dither? Well maybe but then again maybe not...
I am sure Team Gordon would love to see that headline. I am also sure that they haven't placed a bet on getting it any time soon.
As far as I know, the dithering epitaph was started by David Cameron. It was then repeated regularly by the Conservatives. The media picked it up around the time of the general election that never was. After that events came thick and fast that meant that the word could be applied liberally.
Brown keeps saying he is listening and making long-term decisions that are best for Britain.
Clearly, the media aren't interested in that narrative. Why should they be? It is much more fun to create a narrative around the idea that the Prime Minister cannot make up his mind.
I have never met Gordon Brown. I know a few people who have had some contact with him. I have no idea if he dithers or not. Cameron does see him regularly and he says Brown is a ditherer.
It is unlikely that the man himself regards his actions as dither and one might argue that if anyone should know it is him. Unless he can't decide if he is or not.
You would have thought that for someone to get to the top of a political party, to have been Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister, the last thing they would be is indecisive.
But for some reason the dithering jibe resonates with us all. If is isn't true, something else needs to be fixed by his communicators to make sure the voters start seeing things in another way.
Does he dither? Well maybe but then again maybe not...
Saturday, 26 April 2008
The Politics of Mad Men
Mad Men is about many things: advertising, self-deception, relationships, misogyny, racism and smoking. A lot of smoking.
Flowing through the show is something else: a political current. No surprise then that the penultimate episode of the first season is called 'Nixon vs. Kennedy'.
In every episode there is a hint of what is coming to America and to Western Europe. It is the battle that exploded between the libertarian (but somewhat statist) left and the libertarian (but somewhat morally conservative) right.
At times the show appears to be caricaturing the divide: the bohemian inhabitants of the village and the businessman who is reading Ayn Rand. When it hits the spot it is illustrating how the character's political loyalties are tested by their own values, behaviour and experience.
In the centre of this ideological storm is Don Draper. Except, he isn't Don Draper. Or rather Don Draper is a creation. His appearance, his core brand values have all been constructed by the man claiming to be him. That is the man who does exactly that in his day job.
We may never discover where Draper stands. He probably doesn't know himself.
Flowing through the show is something else: a political current. No surprise then that the penultimate episode of the first season is called 'Nixon vs. Kennedy'.
In every episode there is a hint of what is coming to America and to Western Europe. It is the battle that exploded between the libertarian (but somewhat statist) left and the libertarian (but somewhat morally conservative) right.
At times the show appears to be caricaturing the divide: the bohemian inhabitants of the village and the businessman who is reading Ayn Rand. When it hits the spot it is illustrating how the character's political loyalties are tested by their own values, behaviour and experience.
In the centre of this ideological storm is Don Draper. Except, he isn't Don Draper. Or rather Don Draper is a creation. His appearance, his core brand values have all been constructed by the man claiming to be him. That is the man who does exactly that in his day job.
We may never discover where Draper stands. He probably doesn't know himself.
Foreward thinking...
... not from me but from Steve Rubel on digital jobs of the future, Alain Desmier on how PROs can improve their public speaking and James Gilheany on how not to write a covering letter.
Monday, 21 April 2008
Mobile web
If you are interested in technology, communications or how you use a mobile phone then have a read of this post by PR Blogger.
The move towards a mobile web is one of the reasons that I set up CIOT News on Twitter.
The move towards a mobile web is one of the reasons that I set up CIOT News on Twitter.
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Selling the Iraq War
Fascinating piece in the International Herald Tribune today on how the White House attempted to dominate the news.
I can understand the desire to gain 'information dominance' but this is not how to do public relations.
I can understand the desire to gain 'information dominance' but this is not how to do public relations.
Damaging corporate reputation
I recently had a bit of problem with the customer service department of BT. I wrote a post on this blog that discussed brand delivery and how customer service can be an aid or hindrance.
Since I work in public relations I spend quite a bit of time thinking about that sort of stuff anyway. It seemed natural to write about it.
But later on I began wondering if this had been the right thing to do. Public relations is partly about relationship building. There may come a time when I need to develop a relationship with BT and/or their PR department. Had I rather blown it by the post? It would be arrogant to assume they had read it. But you never know.
I believe I was fair to them in the post: I commended the good customer service as well as complaining about the poor bit.
On balance, I think it was fine and would probably do it again. I think this shows how blogging changes the nature of things. By blogging you become part citizen journalist, part diarist and part consumer activist. But in my offline life I am none of those things. Does any of this matter? I guess, sort of.
Since I work in public relations I spend quite a bit of time thinking about that sort of stuff anyway. It seemed natural to write about it.
But later on I began wondering if this had been the right thing to do. Public relations is partly about relationship building. There may come a time when I need to develop a relationship with BT and/or their PR department. Had I rather blown it by the post? It would be arrogant to assume they had read it. But you never know.
I believe I was fair to them in the post: I commended the good customer service as well as complaining about the poor bit.
On balance, I think it was fine and would probably do it again. I think this shows how blogging changes the nature of things. By blogging you become part citizen journalist, part diarist and part consumer activist. But in my offline life I am none of those things. Does any of this matter? I guess, sort of.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty
It took me a while to read Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. I finished it when I was on holiday in the US, which is quite apt. The book was published in 1960 when the author was teaching at the University of Chicago.
It is certainly worth a read if you are interested in politics and liberalism. It isn't the easiest of books, Hayek's style doesn't always flow. What it does do is to provide a careful definition of liberty and then goes on to argue what is needed to guarantee a free society. You may agree or disagree with him. What you can't deny is that he is rigorous in his exposition.
In essence, Hayek believed that the individual must be sovereign. The books lays out what he believed was not only the best way but the only way to guarantee this. His argument goes to the heart of much of contemporary political debate.
Thomas Hobbes believed that in order to be secure the individual must give up much of his/her sovereignty to the Leviathan. In his view this should be a monarchy but he accepted some would prefer a democratic system. This point is crucial. Hayek makes clear that democracy is no guarantee of individual sovereignty. The response to Hobbes came from, among others, John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and later John Stuart Mill. For all of them, it is the rule of law that guarantees individual sovereignty by limiting the power of government.
And it is the rule of law that is at the centre of the book. Hayek spends a lot of time explaining the concept and how it applies to government. To sum it up, the rule of law guarantees law making that is characterised by certaintly, lack of retrospection and lack of arbitrary power.
What flows from this is his belief that government has to be limited and decentralised, that the free market must be allowed to operate, that part of what constitutes a free market is government regulation and that the state should not act as a monopoly with regards to public services. In fact, Hayek likes the idea of health insurance and private schools that are publicly funded. He didn't like the British tripartite education system but nor would he have been too impressed by the comprehensive system that followed. Hayek is very clear about why he rejects notions of social justice and equality.
If you are a classical liberal or Whig you will find much to agree with. If you are a conservative you might find certain things you agree with, might decide you are actually a liberal or reject some aspects of his liberalism. And there is even something for a social democrat, just not very much (Hayek rejects the notion of laissez-faire economics). One can no doubt go through all three British political parties and find people influenced by Hayek to some degree or another.
One of the greatest challenges for liberals is to set out what a free society would look like and how to make the idealistic aspirations practical. Hayek answers that, although the liberal rationalists would reject his strict rules on how much government should be hemmed in.
For Hobbes the Leviathan offered security instead of a life that was "nasty, brutish and short". In the modern world, the Leviathan offers an additional element: welfare security.
Hayek rejected this bargain. He goes into great detail to explain why for him this means less freedom.
Many won't agree with him. One point worth picking out is his observation that the welfare state that has been created in Western countries has an in-built mechanism that drives up government spending. Once the government begins providing things to the public the opposition has to offer to do it better and then the government has to respond. After all, what political party stands on the platform of you will get nothing from us? Pressure group make demands and depending on how good they are at influencing politicians they will may get what they want thus encouraging another group to copy their tactics and demands. If the government of the day then fails to deliver enough of what people want the people become disillusioned with the political process. They blame the party in power. A new party comes in and the same thing happens. No one stops to say that perhaps the problem is that no government can ever satisfy these demands, they just keep blaming inept elected representatives.
To understand the motivation behind Thatcherism and Blairism is to understand that in their way both movements were attempting to deal with this problem. Even supporters of the welfare state should be able to recognise that this does happen.
Hayek preferred a safety net and government intervention but he didn't much like progressive taxation. He preferred proportionality: one tax rate for all that reflected the expenditure of government. Many people from all political persuasions will see this as unfair and worry about the poor. In fact, Hayek went on to say there could be another rate for those on low incomes, so in effect he accepted some form of progressive taxation.
When Hayek discusses the welfare state he recognises that governments are now trapped. It would be very hard to take it away from the electorate. If a political party wanted to make radical changes it would take a very long time and be a very tough battle. And it would in some way go against his own arguments for society to slowly change and learn from its existing institutions. After all, however much Hayek rejected the welfare state it is welcomed by the electorates of many countries.
Does this make him irrelevant? He ends the book discussing spontaneity. It isn't the first time he mentions it. He is very keen on people gathering together and doing things themselves. Recently, there have been a spate of books about this: Emergence, Here Comes Everybody and others.
Perhaps those classical liberals should take Voltaire's advice and spend more time minding their gardens. Working together, volunteering, joining co-ops, setting up community projects and experimenting. Some initiatives will work, others won't. That is the nature of things. But the ones that do might shine a light on how things could be when people are sovereign.
It is certainly worth a read if you are interested in politics and liberalism. It isn't the easiest of books, Hayek's style doesn't always flow. What it does do is to provide a careful definition of liberty and then goes on to argue what is needed to guarantee a free society. You may agree or disagree with him. What you can't deny is that he is rigorous in his exposition.
In essence, Hayek believed that the individual must be sovereign. The books lays out what he believed was not only the best way but the only way to guarantee this. His argument goes to the heart of much of contemporary political debate.
Thomas Hobbes believed that in order to be secure the individual must give up much of his/her sovereignty to the Leviathan. In his view this should be a monarchy but he accepted some would prefer a democratic system. This point is crucial. Hayek makes clear that democracy is no guarantee of individual sovereignty. The response to Hobbes came from, among others, John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and later John Stuart Mill. For all of them, it is the rule of law that guarantees individual sovereignty by limiting the power of government.
And it is the rule of law that is at the centre of the book. Hayek spends a lot of time explaining the concept and how it applies to government. To sum it up, the rule of law guarantees law making that is characterised by certaintly, lack of retrospection and lack of arbitrary power.
What flows from this is his belief that government has to be limited and decentralised, that the free market must be allowed to operate, that part of what constitutes a free market is government regulation and that the state should not act as a monopoly with regards to public services. In fact, Hayek likes the idea of health insurance and private schools that are publicly funded. He didn't like the British tripartite education system but nor would he have been too impressed by the comprehensive system that followed. Hayek is very clear about why he rejects notions of social justice and equality.
If you are a classical liberal or Whig you will find much to agree with. If you are a conservative you might find certain things you agree with, might decide you are actually a liberal or reject some aspects of his liberalism. And there is even something for a social democrat, just not very much (Hayek rejects the notion of laissez-faire economics). One can no doubt go through all three British political parties and find people influenced by Hayek to some degree or another.
One of the greatest challenges for liberals is to set out what a free society would look like and how to make the idealistic aspirations practical. Hayek answers that, although the liberal rationalists would reject his strict rules on how much government should be hemmed in.
For Hobbes the Leviathan offered security instead of a life that was "nasty, brutish and short". In the modern world, the Leviathan offers an additional element: welfare security.
Hayek rejected this bargain. He goes into great detail to explain why for him this means less freedom.
Many won't agree with him. One point worth picking out is his observation that the welfare state that has been created in Western countries has an in-built mechanism that drives up government spending. Once the government begins providing things to the public the opposition has to offer to do it better and then the government has to respond. After all, what political party stands on the platform of you will get nothing from us? Pressure group make demands and depending on how good they are at influencing politicians they will may get what they want thus encouraging another group to copy their tactics and demands. If the government of the day then fails to deliver enough of what people want the people become disillusioned with the political process. They blame the party in power. A new party comes in and the same thing happens. No one stops to say that perhaps the problem is that no government can ever satisfy these demands, they just keep blaming inept elected representatives.
To understand the motivation behind Thatcherism and Blairism is to understand that in their way both movements were attempting to deal with this problem. Even supporters of the welfare state should be able to recognise that this does happen.
Hayek preferred a safety net and government intervention but he didn't much like progressive taxation. He preferred proportionality: one tax rate for all that reflected the expenditure of government. Many people from all political persuasions will see this as unfair and worry about the poor. In fact, Hayek went on to say there could be another rate for those on low incomes, so in effect he accepted some form of progressive taxation.
When Hayek discusses the welfare state he recognises that governments are now trapped. It would be very hard to take it away from the electorate. If a political party wanted to make radical changes it would take a very long time and be a very tough battle. And it would in some way go against his own arguments for society to slowly change and learn from its existing institutions. After all, however much Hayek rejected the welfare state it is welcomed by the electorates of many countries.
Does this make him irrelevant? He ends the book discussing spontaneity. It isn't the first time he mentions it. He is very keen on people gathering together and doing things themselves. Recently, there have been a spate of books about this: Emergence, Here Comes Everybody and others.
Perhaps those classical liberals should take Voltaire's advice and spend more time minding their gardens. Working together, volunteering, joining co-ops, setting up community projects and experimenting. Some initiatives will work, others won't. That is the nature of things. But the ones that do might shine a light on how things could be when people are sovereign.
Friday, 4 April 2008
Making sure you know the right address for your message
A large part of public relations is about getting a message out. The really good practitioners not only know what the right message is but where to target it.
Alain Desmier is spot on in his amusing and insightful post. There is no point in sending a national message that has no meaning to the local area.
Alain Desmier is spot on in his amusing and insightful post. There is no point in sending a national message that has no meaning to the local area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)