The Obama Campaign: Social Revolution?

Barack Obama’s landmark victory in the 2008 US Presidential elections came at a price, a very expensive price: $670.1 million to be exact. This enabled Obama’s campaign team to grossly outspend Senator Mc Cain by buying up hundreds of thousands of primetime adverts in battleground states. This humongous spending power was supplied in part by thousands of donations under $200 - arguably made possible by social media. This has lead some to believe that the democratising power of the internet would soon democratise the murky world of party funding.

The web was at the centre of everything the Obama campaign did. Blue State Digital, the digital PR and marketing agency that masterminded the campaign, provided entire environments for volunteers to debate and exchange ideas, offer services, donate money and engage with the campaign like never before.

However, whilst much has been made of the Obama camp’s shrewd use of social media and cutting edge campaigning technologies the product they were promoting: Barack Obama, was exactly what the US public wanted. He genuinely symbolised change after nearly 10 years of Republican rule and his outsider status was perfect for the American public’s scepticism for Washington insiders. It is a lot easier to sell people what they want than what they don’t.

Compliment an in demand asset (Obama himself) with a phenomenal marketing budget and the importance of social media perhaps dwindles. Social media undoubtedly did play an important role in the campaign, but as John Kerry’s 2004 Chief Technical Officer stated “the use of technology was not the end-all and be-all. Technology has been a partner, an enabler for the Obama campaign” (Stritland 2008). Despite the slickness of Obama ’08’s use of social media, what still matters most in politics, even in 2011, is money and charisma.

Resources

Stirland,S.,"Obama's Secret Weapons: Internet, Databases and Psychology", October 29, 2008.

Unknown, “Obama fundraising breaks the money mould” Canada.com http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=82470236-3ab5-4aae-a7ca-71798c68591c

NGO’s as part of the Corporate Communications Mix

NGO’s have long been considered by a hindrance to the corporate process. Ask most company execs what they think of NGO sector’s influence over corporate communications and their most likely quote negative examples like a Greenpeace exposé or even direct action groups like UK Uncut. But whilst corporate communicators are right to worry about their brands vulnerability to attack from aggressive NGO’s it is often overlooked that corporate brands can benefit from well thought out partnerships with charitable organisations that share similar aims and ideals.

In the last 15 years corporate-NGO partnerships have dramatically increased. Many companies desire to engage in good CSR but do not necessarily have the knowledge or background to engage properly. NGOs, on the other hand, have become central to development work internationally, but they generally do not have the resources to carry out their projects efficiently. This sharing of knowledge and best practice can benefit both parties, with corporations exercising meaningful CSR whilst NGO’s can make use of corporate resources to achieve their aims.

NGO’s also offer a gravitas to corporate communications that cannot be achieved through communications from commercial entities alone. For instance, a sound proofing company would add weight to their external PR if some communications were channelled through a NGO like the Noise Abatement Society. A headline like “Sound Proofing Ltd and the Noise Abatement Society Join Forces to Launch New Report into Sound Pollution” is not only likely to garner more coverage but will help CSR credentials as well.

Whilst NGO’s have traditionally been the curse of the corporate communicator by utilising their expert knowledge in development work PR’s can boost their companies CSR credentials and remove perceived commercial bias from their communications.

Resources

Damlamian, C (2006) “Corporate-NGO Partnerships for Sustainable Development” Sustainable Development, University of Pennsylvania

Effectively Communicating CSR

CSR is both a responsible and sensible thing to do. Whilst the benefits of CSR might not immediately be obvious to the company, wider society obviously benefits from an engaged and responsible commercial sector. Furthermore, the long term effects of good CSR like light touch governmental regulation and an increasingly motivated workforce are undoubtedly extremely beneficial to business.

However, the PR and communications around CSR is essential to its very existence and is therefore becoming an important part of a PR’s role. Below are four handy tips to help PR’s communicate CSR effectively:

1) Be Realistic

Whilst Rob from Finance might think him running the marathon for charity is a big story the Daily Telegraph probably won’t. Manage people’s expectations and don’t be afraid to give an honest assessment of a stories worth.

2) Work with Third Parties

PR’s should be involved with CSR from the start and getting third party endorsement or partners for your planned activities will give your story increased gravitas. For instance, persuading a leading NGO in a relevant field will undoubtedly add weight to your claims

3) Own an Issue

Being vague and calling yourself ‘Green’ or ‘Socially responsible’ is too generic to generate any meaningful coverage or interest. By targeting CSR to a relevant issue to your business companies will eventually be gifted the soap box they crave. For example, a chain of restaurants is more qualified to talk about the nation’s diet than a film production company!

4) Be Honest!

By exaggerating or elaborating on a piece you are only setting yourself up for trouble further down the line. Avoid this at all costs.

Is personal information personal in the Social Media age?

As social networking sites like Facebook become more and more an important part of our lives, are we putting our careers and personal lives in jeopardy? The sharing element of social media means there is a digital trace of everything we do online. Furthermore, the majority of the sites are set to share as default, with the user having to actively stop their information being shared.

But should areas of the net be carved out for private communications and some for public? Or is accessible information simply available information? This interesting video from www.switched.com investigates with enlightening interviews from Clay Shirky, Professor of New Media at New York University:

The False Economy of COI Cuts

Government spending on advertising and PR is extremely unpopular in recession Britain. The Central Office of Information, which co-ordinates Government social marketing and communications spending, was one of the first branches of the state to be cut with 300 staff going back in Summer 2010. And why not? Why should the taxpayer pay for groups of well heeled marketing and PR execs to be creative when what they really need are teachers and nurses?

Social Marketers – professionals who use their marketing and communications expertise to effect behavioral change in society, would no doubt beg to differ. The ‘Fire Kills’ campaign conducted by a small team in DCLG but supported by the COI, use the full plethora of communications tools to raise awareness of Fire safety amongst the parts of society that are most susceptible to be involved in fires. With fire damage costing the UK economy £3.6 million pound a day surely raising awareness about ways to stop the spread of fire is money well spent.

When these rules are also applied to public health issues (a key area for social marketing) the economic benefits are also apparent. Obesity and lung cancer are an expensive drain on NHS resources, costing £6.2 billion and £5 billion respectively. Again, targeted social marketing to the effected demographics is surely worth the relatively small amount of Government spending that has been set aside for social marketing campaigns over the past decade.

Whilst it is understandably politically hard for Ministers to argue that the state should pay for marketing campaigns, the social and economic benefits are clear. Social marketing should be at the heart of public health concerns and we cut these campaigns at our peril.

The Passive Publics

For years socioligists and philosophers have treated ‘the masses’ as passive consumers of media and therefore a symptom and a cause of what Arnold (1882) called the ‘vulgarity of popular culture’. The cultural elites who controlled mass media viewed popular culture as a negative influence whilst using it as a tool for manipulation.

In fact the British Broadcasting Corporation itself was founded on these principles with the first Director General of the BBC, John Reith stating in 1922 “It is occasionally indicated to us that we are setting out to give the public what we think they need – and not they want – but very few people know what they want and very few what they need”. However, in the digital globalised 21st century is this view relevant?

In 2011 Web 2.0 and the internet has diversified and democratised the media landscape so that even the most niche content is catered for. For instance, if someone whose is passionate about a subject as niche as bottled water, content to cater for their needs is just a couple of clicks away (www.bottledwaterblog.net). Meanwhile the mass media behemoths of the 20th century struggle with an ever smaller market place and numerous claims that they are part of a dying empire.

However, media is now more interactive than ever, offering consumers the ability to interact with journalist and each other like never before. Mass media outlets that have embraced this ability are thriving with the online versions of the Guardian's and the Daily Mail's notorious comment’s pages offering a whole new experience for readers. Furthermore, social media has meant sharing media is easier than ever and although no reliable figures exist, one would assume content is being consumed more than ever before. The democratisation of media offers more opportunity for PR’s than ever to influence public opinion and an interactive and not passive public can only make this influence greater felt.

References

Arnold M (1882). Culture and Anarchy: An essay in political and social criticism, 3rd Edition. London: Routledge

Cain, J. (1992). The BBC: 70 Years of Broardcasting. London: BBC

What makes a Crisis Communicator?

Crisis communicators have a reputation in the wider media as smooth operators – highly professional individuals that are able to think on their feet and provide damage limiting sound bites totally of the cuff. They conjure images of oases of calm in a sea of company HQ chaos, quietly administering instructions to press officers desperate for an answer for the attack dog journalists baying for blood through their BlackBerrys.

But do these mythical individuals really exist? Is this method of ‘damage limitation’ by one divine

individual really effective? Unfortunately not – boringly, effective crisis communications requires careful planning, honest internal communication, and a consistent message.

Take for instance Vodafone’s recent mishandling of the tax avoidance protests – the companies high profile stores were picketed by protestors angered at the companies reported unpaid tax bill of £6 billion.. Although these protests were undoubtedly executed by media savvy communicators, the titan UK brand was left looking amateur at best. When asked about the companies response to the protests, Bobby Leach, Group Communication Chief said “You have an uphill battle if you take a proactive stance, with the risk of it becoming very high-profile if you do. Then you run the risk of making yourself more of a target.” With the speed and viral nature of the online sphere this is a dangerous game to play, withmock up’s of the Vodafone brandalready doing the rounds in social media.

Crisis communications is not easy, and a company can never prepare for every eventuality. But if the world’s largest mobile communications company can be found lacking, what hope do the rest of us have?

WarSpin: A How to Guide

In today’s seminar (19.01.11) we discussed the ethics and issues around media relations when (particularly western) countries go to war. PR is not a new thing in warfare – winning the hearts and minds of your own people whilst striking terror into your enemy’s has always been central to military success. Modern warfare, it would seem, is no different.

With the end of the Cold War, western democracies can no longer rely on small matters like opposing cultural, economic and social values to exercise military force. Would-be-invaders wishing to invade another now have to develop an integrated media campaign to accompany their planned offensive.

Therefore, with tongue firmly rammed in cheek, I have put together 'WarSpin: A How to Guide' for any budding leader of the western world wishing to go to war with the public and the media on side:

Create a the Perception of a Real Threat to Citizens

It is important that the public believe the threat to their nation / way of life is culpable. With the advent of super weapons, this has become very easy - simply supply the media with grainy bird’s eye views of buildings in the desert with the caption ‘Suspected Weapons facility’. To add weight, persuade a respected academic in the field to put together a paper agreeing with your observations. Please note, whilst this works a lot more effectively with media outlets than the UN.

Make Journalists Feel Special

Select the top foreign correspondents from the leading media outlets and offer them undisclosed access to the latest developments of the conflict. Once their egos have been sufficiently massaged, place them in a bunker where they can be fed positive news stories.

Stir Up Patriotic Sentiment

This can be done on two fronts: Positive and Negative. When describing the conflict, use phrases like ‘protecting our way of life’ to justify the conflict – this will ensure a positive togetherness. When referring to those who oppose the conflict, they should be referred to as ‘unpatriotic’ and if a whole country decides to oppose the offensive, try to remove references to them in the cultural landscape. For instance, French Fries can become Freedom Fries

Use Buzz Words

Using buzz words is a really great way to ensure your media releases can be easily understood. Using Words like ‘Rogue State’, ‘Axis of Evil’, to describe your chosen country, and acronyms often help editors when column inches are scarce eg. Weapons of Mass Destruction can be easily abbreviated to ‘WMDs’.