Let's go viral - at least give it a try ;)

This is the video I have created as a part of my New Media module at Univeristy of Westminster. Unfortunately I have never had much luck with Windows Movie Maker and the version which did not 'get crashed' has some spelling mistakes and is not perfectly edited.

Nevertheless, I hope you will like it.

Politicians sold like cornflakes

When in 1989 House of Commons proceedings became televised for the first time, the commissioned research showed that when appearing on TV 55% of the impression made by a person derives from his image. Body language and voice scored 38%. Astonishingly as less as 7% depended on what the person was actually saying.

Such findings were the grounds for development of a new trend in British politics where voters are regarded less as citizens and more as consumers while political causes and candidates are promoted and sold in the same way that advertising campaigns sell cars, fashions or drugs. Bob Franklin described this phenomenon as ‘packaging politics’.

 Packaging of the politics is becoming central to processes of governance.  Some argue that telegenic politicians and soundbites have supplemented the rational and sustained advocacy of policy. What are the reasons behind this? Certainly plenty of them – one of the most significant though is the changing media environment. Broadcast media can communicate less information than print and airtime as a scarce resource has forced politicians to craft their programmes into <soundbites>, which can be slotted into ninety– second news items.

The victory of <style> over <content> is evident. Voters choose in the ballot box in much the similar way as consumers choose in the marketplace. The prettier, the better.  Image building became crucial in the contemporary world of political campaigns because of publics’ general lack of motivation to search for information when making voting decisions. . This gave rise to so called ‘cult of personality’. Party leaders are more and more often selected for an attractive image they project on television. This in turn leads to  trivializing politics. To fulfill the demands of infotainment culture, gaffs by politicians paradoxically become the headlines and receive wide coverage in national news. The coverage from parliament focuses on sensational and dramatic aspects of proceedings. In this regard it is not surprising that respect for politics diminishes.

On the second side, mass public, bored with elaborate deliberations of past generation of politicians, finds modern elections, which become the choice between the personalities rather than policies, more exciting.  However, the history of Labour spin with the lowest turnout of electorate in 2001 elections proves that the emphasis on presidentialism, soundbites and presentation causes electorate’s disenchantment with the political process. I think that just as advertising is off putting to people similarly politics using same tactics diminishes people’s respect to this domain of social life.

Do you think that PR is to be blamed by that? It is fair to say that deep access to policy making deprives PR? From being an honest and open tool of communication with audiences and stakeholders does it become a mean of public manipulation ?

Let's talk about dodgy stuff...

 The case against lobbying is that primarily reach, corporate interests can afford using their services. In the same time disadvantaged and marginal groups who cannot afford lobbyist’s services are barely hearable. Even Moloney admitted that the principal use of lobbying in UK has been to maintain public policy in favour of powerful, corporate interest.

Lobbying defined shortly means influencing government policy making on behalf of various groups and interests in the society who seek policy advantage. There are two distinctive types of lobbying: ‘insider lobbying’ done primarily by powerful corporate interests inside the offices of officials. ‘Outsider lobbying’ is done by attracting media attention and thus imposing pressure on policy makers. The former, considered as more effective, poses a challenge to the transparency of policy making since its ‘behind close doors’ environment creates a danger of corrupting politicians. Professional lobbyists would gladly mention their personal connections with policy makers. The enthusiasm to disclose such ties would not be shared by the second side. It is undeniable that lobbying requires access to politicians to communicate the values and agendas put forward by the various interest groups. There is, however, a crucial balance that needs to be maintained in these relationships to avoid illegality or favoritisms. 

 Relationship between MPs and lobbyist has recently become a subject to public scrutiny in UK and few recent scandals damaged the reputation of the lobbying industry. First came the Guardian disclosure of ambiguous relationship between State Secretary for Defense Liam Fox and his best man Adam Werritty. The latter, although not officially employed as civil servant, accompanied Fox on numerous official trips, attended  meetings with foreign dignitaries and was an common visitor in Ministry of Defense. Those uncertain ties between two men led to questions over Werritty’s income and his ties with corporate interest seeking policy advantage and access to secretary of state. Those allegations led to Fox’s resignation. 

Shortly after, Independent investigative efforts revealed a tape where executives from one of the largest Uk’s PR firm, Bell Pottinger boast about their access to top policy makers and dark arts they use to bury bad coverage and influence the media agenda.

                                                      

 Only recently, Tory party co-treasurer  was recorded by ‘The Sunday Times’ offering undercover journalists posing as Lichtenstein executives access to the prime minster for a donation of £250,000.

                                   

All of those led to calls for industry’s regulation with strict register of lobbyists and officials publishing schedule and content of their meetings with lobbyists. Conversely, useful addition to any code of conduct would be lobbyist’s obligation to publish a diary of meetings they arrange with decision makers. What other measures do you think should be introduced to regulate the lobbying industry?

 

Emotions management – who does it better that us, women?

There is a preconception in the society that fast paced and highly competitive industries are dominated by men. Why? Becouse of another, even deeper rooted preconception about male actual brain functions make them more resistant and in fact more efficient in those ‘dog eat dog’ industries.

Taking this, how do we explain the apparent domination of women in PR, profession ranked as second most stressful jobs right after commercial pilot? There must be real, tangible reasons for this domination of females in highly competitive industry which PR is.

                                                             EMOTIONAL LABOUR

'Go the extra mile to prove that you understand their business. Work them out as individuals too – what kind of people are they? What gets them excited? Flirt with them before the pitch by offering them some opportunities. Above all else, be enthusiastic and passionate' (CIPR, 2009).

Above is a direct quotation from guidelines for handling PR agencies’ clients published by Chartered Institute of Public Relations. The associations with female values are immediate.

 According to feminist theory of public relations, female values are intrinsic to successful public relations practice. It does, indeed seem like a very reasonable argument, that values associated with femininity like honesty, justice and sensitivity enhance symmetrical, two way communication paradigm of ideal public relations. Solving conflicts and building relationships crucial for PR practice – who can do this better than those who came from Venus?
It is quite apparent that ‘public relations agencies consciously and instrumentally deploy emotional labour as a resource, mostly performed by female consultants, to win and keep clients.’(Yeomas, 2003). Some PR scholars argue that employers prefer to recruit women to public relations because it “increasingly involves emotional labour” and emotion work was is seen as women’s domain. They are believed to have better communication skills, be more sympathetic and better listeners.

                                            UNAVOIDABLE GENDER PAY GAP?

Apparently in 1980s the PR industry was highly dominated by men with 80% of male in the industry. Nowadays the roles have reversed with women at 60% - 70%. The rapid feminisation of public relations which started in this period was a cause of concern that increasing number of women in PR would drive down salaries of all practitioners.  Although salaries in general did not decline, women’s salaries, despite of industry dominance, are lower than men’s (according to PR Week opinion survey, 2002). Men hold higher positions to women in both agencies and in house, especially in  higher-paying public relations jobs such as financial, industrial, or retail services (5% difference according to PR week survey, 2002).

Mischievious clones of Bernays take over the world!

I invite you all to watch video which me and my friends from Univeristy of Westminster - Ioana and Nesanet, created as part of the course work. With this funny story, we aim at proving that despite bad reputation PR is good for the society.

I hope you will enjoy it =D