Media consumption habits

Stephen Waddington, Managing Director of Speed Communications and digital wunderkind has asked me to define my media consumption habits. A heady task. I’ll first begin this with a definition from the OED:

media, n.²

falsefalsePronunciation:  Brit. /ˈmiːdɪə/ , U.S. /ˈmidiə/

1. The main means of mass communication, esp. newspapers, radio, and television, regarded collectively; the reporters, journalists, etc., working for organizations engaged in such communication. Also, as a count noun: a particular means of mass communication.

Right. So, we’re all clear on what media is? Great, I’ll elucidate on my habits…

Hello. My name is Lynsey, and I have a confession. I am a media addict. I spend most of my waking hours engaging with media: watching television, listening to digital radio, my ipod or record player (I like variety), listening to podcasts, and then usually subscribing to them. Reading a variety of newspapers, usually The Guardian, but I’m not averse to picking up a tabloid or The Metro and I profess, I visit The Daily Mail website for celebrity tat. I read magazines, typically music or fashion, or some hip amalgamation of both. This is done online rather than offline due to cost: I prefer spending money on actual music or fashion items rather than acquiring printed commentary of them. I am a subscriber to literary magazine, Granta as I’m an avid fan of innovative literature and think a lot of great ideas are to be found in the works of great writers. I follow countless blogs, Twitter accounts, download Apps and check music blog aggregator HypeMachine and fashion blog aggregator Lookbook daily.

My consumption of media doesn’t have a structured habit; it’s more fuelled by a constant desire for information. Usually this focuses around the arts, politics and culture; but this isn’t definitive. A breaking news event could end up in a dark corner of Wikipedia, researching something arbitrary. This probably says more about me rather than my generation as a whole. But, most certainly, a breaking news event is now turning into an opportunity for PR. Global news events create a slipstream for brands to latch onto and generate publicity; for example this article: http://bit.ly/fvn5WB on Cher Lloyd’s supposed ‘Harajuku’ style, worded as ‘street-style of Japan’, meaning The Daily Mail were virtually benefitting from the tsunami which happened in Japan a day earlier.

I digress. Drawing back to my addiction. This varied range of constant incoming information requires summarising. I select particularly riveting informative nuggets from the range of aforementioned media and feel the need to share it. I tweet, Facebook, blog or Foursquare (not as popular, mind) depending on what I deem the best outlet to put it on.

The list of media I consume is grows on a daily basis (I intend to get a flickr account once I get a decent digital camera) and will undoubtedly flourish into endlessness. Until the age of virtual enlightenment cumulates, I don’t intend to abate the addiction in the foreseeable future.     

Have PR and Spin undermined trust in Politics?

The University of Westminster seems an apt location to host a debate centred upon distrust in British politics. It basks in the shadows of the Houses of Parliament, whilst students, who will be heavily financially affected by the pledge breaking of the Liberal Democrats, flock about the premises.  But is it public affairs that can be blamed for bringing the public’s political mistrust to boil?

Arguing for the notion are The Mirror’s political editor, Kevin Macguire and ex-Conservative spin-doctor, Shelia Gunn. The opposition comprise of ex-Conservative political advisor and current Director general of PRCA, Francis Ingham and Tony Blair’s ex-special advisor, Lance Price. Thus both sides are politically balanced.

The sentiment from both sides agreed that journalists, PR and politicians have synonymously caused a decreasing public trust in politics. I concur with this and suggest that, subsequently, PR cannot be blamed for the public’s lack of confidence in politics.

Within this political trinity, I would suggest PR is the most minor aggressor in undermining trust in politics. To prove this point, firstly, let’s think of the benefits a good communications team can offer a government. Effective teams have helped support some of the most successful governments and campaign trails. Margaret Thatcher was one of the first British prime ministers to employ a communications team; during her leadership, despite numerous controversial and unpopular policies, she was repeatedly re-elected. Clement Attlee, voted the best Prime Ministers in British history (based on a MORI report in 2004[1]), was in office for less than half the time of Thatcher; the fact that he refused to have a PR team surely can’t be a coincidence. More recently, ‘Obamamania’ led to a global infatuation with Barack Obama, despite the vast majority of the world having no direct input in the choice of the US president. The ‘yes we can,’ logo was mass produced onto everything from birthday cards to glow-in-the-dark fridge magnets. Fuelling the highest voter turnout in forty years and Obama receiving the most votes ever, for a presidential candidate[2]. 

Of course political PR has a darker side, too. Political PR must have been to blame for encouraging Cameron to embrace 2006’s ‘hug a hoodie’ speech. Danny Kruger, then Cameron’s special advisor, now a chief leader writer for The Daily Telegraph penned the speech, which Cameron has been mocked about ever since.

In spite of the, often rather obvious, blips from special advisors; politicians and journalists are both more provocative than political PR. Politicians are advised, possibly at times, persuaded, by lobbyists; however, they are the ultimate decision makers. Their special advisors are, unsurprisingly, employed to advise.

Politicians are the faces that the public can see; they interact with the electorate and their presence increase their party’s authority in Parliament. Francis Ingham suggested that ‘media-unwise MPs’ have been a cause of decreasing trust in politics. I would suggest, rather, that it is MPs without a good communications team. David Cameron, himself a ‘ruthless’ (MacGuire’s words) PR man, who was once Director of Corporate Affairs for Carlton Television, surely must be media-savvy; however the majority of News of the World readers found him to be untrustworthy both before and after the election[3]. Quite the feat considering the Murdoch-owned publication supported Cameron during the election.

Politicians have undermined trust in politics by being distrustful. A recent example of this is with Nick Clegg, whose popularity soared after the 2010 televised Election Candidate debates, where he vehemently advertised Liberal Democrat views.  Notoriously including the abolition of tuition fees.

Politicians being distrustful is a factor in the undermined trust in politics, however the most strident would be journalists and recent reporting trends. The vast frontiers of the ever-growing Internet have meant news is available quicker and from more sources than before. The public are no longer restricted to newspapers and televised news; synonymous with this information influx are more journalists, more stories thus more competition. Journalists were never known for their tact, however now, some are willing to report with more sensationalist methods to obtain a scoop. The News of the World phone hacking affair in 2007 and The Daily Telegraph’s MP expenses scandal in 2010 are examples of recent methods executed by journalists to acquire a scoop. The hyperbolic journalism used to report these stories only encourages the public’s disgust towards political figures. The fact that the newspaper industry regulate themselves through the Press Complaints Commission means that journalists are able to pursue these stories.

The debate at the university of Westminster concluded with 78 against the motion and 61 for, meaning that Price and Ingham were victorious. A comment on PR Week’s article of the debate, suggests this result was unavoidable considering the audience was made up of PR people. I would suggest that of any industry, it is the communications industry that would be most self-aware, considering constructing and maintaining images is the norm for people who work in the field. But then, myself being self-aware, I would say that. I work in PR.

---

[1] http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=661

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[3] http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/latestnews/607/Tuition-fees-vote-has-hurt-Clegg.aspx

Can the 2012 Olympics revive BP’s image?

Crude oil isn’t the easiest of brands to promote. It’s expensive, environmentally unfriendly and ugly. This task becomes especially difficult if you happen to be BP, and one of your oil rigs has exploded and is leaking into the waters of the richest country in the world. Even without the inevitable, distressing photos of oil-smeared sea-life, this is undeniably a publicity nightmare.

In the headlining article of 16^th February issue of PR Week, Nikki Watts and Matt Cartmell state how BP is ‘in talks with a number of PR agencies (…) to promote its London 2012 Olympic partnerships’[1]. BP, along with six other companies, namely: Lloyds TSB, EDF Energy, Adidas, British Airways, BT and BMW; are the only companies allowed to attach the London 2012 logo and the Olympic rings. BP will also support the cultural Olympiad, a four-year programme of cultural events across the UK.

Undoubtedly BP’s support to London 2012 will positively raise its profile, but it is not enough to revive its image. Additionally, it does not focus on those worst affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill, namely the residents and businesses surrounding the Gulf of Mexico. As BP were announced as partners of the London 2012 Olympics in 2008, one would assume a further strategy should be put in place in order to withdraw BP from the shadows of the 2010 oil spill.

What would be more effective is for BP to focus their PR strategy on community action in the worst suffering areas.  According to BP’s website, the company have established a $100 million fund for unemployed deep-sea miners.  However, in the same press release, BP state that miners helped are in this position due to ‘result of the moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed by the United States federal government’[2].

By directly laying blame upon the US government in the opening lines of their press release, BP are offending the focal institution whom they should be working with to resolve the dilemma.  Although the disaster was an accident, BP and the US government share responsibility for its occurrence. Both should be supporting each other to focus on the lives severely affected by the crisis, rather than wasting energy scapegoating the other.

Focusing upon the future of BP’s image, a longer strategy should be emplaced. This should do two things: firstly, focus on bettering the image with the future generation of the affected areas. Secondly, internationally assign BP with an image of community, akin to other global companies who have had negative publicity e.g. Coca-Cola or McDonald’s. With these in place, BP will revive its image in the places of the world where the BP image has most suffered.

---

[1] http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1055051/BP-turns-2012-Olympics-revive-battered-image

[2]http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7064072