Hanover Dispatch Box

Sunday, bloody Sundays

In a recent article in the Evening Standard, the respected Professor of Journalism, Roy Greenslade, questions why Saturday newspapers are now outselling their Sunday editions.

His analysis follows a change in the way the Audit Bureau of Circulations (the official sales auditing body) publishes newspaper sales figures. From April this year, Saturday sales have been decoupled from the average weekday sales, providing a clear line of sight for media buyers wishing to maximise their advertising spend.

Mr Greenslade admits he doesn't have an answer for why the comparison of Saturday sales (10m) versus Sundays (8m) shows the latter trailing by over 2m copies.

He suggests we should consider a number of options for the disparity, including increased multi-section formats in the Saturdays, free TV guides, great sport coverage and newsagent opening hours. The one thing he doesn't mention is price; with Sunday newspapers usually more expensive than their weekday or Saturday counterparts, it surely has a role to play in explaining the gap?

Whatever the reason for the sales chasm, we shouldn't allow that to mislead us on the importance of the Sunday papers for setting a reputational tone that carries weight amongst wider media and political circles.

These opinion formers still devour the Sundays on a weekly basis and the resulting wider news agenda can last for many days.

It is important to remember that Sunday newspaper journalists have more time to consider their news; and to break the big important exclusives. That won't change.

They might not sell as many as their Saturday counterparts, but that certainly doesn't mean the Sundays are not the week's most important newspapers.

War of Nutrition

Fat taxes are back in the news as public health academics from Oxford suggest the UK could follow the examples of Denmark, France and Hungary (no, seriously) in order to bring obesity under control.

The report, published in that bastion of public health intervention the BMJ, claims that a tax would need to raise prices by 20 per cent to have an impact. In the US, a 35 per cent tax on sugary drinks reduced sales by 26 per cent – although that research only looked at drinks sold in a canteen.

The difficulty of implementing such a tax lies in agreeing which foods are unhealthy enough to warrant it, and even the authors themselves are unsure about the applicability of this approach, pointing out that people may simply switch to less taxed but equally unhealthy alternatives.

Industry fired back a ‘man of the people’ salvo in this ongoing war of nutrition: "When the whole of the food industry is focused on continuing to give hard-pressed families great tasting food at an affordable price, discussion of adding 20% to food prices seems fanciful if not irresponsible," said Terry Jones, director of communications for the Food and Drink Federation.

More pertinently, Mr Jones also pointed out that the industry is working to reduce salt and calories as part of the Public Health Responsibility Deal. Showing support for Andrew Lansley’s preferred option of voluntary industry involvement in public health improvements is important as David Cameron has made clear he’s not averse to imposing a stricter diet, with the moves towards minimum pricing of alcohol.

And another new dish is about to be added to the menu. Public Health England (PHE) is served up in April of next year with a responsibility to deliver against the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF). Its second domain covers health improvement, with obesity more explicitly mentioned in the accompanying ‘technical specifications’, where reducing childhood and adult obesity is confirmed as a priority for Government and the forthcoming ‘call to action’ is flagged.

Industry will be keen to know how the PHOF will reconcile with the responsibility deal. Much depends on PHE’s new Chief Executive Duncan Selbie. He will lead PHE’s 5,000 staff, spread throughout the four regional hubs and local units, which will support public health teams in councils.

Accountable for a difficult brief covering clinical services such as cancer screening through to lifestyle issues like obesity, winning the high-profile war of nutrition may be key in determining the shelf-life of PHE and whether it’s passed its Selbie date.

Does “NHS Check” sound the end of rational debate on health service efficiency?

He may have faced the odd shout of liar and some incredulous laughter at his annual hazing by the Royal College of Nursing Conference, but Andrew Lansley will have been relieved that he was spared the slow hand claps of some of his predecessors. With the controversial Health & Social Care Bill now finally passed, apparently to much relieved hammering of the cabinet table, the Government will hope that mass protest on healthcare will now dissolve as health lobbies return to their parish issues and argue for their slice of the pie.

With that in mind, the apparent relish with which Department of Health efficiency champion Jim Easton announced that the squeeze on NHS finances will endure long beyond the next spending review, will have been seen as unhelpful. In opposition, Lansley was told by doctors that things could be done better but that NHS managers short on clinical knowledge and incentivised by simplistic targets were crudely distorting services. Now he sees those same managers cracking the financial whip as the doctors have largely shied away from the responsibility he thought they wanted.

The irony is that there is general consensus, even among government critics, that there are too many hospitals in the UK each trying to offer the full range of services to small populations. The argument runs that the system could be run more efficiently and more conveniently for patients with greater specialisation and more chronic disease management undertaken in the community. But a combination of constituency politics and local vested interests mean that while everyone knows the axe has to fall somewhere, they don’t want it to fall on their service. As the relatively minor reorganisation of paediatric heart surgery having been dragged through the courts for months shows.

Deeply scarred by the passage of the Bill and having taken a mid-term hammering at the polls, government ministers are in no mood to put forward the bold national plan required. With Labour scenting the core of their 2015 election campaign by announcing yesterday their NHS Check to campaign on any perceived cuts, the chances of any rational consensus forming now seems further away than ever.

The reputation of bloggers and trust in brands

Reading a recent article about McDonalds (McDonald’s recruits bloggers to super-size its allure) left me with mixed feelings about the fast-food chain’s reported plans to extend its Family Arches network of incentivised yet undeclared bloggers to the UK.

On one hand, I respect the bravado of the McDonald’s PR team for challenging the established order of social media – i.e. that people and brands don’t own or control their reputation online, that social media is a place for free expression and thought. However, on the other hand, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth and begs the question if blog posts written for Family Arches are inadvertently dishonest?.

McDonald’s, like many companies selling products or services which some people disagree with on ethical or health grounds, often have difficulty with the increased amplification of detractors’ voices within channels such as corporate Facebook pages. This is despite them [probably] paying the likes of Facebook huge amounts in advertising revenue.

As the University of California’s Ira Kalb is reported to say in the Sunday Times, it does not fit well into its inclusive, welcoming brand and it should be clear on the blog that an ordinary mum blogger is benefiting from McDonald’s.

A recent global survey found that trust in social media as an information source had jumped from 8% to 14% (a 75% increase) between 2010 and 2011. If the McDonald's model is replicated by other companies (at it surely is or will be) then people who read or watch blogs and vlogs will begin to have less trust in social media-based peer or network recommendations. Well informed consumers of content will wonder what is opinion verses undeclared advertising.

In addition, the reputation of McDonald’s can hardly be enhanced by its Family Arches initiative. If anything, it will entrench already misinformed opinion about the brand, its food and staff. It will suggest that McDonald’s can’t justify its own existence (even though, it clearly can).

The blogs and bloggers being treated to free pop concerts, travel and food may come under attack by McDonald's detractors. This targeting may well not be centred on McDonald’s Facebook pages but the battleground will move onto Tumblr, Wordpress, Google’s Blogger and the Disqus comments engine. Inevitably, it will then move back into Facebook because blogs themselves need to be promoted to drum up an audience.

Photo credit: Imeallach via Flickr.

Big things, small packages

Ed Miliband’s mini reshuffle was announced with minimal fanfare. A master class in expectation management, most of the changes will go unnoticed by the public at large and even by some of those who profess to have a vested interest. But what Ed did yesterday is potentially quite a big statement and a very important communique to a broad church of the party faithful.

He resisted the temptation to bow to the party fixers and get rid of Liam Byrne. Although now stripped of his policy review role, he remains as a crucial cog in the shadow front bench wheel; heavyweight enough to sensibly scrutinise impending changes to the welfare state. Bringing back Lord Adonis recognises the need for high level opposition engagement with business, a dangerously damaged relationship. He is a reputable and credible politician to respond to Heseltine’s industrial strategy expected in the Autumn.

However the biggest step was the appointment of Jon Cruddas to lead Labours policy review. Bringing Cruddas centre stage will please many factions of the party. Trusted by the Unions whilst at the same time respected by the centrists, Cruddas should be able to formulate party messaging and directional language that both motivates campaigners and cuts through to the public.

Labours recent local election successes and consequent bounce in the polls should be viewed against the milieu of Coalition mistakes, but it is still a chink of light in Labour general election prospects. The party now need to capitalise on renewed interest in what they say, how they say it and who says it. Appointing Jon Cruddas to generate some thoughtful policy alternatives is a big step in the right direction.

The unintended consequences of being ginger

Being at the whim of the law of unintended consequences is a common feeling for communications professionals. When some bright spark came up with the idea of removing the VAT exemption on hot foods did they truly think through the implications and what it would mean for people’s favourite pastry-based snacks?

Wandering around Fleet Street this week, and even just sitting on the tube today, unintended consequences garnered me some very funny looks. I really don’t look very much like Rebekah Brooks but, as the news comes in that she will be charged in the phone hacking scandal and one fiery, flamed-haired stereotype after another flies from the pens of commentators across the country, it is easy to forget that Ms Brooks is anything other than her ginger hair.

Constantly attempting to anticipate the unknown, the wild card public reaction or the real life experience that doesn’t fit with the big picture is a constant battle for those of us tasked with sharing news. You can never fully foresee how something will play out publicly but you can ensure the authenticity of your story by honest stress testing.

How do real people outside your organisation react when you explain it? In her tabloid heyday, how would Rebekah Brooks tell this story?

If you don’t know the answers to these questions the story will not be yours to tell.

Facebook, going public, launches newsroom. Does yours match it?

Towards the start of 2012 the world's largest social network quietly rolled out its online newsroom. What can other organisations large and small, private and public sector, learn from this? Should your company follow Facebook's move and how?

Image: Facebook’s IPO filing with the SEC as a word cloud via Wordle.net

Mark Zuckerberg's giant, with its engaging web and app platforms and 901 million active members, decided that despite its ability to communicate news via open, subscribable timelines (such as Mr Zuckerberg's), a series of corporate and brand Pages plus a blog, it needed a dedicated channel for engaging journalists. And not just journalists - investors too.

I understand that such was the importance of the online press centre, that Zuckerberg firstly outsourced its build and integration to a specialist vendor and personally reviewed and signed off the website before it went live. Yes, you read that right - Facebook's leadership were not confident that their own developers could build the media centre they needed ahead of their IPO announcement in February, so they called in a Shoreditch-based development team.

But why? Well, as I know from my time within the communications team at Regus, there's more to this newsroom than meets the eye. Plenty of other organisations such as Virgin Media, Sony Europe, VisitBritain and Three also have similar tools to engage journalists within their reputational armoury. So, what lessons can we all learn from their work?

Facebook may not have as yet made every possible enterprise-class feature live on its own newsroom. However, see my check list below of online press centre elements to consider:

• Separate online press offices for key geographies and language audiences (see the Regus example - its journalist contacts speak Portuguese and Mandarin, not just English and they also want local stories)

• Social media content feeds (see Virgin Media newsroom – again, this is all about the story: journalists can find and engage with stories outside of the main corporate message)

• Contacts integration (as an in-house press team, you may manage a large roster of agencies in many countries around the world, each of whom have their own media contacts that they are happy to share with you but perhaps not with international rivals – the system enables each agency to upload their own contacts, merge them with in-house contacts but keep them separate from other agencies via password protection)

• Emailed press release distribution (using the journalist contacts, the newsrooms can schedule and distribute releases to a targeted list of reporters, producers and editors, by email)

• Social media press release distribution (journalists use social media too: ask yourself, how social is your communications team?)

• Embargoed press releases (displayed only to the contacts you want to put them in front of)

• Sustainability and investor centres (save journalists time – from my newsdesk experience I know that journalists will want to see these pages, so why make them hunt?)

• List of spokespeople, the issues they can discuss and via which press officer you can book them

• Downloadable high resolution imagery and embeddable videos

Perhaps another reason why Facebook chose to outsource its newsroom is because the platform is owned by NASDAQ, a company that's much in Zuckerberg's thoughts as he marches to his IPO that is expected to raise between three and five times more money than the current $1.9bn record set by Google in 2004.

If it’s time for your story to get digital, please contact me to discuss how hanover can work with you to make this happen.

Merve the Swerve

Mervyn King’s Today Programme Lecture, delivered last night, has rattled a few cages. It’s not hard to see why. For one, the soon to be ex-governor’s tone would be more suited to a wise elder statesman than a figure who has been, and remains, at the heart of the defining economic events of this generation.

It is also a very political intervention. His words were seized on by the Conservatives as another opportunity to place the blame for the current economic situation on the Labour Government. By removing powers from the Bank of England the Labour Government, King argues, reduced the ‘Old Lady of Threadneedle Street’ to ‘preaching sermons’. Well, yes, but some sermons are listened to. His words ring more true when he admits that there was a ‘failure of imagination on all sides’. By this morning he was on the money, and the back foot, when he admitted that the Bank shares responsibility for going along with ‘a system of banking that failed’; he felt compelled to spell out that he was not intending to blame any one group or individual.

Interesting though, that a man who has been observed to be playing a political game (unusually for his position) should not choose his words more carefully. He’ll need to if he aspires to play a more formal role in supporting the Conservatives in the future.

Mid-term temperature test

The council seats up for election tomorrow were largely elected back in 2008.The political world was a very different place indeed. The Conservatives were in the ascendancy, the Lib Dems approaching the height of their popularity and Labour (in Government) was in the doldrums and beginning its decline. It is almost impossible that Labour will not have a very good result at the polls. In these circumstances, how each Party manages expectations and manipulates its messaging accordingly could well be critical to the all important weekend coverage.

The real interest, however, will be in the details. At last years local elections the results were particularly dire for the Liberal Democrats - who lost approximately half of the seats they were defending. A similar result this year would put significant strain on the Party's all important grass-roots.

The AV referendum of 2011 had a significant and potentially disproportionate impact on the Conservative vote. The anti AV campaign, run largely by highly competent Conservative Party campaigners, turned-out many traditional Conservative voters who might not otherwise have voted in local elections. Coalition gloves came off, and the Lib Dems were insufficiently insulated against the less popular aspects of Government activity. In seats where Conservatives were contesting the pro AV Liberal Democrats the Tories tended to perform well and won. In seats where the contest was a straight fight between Labour and Lib Dems, the Tory turnout diminished the impact of tactical voting allowing Labour candidates to succeed. It was a perfect storm for the Lib Dems - much of their own making - and they paid a heavy price at the polls.

The absence of the AV referendum may well be a defining factor in these elections. Another factor will be the success of Clegg's tactical activity to make clear areas where Liberal Democrats in Coalition differ from their Conservative partners.

Messrs Thrasher & Rawlings - the highly regarded polling analysts - provide a prediction of poll ratings based on an analysis of actual votes cast in by-elections. In 2008 (when these seats were last fought) they predicted a result of Con 43% Lab 24% LibDem 23% For 2012 they predict Con 34% Lab 37% LibDem 18%, substantially at odds with recent opinion polls.

Labour will have a good night. It is a must for Miliband. The real result worth watching will be how Lib Dems fare against the Conservative challenge, and if Tory voters in Lib Dem / Labour contests cast their vote tactically in favour of their Coalition partners. A return to normalcy in these voting patterns will be much welcomed by Clegg, and add further to Cameron's recent woes.

Black gold – ‘avoid spillage’

Marketers talk of personal data as the new black gold that will underpin economic growth. Trends in sharing and discovering content explain the value ascribed to tech start-ups, with Instagram only the most recent example. This focus on data is not limited to the private sector. The UK government has an ambitious open data agenda and is using data sharing to tackle fraud as well as improve public services.

Given its importance, the protection of personal data is paramount. The winners in the digital economy will be those organisations that consumers trust to capture, retain and use data. That might be existing technology firms or others but the principles of transparency and control are key to gaining consumer consent.

Figures released by the Information Commissioner’s Office show that it is the public sector that paid the bulk of fines for data breaches - a reminder of high profile data losses that bedevilled the last government. To some extent this will simply reinforce people’s low opinion about government competence. In any event individuals have little choice about handing over personal data whether taxes or healthcare to government.

Yet this masks that the private sector was responsible for a third of breaches. Only this week personal information of London Marathon participants was exposed.

Companies will inevitably make mistakes but those that are accountable to their customers are most likely to succeed in retaining trust. Regulation has a role to play in building confidence and Brussels is seeking to require breaches to be reported within 24 hours. While regulatory sanction will concern compliance officers, companies increasingly recognise that the reputational risks and consumer impact of mishandling data may well outweigh any fine.