Feel the Fear feature
Lindsay Williams

Public Speaking: Feel the Fear and Do it Anyway

/0 Comments/by

I have recently bought a motorhome. The fear of driving it for the first time was paralysing. The thought of parking it caused me to wake up in a cold sweat on more than one occasion. But after a few outings, I have got used to it and now realise it is easier to drive than my car. The two rear cameras (replacing a rear view mirror) were an absolute revelation.

Feel the Fear

Whilst driving my van last week I listened to one of my favourite BBC Radio podcasts, Tim Harford’s More or Less. In this edition, Harford investigated and then demolished that often quoted myth that a majority of people fear public speaking more than death.

Turns out that this was based on a not very scientific piece of research in 1973 (a telephone survey in the US) in which people were asked to rate what they feared most, out of a list of 14 choices. It was some clever journalist at The Times who wrote the research up with the line ‘public speaking feared more than death’.

You can hear the 9 minute explanation here.

Feel the Fear

Those of us that teach, or coach, communication skills already knew that this ‘fear’ of public speaking was grossly over-rated, and is something that can be relatively simply dealt with.

As with driving my van, public speaking takes many out of their comfort zone. But exposure and a modicum of success, means the fear quickly fades.

That is what is so interesting to me. So many people fear public speaking until they actually have a go, do a bit of practice, actually do some work on it. For most those ‘nerves’ almost disappear in a couple of hours work. We see it in the training room.

We are always keen to point out that nerves should not disappear completely: actually, a bit of a flutter in the stomach means you are taking it seriously. Plenty of presenters, actors and speakers admit to living and working with ‘stage fright’ every day.

Strangely, what most people get wrong about public speaking is that they think they shouldn’t have to try too hard. The whole idea of ‘just be yourself’, ‘say what comes naturally’ and so on, is in my view, the worst advice in the world.

To be a speaker you need to have something interesting to say, and you need to say it in an interesting way. You should not think you have a right to bore people.

Finally, I would note that learning to speak in public is a huge benefit to you in your career. You don’t need ambition to be a keynote speaker or a TED Talk favourite. Just being able to competently give a presentation or do a turn in a Town Hall meeting when the need arises, will put you on the map and earn the respect of colleagues, especially if you can do it without being boring.

So, my advice is neatly captured in the title of a once famous self-help book: ‘Feel the Fear and do it Anyway’. (Susan Jeffers 1987.) Just like driving a motorhome, take it seriously, think about it, seek advice and then do it.

If you feel you need help in overcoming a fear of speaking, or to become a better speaker do get in touch: either email enquiries@themediacoach.co.uk or phone +44 (0)20 7099 2212.

Get More From Your Spokespeople feature
Paul Middleton

Five Ways to Get More From Your Spokespeople

/0 Comments/by

As someone who until recently worked as Head of Media, I know that identifying and training the best media spokespeople for your company requires a lot of effort.  And over the years I’ve learnt that I should not see the initial Media Training as a one-and-done type event. This blog shares my tips on how to keep building momentum after Media Training has taken place – enabling us to get the best out of our trained spokespeople.

Get More From Your Spokespeople

Freelance PR specialist Paul Middleton shares his tips for getting more from media trained spokespeople

  1. Ramp slowly

Even after the best media training available you will never quite know how a spokesperson is going to perform in front of a journalist. Will they remember their training, lose control of the conversation, or worse still – accidentally say something materially harmful to your business? These are some of the reasons why I strongly recommend a spokesperson’s first couple of media engagements are low pressure and designed to build confidence. There is little upside to going fast and potentially damaging their self-image or creating a new reputational issue.

  1. Appraise together

Nothing beats a one-to-one Zoom call, telephone conversation, or in-person meeting immediately after a spokesperson’s first few interviews. They will be grateful for the care you have taken, their feedback will be rawer and more useful, and your ability to affect change will be optimised. My advice is to forget laundry lists of dos and don’ts at this stage. Instead, focus on what went well and ask your spokesperson how they think they did. Then pick out just one or two specific issues for them to work on –clearly demonstrating what you want to see.

  1. Understand their mindset

Getting the most out of a media spokesperson means understanding their ideas, fears, and ambitions. Successful colleagues will naturally trust their own judgement and appetite for risk. To persuade them to go beyond those boundaries, they need to feel they are in safe hands, and that you ‘get’ how they think about the media. Some colleagues want to lead public debates, others want to be seen as a thought-leader. Some want to drive the organisation’s reputation and others want to drive their own. Framing your argument correctly will accelerate your progress but more importantly, theirs.

  1. Sharing is caring

Make it easy for your spokespeople to share clips or cuttings of their media work. This has several benefits. It sends a clear psychological signal that you think their time was well spent. It amplifies their traditional media work amongst a highly relevant social media audience. It encourages spokespeople to provide further structured thoughts on a given topic. It avoids the awkwardness of spokespeople needing to ask for clips. And it provides an unsaid permission for spokespeople to be genuinely proud of their media appearances. We are all human after all.

  1. Celebrate their achievements 

Being a spokesperson shouldn’t be a chore – it should be a position of prestige. To make this distinction and demonstrate how your organisation values media work, it’s a good idea to regularly celebrate media achievements. This might mean a media star of the month or a shout-out from your CEO. It might mean a note to their line manager, or a nomination for an internal award. Whatever the case, when a spokesperson devotes time to media work rather than their ‘day job’ it’s a big deal. The more you can do to make it feel like they are part of your organisation’s elite, the better.

If you think I can help you put your spokespeople on the map, then get in touch via pjsmiddleton@gmail.com or www.fasttrackcommunications.com

 

 

Think Twice Before you Declare a Crisis Feature
Lindsay Williams

Think Twice Before you Declare a Crisis

/0 Comments/by

Last Wednesday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak held a shock press conference to denounce mob rule and threats to democracy on the streets of Britain. For a previously mildly spoken technocrat this was a big departure.

The statement appeared to be prompted by the Rochdale by-election which everyone admits was messy. But whilst it is clear we are seeing an increase in anger at the political classes, and social media algorithms have for years been encouraging people into more extreme positions, it is hard to see what made last Wednesday the moment to announce that democracy and the rule of law were under threat.

Many have noted that while there is clearly considerable conflict over the situation in Gaza, which has lead to protests in the UK, plus genuine concern about the rise in death threats for MPs and the trend to protest outside the homes of elected representatives, it seems difficult to evidence Sunak’s warning on ‘mob rule’.

My question is, why did the Prime Minister decide to make this statement last Thursday? And why did it sound like an ideological speech rather than an emergency update?

As a cynic, I would suggest that the speech, including the extensive reference about what it means to be British, smacks more of election-year politics than of a sudden escalation in threat.

War, terrorism and serious immediate crisis like 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK and of course 7th October in Israel, whilst appalling in their own right, create both a political threat to the current leaders, and a moment when they can act more decisively and more immediately (or perhaps extremely), than they can in normal times. One doesn’t have to agree with everything argued by Naomi Klein in the 2009 book Shock Doctrine, to recognise this basic premise.

A crisis, a common threat, the enemy at the gate, all provide opportunities for leaders.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that there’s a temptation to talk up a threat, in order to consolidate or hold on to power. But it is a dangerous strategy. It is often far too obvious. And if it fails the leader loses credibility.

I am not the only one to question, where is the evidence for the immediate threat. Here are some cuttings.

Downing Street Fails to Provide Evidence to back up Rishi Sunak’s mob rule claim is the Huffington Post headline.

The Prime Minister’s speech about peaceful protests is deeply worrying says Amnesty International

Tories accused of using ‘mob rule’ claims to justify restricting protests writes the Guardian.

One of the privileges of my work is I spend quality time with senior leaders in many different sectors. I cannot think of one who would jump to declare a crisis or moment of high jeopardy, without very serious consideration and a watertight argument. They would all fear that it would do more to hurt their leadership than consolidate it.

 

 

Powerful spokespeople
Lindsay Williams

The Most Powerful Spokespeople Have a Story Behind Them

/0 Comments/by

The dignity and pain of Yulia Navalnaya, widow of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, made her speech at the Munich Security Conference incredibly powerful. She then updated her message and criticism of the regime on video, to ensure it reached as many people as possible.

Someone, I assume, who is not used to public speaking, was taking to the world stage at a time of great pain.The standing ovation of the politicians and diplomats was in itself immensely moving.

 

People who have a relevant story always make the most powerful speakers. Whilst many others could have and indeed have said much the same thing about the Kremlin lying, carrying out political assassinations, etc. Yulia Navalnaya is likely to have the biggest impact.

Here are a few other examples of people who helped, or are helping, to achieve change because of their personal stories.

Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head age 15 because of her insistence that girls in Pakistan had a right to go to school. She survived and now lives in Birmingham in the UK. She is still an activist and is the youngest person ever to receive a Nobel Peace Prize.

Merope Mills whose daughter died in hospital of sepsis after a bike accident. Merope spearheaded a campaign to bring in Martha’s Rule which makes it a right for patients to ask for a second opinion, if they are worried about care in hospitals. We wrote about her BBC Radio 4 Today programme interview here. The government will introduce Martha’s rule into the NHS later this month.

Esther Rantzen has greatly increased interest and political pressure for assisted dying to become lawful. After a life in the public eye, she has stage four lung cancer and has called for MPs to have a free vote on the issue. Link to the LBC article here.

There are many more.

To the uninitiated, it may seem that these individuals are speaking primarily on their own behalf. But in all cases, they were or will be adopted and supported by organisations calling for change. Someone with a powerful personal story is a huge asset to any campaign.

Translate this to more everyday PR activities and the lessons are obvious. Nurture people who have a relevant personal story to tell, and make sure they are able to tell that story. That can sometimes take a bit of training. There is even a label now for this sort of spokesperson: they are said to have ‘lived experience’.  Mind, the mental health charity, for example now has a web page offering journalists spokespeople who have lived experience of mental health issues.

As media trainers and public speaking coaches, it is always a privilege to work with this sort of spokesperson.

 

Image: YouTube

 

Wrong Note, Right Place
Eric Dixon

Wrong Note, Right Place

/0 Comments/by

If the act of presenting and public speaking effectively is difficult (which it is), something that many of us find equally tricky is the process of receiving feedback on what we have done – or what actors call ‘notes’.

In acting, these are the adjustments that a director or producer gives to the cast during rehearsal, about how to do the scene next time. What’s worse, these are often given in front of fellow cast members and crew. Which means everyone involved knows what those in charge think, and how you could have done it better. It’s a public declaration that your performance was faulty.

The problem is that actors can be pretty precious people. I say this with no spite at all. As a presenter and voiceover artist, I’m much the same. To give all of yourself to your craft, to do something which feels so personal, it can be pretty disheartening for someone else to step in who thinks they know better, and tell you there’s another way to do it.

Especially if you’ve been in the business for years. As a seasoned professional, to be told that the performance you’ve carefully crafted requires a change can be a bit of a bruise to the ego and – even if it’s done nicely, respectfully, gently – it can sometimes hurt.

What’s worse, you may not agree with the advice given. Even if you’ve got over yourself about the ego thing, you may genuinely think the guidance is mistaken.

Maybe you believe that the problem they’ve identified is wrong.

Or the solution they’re proposing is incorrect.

Possibly both.

Perhaps you’ve already tried it their way – and it was worse. Or at least no better.

What do you do then?

Wrong Note, Right Place

Jeremy Dyson

A bit of advice I hold dear is a brilliant tip from Jeremy Dyson. He’s the author, musician and screenwriter responsible for, amongst other things, the surreal TV comedy series ‘The League of Gentlemen’.

He calls it “Wrong note, right place”.

He says that if you’re getting a note, it’s because something’s not working – and you need to accept that.

The note the director or producer is offering up may not be the right solution or even the right diagnosis of the problem. But there is definitely something wrong at that point in whatever you’re doing.

So instead of resisting notes – which is something we’re all prone to do, defensively or otherwise – we should take them on board gratefully.

Because even if you disagree with the advice given, they have helpfully spotted a bump in the road. And not only that a bump exists, but they’ve located it for you as well. So, even a wrong diagnosis doesn’t hide the fact that something is amiss at that moment. And it’s up to you to do something about it – either by following their suggestions, or coming up with a solution of your own.

Brilliant.

It successfully sidesteps the whole ego problem, allows you to listen to their suggestions whilst in the right frame of mind, and puts the solution back in your hands – all at the same time. For PowerPoint presenters, it may be something as simple as the positioning of a slide. Or the way you introduce it. Or an analogy you make.

This approach is something which should actually stop us resisting receiving ‘notes’ on our performance.

It could actually increase our appetite for feedback.

You never know, even make us hungry for it…

In that spirit – genuinely – please let me know what you think of this blog. Comments welcome below.

 

Image: Jeremy Dyson. (2024, January 21). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Dyson
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0

managing questions managing news feature
Lindsay Williams

Managing Questions, Managing News

/0 Comments/by

Aggressive questioning rarely comes more dramatically than was experienced last week by social media titans TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew, Snapchat’s Evan Spiegel, Discord’s Jason Citron, X’s Linda Yaccarino – and above all, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta. Of course, this was not a media interview: on the face of it, it was a senate hearing entitled Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis.  In my view, it was simply an exercise in public humiliation, akin to putting wrongdoers in the stocks and throwing rotten tomatoes at them.

The extreme style of public cross-questioning seen in many of the video clips of the hearing seems to be a hybrid of aggressive journalistic questioning and the most high-octane Hollywood police interview tactics. One thing is for sure, the questioners had no interest in genuinely understanding what the leaders of these mega companies thought or planned to do about the ills they were accused of. This was all about opprobrium and the political capital it offered to the senators. Some of the ire, may perhaps genuinely reflect a sense of exasperation and despair that so little has been done to date to protect the vulnerable online, but is this really the way to conduct public debate or bring about change?

The questioning by Senator Josh Hawley was amongst the most uncomfortable that I saw.

The Guardian provides some useful context, just in case we haven’t come across Josh Hawley previously.

Senator Hawley, (…) famously encouraged the mob on 6 January 2020 (before later being filmed running away from them after they stormed the Capitol).

Zuckerberg has probably had a great deal of coaching but rarely, in the clips I saw, got to finish a sentence.

A PR guru’s advice to Zuckerberg and co, would be to try to avoid anything approaching this situation because there is no way to get any sort of hearing, let alone a fair hearing. Of course, in this case, the big tech leaders had little choice. While Zuckerberg and Chew saw the writing on the wall and volunteered to turn up, others were subpoenaed. They would have known they would face grandstanding and a grilling. In fact many of the questions would have been predictable. In context these questions can sound shocking but actually there is a stock list of  tough questions for people in charge when things go wrong.

  • ‘Will you apologise?’
  • ‘Whose fault is this?’
  • ‘Did you fire anyone, if so who?’
  • ‘How much are you making from this?’ and
  • ‘Will you pay compensation?’

All are very standard ‘tough’ questions that all broadcast journalists learn in their first year in the profession. ‘Shouldn’t you resign?’ usually also makes an appearance but didn’t on this occasion.

From a professional point of view, I noted that Zuckerberg, when asked to make an apology to the families, did use the word sorry and did sound caring but importantly he only he only apologised for ‘what you have been through’. He was careful not to actually admit any liability, which of course, is what he will have been trained to avoid.

It was totally predictable that the Senate hearing would win worldwide headlines. The Meta PR team would have known this was inevitable weeks if not months in advance. And so, two days later, we saw the release of a raft of good news. It is an example, I believe, of a carefully planned and successful campaign of damage limitation. After the global bad headlines, Meta surprised the market with three good news stories:

  • Its first ever dividend
  • Increased share buybacks
  • Revenues in Q4 up 25%, beating analysts’ expectations

The message was clear. Whatever happens in Washington, this global company is winning. Investors were reassured and the shares jumped 20%.

What is more, if you have access to this story in the FT  you will see that just a couple of days after Zuckerberg’s public berating by senators, the financial story leads and the hearing is not mentioned until paragraph 16!

It was textbook and effective news management.

 

Image: Mark Zuckerberg from YouTube

business presentations should be more like stand-up comedy feature
Eric Dixon

Why Business Presentations Should Be More Like Stand-up Comedy

/0 Comments/by

It’s a bold claim, but one which I stand by: business presentations should be more like stand-up comedy.

Does that mean I think they should be funnier?

Possibly.

More entertaining?

Ideally.

More impactful?

Absolutely.

But this will depend on how they are structured.

After more than thirty years of working with people making business presentations, one thing is clear: the structure often falls by the wayside (or at the very best, is the last aspect to be considered).

In fact, often the first thing that a presenter will do by way of preparation is to get hold of their laptop, open PowerPoint and start designing their first slide.

Frustratingly, they often seem to spend more time thinking about their colour scheme and which font they are going to use, than they do their key messages – which are the ‘point’ of a presentation after all.

It’s here that we can learn a lesson from the world of comedy. In order for the ‘punchline’ to land, what happens previously is crucial. The gag won’t work if the ‘set-up’ is faulty.

For this reason, I advise aspiring presenters who are in the planning stage to ‘reverse-engineer’ their presentations. In other words, decide what they are going to leave their audience with first, then work backwards to ensure that when it is presented the right way around, their argument flows smoothly, logically and coherently. It’s the best way to ensure the audience will ‘take home’ what you want them to.

As many presentation trainers will tell you – for your audience’s benefit, it’s a case of ‘tell them you’re going to tell them, tell them and then tell them you’ve told them’.

For more of this sort of thing, the excellent series ‘The Comedian’s Comedian Podcast’, hosted by stand-up Stuart Goldsmith is worth a listen (there are almost 500 episodes to download for free out there):

In episode 288, recorded in 2019, the brilliant Chris Addison (stand-up comedian, star of ‘The Thick Of It’, ‘In The Loop’, and award-winning director of ‘Veep’) explains that he structures his comedy in the same way he was taught to write essays at university.

business presentations should be more like stand-up comedy

Chris Addison

In the interview, he says:

“Once I’d got to the show, I would take all the jokes off it and write a 1500-word through-line essay on what the argument of the show is – to prove to myself that it makes sense… I’d write a real essay and then put the jokes back on it, just to know I had the show; that I had the order of it.

“You’re not going to say or read out the essay or show people. It was just part of the process to make absolutely certain that what I was saying… had some foundation. Because on some level, people know. They can tell when you’re wandering off, or they can tell when you’re sticking to the thing that you said.

“So, ‘tell them you’re going to tell them, tell them and then tell them you’ve told them’ is a good maxim. But the middle bit is where people go wrong.”

This advice is gold dust. I’m not suggesting that every comedian goes to these lengths – but it does serve to indicate just how important structure is to conveying ideas powerfully.

However, comedy has even more to offer the process of presentation structure than this – and that’s with what the industry terms ‘callbacks’.

These are simply references to what has gone before. It’s the act of repeating a word, phrase or situation which has already been referred to, and is now even funnier because it’s getting a mention again. Because you literally ‘needed to have been there’ to get the repeated reference, it’s like an inside joke for that particular audience at that particular time.

Musicians will understand the concept of a ‘leitmotif’ – a recurrent theme throughout a musical composition which is associated with a particular person, idea, or situation. It might be just a few notes in a phrase, but they transport you back to something earlier on. And it’s the combination of these references that provides the impact.

In stand-up, often the reference itself doesn’t need to be that funny. It’s only by association with what was said previously that it acquires an extra dimension. Those who were there get it and recognise a bond – a feeling of belonging – with others who get it too.

In presentations – even deadly serious ones – we can make use of the same idea. But we call it ‘circularity’. This is where the end of your presentation harks back to something you mentioned previously (usually at the start) and is not only more powerful for precisely the reasons explained above, but also provides a sense of ‘closure’ or ‘completion’ – fulfilling a ‘promise’ which you made earlier. (This can also help provide a ‘clap line’, generating applause at precisely the moment you want it!)

To take an example from comedy, let me offer you this:

In the American film ‘Airplane’ (1980), a passenger gets into a taxi. The driver tells him to wait and that he’ll be right back, and runs into an airport. But the driver ends up getting on a plane and not returning at all. Right at the end of the movie – indeed, after the closing credits – the film cuts back to the passenger in the car, who’s still waiting, and who says, “Well, I’ll give him another 20 minutes. But that’s it!”

Notice that the line on its own isn’t funny. It only works because it’s a callback. It’s circularity. But for it to be effective, it needs structure – which is essential to make business presentations more like stand-up comedy.

Funnier?

Possibly.

More entertaining?

Ideally.

More impactful?

Absolutely.

(P.S. And please – once you’ve delivered the circularity with aplomb – avoid the temptation to give a knowing wink and add “Do you see what I did there?” Because that completely ruins it!)

 

Image: Chris Addison
Salim Fadhley, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons

Making messages meaningful feature
Eric Dixon

Making messages meaningful – the art of getting quoted

/0 Comments/by

One of the core principles at The Media Coach is for media interviewees to wrap their key messages in dynamic language, thereby making them more quotable. This is what we often refer to as ‘sizzle’ in our Media Training and Message Building.

Broadly speaking, as long as the words you use stand out, they should help the journalist sit up and pay attention to what you say, therefore become more likely to be drawn towards your line of argument, more likely to use them, and for those words to stick in the minds of the audience (listeners, viewers, readers).

But – and it seems strange we should have to say this – the words you choose have to be used widely enough in everyday speech for the meaning you are trying to convey to be clear.

Well, obviously, you say.

Yes, you’d think.

However, an exchange took place on the Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme last week, where the interviewee had clearly not understood this most basic of ideas.

Making messages meaningful

Michael Tomlinson, Conservative MP

He’s Michael Tomlinson, Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole, as well as Minister of State for

Countering Illegal Migration. He was discussing the Rwanda bill and outlining what he said were minor differences between Conservatives over the issue (although, it has to be said, enough difference for two senior Tories to quit) as compared to the gulf he said existed between the Conservatives and Labour.

These are the words he used:

“Perhaps the difference, the navvy-gravvy, the inch of difference between us on the Conservative benches – in contrast to the miles of difference there are between us and the Labour Party – the navvy-gravvy of difference is of emphasis, of nuance.”

I’m sorry, the what, exactly?

The “navvy-gravvy”?

What on earth…?

If you’re none the wiser, you’re in good company.

Radio 4 listeners got in touch with the programme asking what it meant too, saying they had no luck when searching on Google.

So, the programme team tracked down lexicographer Susie Dent (a regular contributor to the Channel 4 programme ‘Countdown’ and ‘Cats does Countdown’), who admitted she also hadn’t come across it before.

She had tried consulting the Oxford English Dictionary database (amongst others), with no joy.  But investigating further, and with the help of the Urban Dictionary (what she described as “the voice of the people, for good or bad”), she discovered: “essentially the navvy-gravvy, within the Royal Dockyards, apparently, it is a tiny, tiny difference – used when fitting components, for example, which you need to customise, you might need to shave off a tiny amount… to make something fit.”

So, it’s not even a phrase used by the “youth” (as Husain rather quaintly put it when interviewing Susie Dent), but instead it’s tribal group slang – (once?) used by workers at the Royal Dockyard.

Even Tomlinson would have to agree, that’s a vanishingly small group.

This is not to say the phrase is without merit. The “Navvy” is the Navy, obviously. And the “gravvy” is a repeated sound which seems to be there for rhyming effect – such as “easy-peasy”, “namby-pamby” and “helter-skelter” – or what linguists call a ‘reduplicative compound’.

If I was being picky (or ‘picky-wicky’), I would say that it would have been better for Tomlinson to align his contrasting pair more closely. As he is claiming an “inch of difference” (singular) between individual Conservatives on the policy, the effect was spoilt by claiming “miles of difference” (plural) between Conservatives and Labour. Contrasting pairs work better when the two phrases are as similar as possible, only differing in the specific point they are trying to make.

But this doesn’t get away from the fact that adding “navvy-gravvy” into the mix confuses everybody.

Any Conservative Party PRs celebrating the fact that Tomlinson’s comment received so much ‘traction’ are misguided. All anyone was talking about was the phrase itself, not the context in which it was used. They are talking about the way in which he expressed a point, not the point he was trying to make. In effect, the original interview was hijacked by the use of a peculiar term that (almost) nobody ever uses, and (almost) nobody understands.

After the interview, presenter Mishal Husain admitted she didn’t know what the phrase meant either, saying – perfectly reasonably – “there were other things to ask him that were more pertinent to the subject”.

In other words, she – like the listening public – didn’t understand it, didn’t want to waste time on it, so ignored it.

Almost as if her interviewee hadn’t bothered saying it at all.

 

Image from: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/michael-tomlinson, OGL 3, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=144203208

For more on how to use interesting words to get quoted and repeated, here is a previous blog from Lindsay Williams on the subject. 

Post office feature
Eric Dixon

Second class delivery: Mr Brand vs the former Post Office Minister

/1 Comment/by

It’s easy to feel deep, genuine anger at the revelations of the Post Office scandal which has come to the fore of the news agenda in recent days.

Between 1999 and 2015, over 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted for theft, false accounting and fraud when shortfalls at their branches were actually due to errors in the Post Office’s ‘Horizon’ accounting software.

It’s a story of false accusations, cover-ups and downright deceit, which led to hundreds of lives being ruined, in the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history.

But from a communications perspective, the lessons to be learnt are more complicated.

Untangling precisely who knew what and when over that decade and a half – especially with changing roles, responsibilities and governments – means that an analysis of what should have been communicated at any stage in the proceedings is necessarily nuanced.

This was exemplified in an ITV interview last week between journalist Paul Brand and former Postal Affairs Minister Ed Davey (now the leader of the Liberal Democrats).

 

Post office

Sir Ed was Postal Minister between 2010 and 2012 during the coalition government, and in his conversation with Brand, refused to apologise over his position in the Post Office scandal, despite being asked more than ten times to do so:

Here’s the transcript:

PB: “Why not draw a line under it and just apologise – can you apologise to sub postmasters?”

ED: “Of course, I regret…”

PB: “That’s not an apology…”

ED: “Well… I, I said ‘of course’, I think it really is…”

PB: “Well, why don’t you say ‘I am sorry’?”

ED: “Well, I’ve said time and time again that I deeply regret…”

PB: “That’s not ‘I am sorry’.”

ED: “…that I was… that I was… that I was lied to…”

PB: “That’s not an apology, Sir Ed.”

ED: “…I was lied to on an industrial scale, and of course, I’m sure every other Post Office Minister who was lied to… er… regrets that they were part of this huge conspiracy that the Post Office perpetrated…”

PB: “Hmmm… why can’t you say ‘sorry’?”

ED: “Well, of course, I, I feel that I’m right to express regret for not getting to the bottom…”

PB: “Why can’t you say sorry? It’s the least they deserve. Look what they’ve been through. Just say ‘sorry’ for your part in not having got to the answers.”

ED: “My heart goes out to the hundreds of people…”

PB: “Not enough to say ‘sorry’…?”

ED: “… who were here tonight. I deeply regret that we didn’t get to the bottom of the lies that were told. Er… and I deeply regret it took until 2019 and the High Court case until people got the truth. And what we absolutely need to focus on now, is getting that compensation quickly. When you listen to the sub-postmasters, that’s what they want – they want to make sure that compensation is there. And I think of my postmaster who I’m working for – his case was extremely difficult. When we worked with his lawyers, we were told that because he pleaded guilty, there was no chance – so we need to get the action to help people like him…”

PB: “Hmmm – one last chance to say ‘sorry’?”

ED: “Of, of course, I regret what happened…”

PB: “No… no apology?”

ED: “… I’m sure the judges and I’m sure all the Post Office Ministers deeply regret. And I hope the enquiry can get to the bottom for those people…”

PB: “Those postmasters don’t get an apology? They don’t deserve that apology?”

ED: “Well, the postmasters deserve a huge amount – they deserve compensation…”

PB: “But not an apology?”

ED: “They deserve a huge apology from the Post Office…”

PB: “But not from you?”

ED: “… from, from Fujitsu, from all the people who led this conspiracy of lies against them, and frankly the whole British public.”

PB: “Alright – Sir Ed Davey, thank you very much.”

ED: “Thank you.”

In a post on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), journalist Michael Crick described it as “a truly dreadful interview” which “will be used by media trainers for ever as a model of what not to do.”

However, to be fair to Davey, it now seems that it was only in 2015 (3 years after he left the role) that the situation became clearer, when a whistleblower who used to work for Fujitsu appeared on the BBC’s Panorama programme, indicating that there was a problem with the Horizon system. And it was from 2015 onwards, on this evidence, that the Post Office prosecution of sub-postmasters stopped.

So, Ed Davey’s lack of an apology and recourse to the words “regret”, “deeply regret” and “my heart goes out to…” indicates how careful he feels he needs to be not to admit culpability. I’ve written about the problem with making public apologies before – back in April 2021 (‘Why sorry is the hardest word’). The message here is the same: unlike a simple expression of regret, an apology would imply Davey was at fault. It’s likely he would have had legal advice suggesting a response along these lines too. As my crisis communications colleague Catherine Cross puts it, he has to “balance the implications for the court of law with the court of public opinion.”

Indeed, in a more recent post, Michael Crick said “And if Davey said that on legal advice… I’d love to know who his lawyers were – partly so I and others can avoid them if we ever get into trouble.”

It’s true, the leader of the Liberal Democrats comes across very badly in this interview. He appears awkward, untrustworthy and evasive. As his PR advisors would tell him, “the optics don’t look good”.

The problem is, the wave of public anger currently breaking on the shore of the news agenda can engulf the reality of just what it was genuinely possible to say at any one moment in the timeline of this story. Including, as we’ve just seen, right up to the present day.

Hostage to Fortune Feature
Lindsay Williams

Avoid a Hostage to Fortune Unless You Have Really Thought About It

/0 Comments/by

It is a simple but hard-to-follow rule for many leaders: avoid committing or promising something in the future, that may not be deliverable.

Rishi Sunak’s political difficulties today are in part created by his bold decision to ignore this rule.

Hostage to Fortune

Of the Prime Ministers five pledges (easily found here on the government website), two are particularly definite and easily failed.

One was to halve inflation by the end of the year and the other was to ‘stop the small boats’.

Most commentators back at the beginning of the year thought halving inflation was so likely to happen that the government was not going to be required to do much. It was predicted to happen whatever the Treasury did (although that looked less certain by the summer). At the time it was probably a safe commitment.

However, pledging to ‘stop the boats’ may in hindsight seem a schoolboy error.  Indeed, a classic ‘hostage to fortune’. Everyone understood it would be difficult to do and it is so specific that there is no room to fudge.  ‘Stop the boats’ appears to mean to completely and utterly stop all the small boats bringing migrants across the channel to the UK.

[It’s worth noting that the ‘stop the boat’ slogan was copied from Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2013.]

A hostage to fortune can be defined as:

An act, commitment, or remark which is regarded as unwise because it invites trouble or could prove difficult to live up to.

And while some leaders, like the Prime Minister, will flout this guidance fully knowing the risk they are taking, there are many other instances where people casually commit to future numbers or ideas without realising that they may live to seriously regret it. Phrases like ‘we want to be number one in the market’, or ‘we expect to win 30% of the market’ are the sort of casual business commitments that can cause negative coverage.

As a rule, the PR advice for businesses is not to release any forward-looking numbers. Internal business targets are best not shared with journalists, it is too easy to check back later and find they have been missed. Missing a target can be perceived as much more negative than it really is.

In fact, hard and fast commitments of any sort should only be shared if some time and effort has gone into making sure the promise is deliverable.

Of course, none of that means that journalists won’t ask questions that try to elicit a commitment: often this can harden up a soft story. As a spokesperson, you should be able to spot that happening and sidestep any such request.

We have written before about the ‘hostage to fortune’ issue, which particularly dogged the government during the pandemic. You can read that blog here.

Image: Rishi Sunak – Flickr
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/