a case for clear arguments on radio

How not to talk about free trade: a case study

An interview on the business slot of this morning’s Radio 4‘s Today programme reminded me how important it is for broadcast spokespeople to make their arguments clear and concrete even if they think their desired audience already knows what they are talking about.

From recent professional experience I know that the issue of TTIP –  i.e. the sprawling free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the EU and US – is one that  flummoxes people who have to talk about it. The mere mention of its almost wilfully boring title – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – could put a charging rhino to sleep at 100 paces.   And, depending on your viewpoint it’s either a huge opportunity to create jobs and growth on both sides of the Atlantic or a neo-liberal conspiracy to give big business free rein to undermine European social values and safeguards.

So this is a hard topic to talk about, as it seems vast, vague and abstract.  On top of that, most of the TTIP negotiations have been conducted behind closed doors and the resulting information vacuum has been filled with rumour. However, if it is your job to make the case for or against TTIP you need to make a compelling argument if you’re going to be persuasive and memorable.

Sadly, the interview in question was not one of those. Gary Campkin is director of International Strategy with TheCityUK, an independent membership body that promotes the UK financial services industry within the UK & internationally.

 1. Where were the messages?

Mr Campkin failed to nail his elevator pitch. Rather, than taking the bull by the horns he talked vaguely about ‘potential for the future’, growth’ and ‘jobs’ before moving onto the trump card of ‘regulatory coherence’. This is the pits: if regulatory coherence is your best interview line then you will lose half your audience. The journalist  immediately spotted this, and  interrupted Mr Campkin to ask what TTIP will actually do but then had to prise an example out of him. This was poor preparation on Mr Campkin’s part. He should have been able to offer up several clear and concrete examples, ideally about the benefits for the UK’s small businesses and consumers, without being prompted.   He was better on the US-UK trade relationship and emphasised that the bilateral export relationship was the most important one the UK had ever had. But he should have done more, as he still sounded speculative, abstract and disengaged from his topic.

2. No control strategy

TTIP is controversial. A lot of people think it’s going to see privatisation of the NHS and give companies power to sue governments. Mr Campkin was mostly in rebuttal territory and did not have a convincing strategy for dealing with these entirely predictable negative questions. He could have provided context from previous trade agreements or named the EU negotiators leading the talks to make him appear more plugged in to what’s going on. As it was, he simply talked about ‘cast iron’ guarantees from the UK Government and EU negotiators (whoever they are) without providing any evidence or linking back to broader arguments about the benefits to the UK from TTIP.

3. Enthusiasm

Mr Campion was not the world’s most enthusiastic interviewee. He didn’t need to jump out of his chair or go into Ted Talk mode but he could have faked it a bit so that he didn’t sound as though it was 6:15 on a Wednesday morning and that he had skimmed the briefing his PR had given him in the car on the way to the BBC.

Talking about TTIP is never going to set people’s worlds on fire (unless you are hold strong views about it in the first place). But if you are a spokesperson for or against it then you need to work extra hard to de-conceptualise it. And you need to sound like you care about what happens. Otherwise, you can be sure no one else will.

You can click here to see my tips on how to communicate more effectively on TTIP.

storming out is never good on tv

Your TV interviewer may be annoying but storming out isn’t great either

Storming out of a live TV interview never ranks among the top tips of media trainers.  Exasperating as interviewers can be, walking off set more often comes across as petulant than defiant, particularly when it’s the kind of fodder today’s political and media journalists love to cut (selective) clips from in order to create a piece of thoroughly trivial TV puffery that bloggers then feel compelled to write about and hate themselves for.

Yesterday’s piece of bait was an exchange that took place between Sky News’ Dermot Murnaghan and Shadow Business Secretary Chukka Umunna. According to the headlines, a ‘furious’ Mr Umunna ‘stormed out’ of an interview after he was asked to comment on a letter that he hadn’t read.

Mr Umunna was asked to comment on something he didn’t have first-hand knowledge of, and he rightly tried to shut it down and move on.  Although this is a good idea from a PR perspective, at the same time, it’s pretty disingenuous given that the letter in question was the top news story of the day in the UK and Mr Umunna, a senior member of the Opposition, should have read or at least been properly briefed on its contents in advance. The same lesson applies (to a lesser extent) to ordinary mortals outside the world of politics. You should always be aware of the big stories in your area, if only so that you are not caught off guard and know how to handle the curveball question you aren’t expecting (or don’t want to take).

2) If you are informed but are still going to plead the ignorance line you should be prepared for the journalist to give you a hard time, as evidenced by…

3) The snippy and irritated line of questioning from Mr Murnaghan. He attacked Mr Umunna for refusing to comment on the letter until he’d got the ‘party line’ straight and then tried to box him into the corner and put words in his mouth by asking whether the letter ‘was patronising to Muslims.’ This was a classic aggressive interview technique and one that Mr Umunna didn’t fall for. It’s usually not a good idea to call the interviewer ‘ridiculous’ though. They generally don’t like it.

4) Always remember the value of smiling when closing something down. Mr Umunna looked annoyed. How much better his performance would have looked if he had smiled patiently at being asked to comment on something he hadn’t read. Perhaps he should have taken up the offer of returning half an hour later with an informed answer.

In the end, it was a visibly peeved Mr Murnaghan, who cut the interview short when he couldn’t get a direct answer/attributable quote to his question. His surly line of questioning about the ‘party line’ made him look pretty bad. He ended up ‘winning’ the headlines battle on a technicality, though, because it was pretty silly of Mr Umunna to get up and leave, particularly when the interview was clearly ending.

So overall, null points on both sides. But clearly, a pair of disgruntled egos.

 

Belgian PM strikes the right chord with live interview from Charlie Hebdo demonstration

Belgian PM strikes the right chord with live interview from Charlie Hebdo demonstration

In the digital age, how physically accessible should senior politicians make themselves to a public that is more turned off and cynical than ever about the way politics functions?

Depending on your viewpoint, social media has or hasn’t aided the democratisation of politics. But what is clear is that in many cases it has not actually brought government ministers closer to their electorate or humanised them. It’s just given them another platform from which to tweet pictures of highly engineered ‘meet the public’ photo opportunities, while simultaneously making them more attackable online.

Belgian PM Charles Michel doing a live interview

Belgian PM Charles Michel doing a live interview among the crowd outside the European Parliament

So that’s why I was surprised and impressed to see the new Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel doing a live TV interview in the crowd that had turned up in the square outside the European Parliament to show support in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris.  His appearance had echoes of last year when Belgian ministers were also seen on the streets following the fatal shootings at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

It was a simple but well-judged gesture and  (judging by the reaction on Twitter) one that clearly chimed much better with the public mood than a controlled statement delivered from in/outside the PM’s offices might have been.

As a Brit living abroad and already bored by the 4-month electoral campaign that has just kicked off in the UK I wonder whether there are media lessons that the political leaders there could learn from this.

Of course,  Brussels is a much smaller city than London, so nipping down the road to do a spontaneous interview isn’t quite as straight forward for David Cameron as it would be for Charles Michel. And, leaving aside the not exactly minor issue of security, there are also risks to your credibility in making yourself too accessible and not statesmanlike enough (not to mention the possibility of it going wrong and being pelted with eggs by disgruntled members of the public).

But so rarely do we get to see our politicians against a backdrop of ordinary people (where the latter aren’t being manipulated or used as photo props) that when we do get the opportunity, it’s a breath of much needed fresh air.  But it’s a shame that it takes a tragedy to make it happen.

Mars Starbucks

Oh dear! A scientist who only speaks geek.

It’s always good to laugh and one interview on BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme this morning certainly caused me to guffaw.

MarsStarbucks_1

Methane on Mars could be evidence of ‘life’ on the red planet

It is a classic and rather funny example of scientist Sushil Atreya, a Professor with the Curiosity programme, refusing to compromise and explain the possibility of life on Mars in layman’s language – and a journalist, Sarah Montague, working her socks off to try and help him.

This interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme was broadcast at about 8.30 a.m. – probably one of the most valuable and influential slots (peak audience) on one of the most valuable and influential programmes in the UK.  Unfortunately the scientist in question does not care about PR – his own, the university’s or the space programme’s – he is just answering questions as he would for a rather dim and uninteresting student. Everything he says is coherent and undoubtedly accurate but totally inappropriate for the audience.

I am sure he is a very nice and clever man but boy, does he need media training!

syria children nbcnews ux

How to bring numbers to life

I am posting here a link to a brilliant bit of radio that brings to life the impact of the Syrian civil war by relating it to the UK.

The opening sentence gives you a chilling flavour of what is to come.

“Say you are one of the two and a half million people who live in the huge conurbation of Greater Manchester, and then you leave; all of you.”

The Syrian cause is close to our hearts here at The Media Coach. We have more than one client working in this now dangerous and desperate country. People we have trained in the last year, daily put their own lives at risks to provide a desperately needed lifeline to others.

syria children

Have of all Syrian children are no longer in school

But this is a blog about bringing numbers to life. Particularly large numbers. Getting an audience to really understand huge numbers of people can be done visually – by an arial shot of a vast refugee camp, for example, or most memorably in the past few weeks by the sea of ceramic red poppies around the Tower of London to represent the dead solders from the First World War. But to do it on radio, giving your audience something they can relate to is a surefire method and this is great example. Much later in this two and a half minute clip Michael Blastland of BBC Radio 4s More or Less programme, turns his attention to the millions of children in Syria who are no longer getting an education. He asks us to imagine this happening in the UK.

Blastland.Michael

Michael Blastland, author and BBC Radio Presenter

“Go to every school in the land and throw out every other pupil, send them home, wherever home may be. About five million of them, to correspond with the fifty percent of children in Syria who have been forced out of formal education.”

The ability to make numbers mean something is a real skill and one that is often overlooked.

Thanks to Michael Blastland for bringing these particular numbers to life.

eu commissioner hearings scorecard

EU Commissioner Hearings Scorecard

In Brussels over the coming week, the new EU Commissioners (technically Commissioner-designates) are presenting themselves to the European Parliament. I’m working with other communications consultants in Belgium to ‘live blog’ the hearings and assess how each of them does.

We decided to do this project partly because the EU’s standing is at an all time low and partly because President Juncker has promised to make his Commissioners more accessible to the media and ordinary Europeans. So this is our first chance to see just how much of the common touch they really have.

Of course, we will be looking at the usual stuff as well – i.e. knowledge of the brief, EU affairs, credibility etc. But this is the Brussels Bubble’s bread and butter (try saying that after a few drinks) and we want to measure the candidates’ impact (or potential impact) outside this sphere. So we will also be ranking them for energy, enthusiasm, vision and basic likeability.

If you would like to follow the assessments click here.

CAmeron3

An irresistible metaphor

Media Coach trainers spend a great deal of time trying to persuade serious business people to use metaphor. Metaphor makes simple ideas more fun and more memorable – or to use our jargon ‘stickier’. A ‘sticky’ message is the best sort!

CAmeron3

Cameron’s ‘purred’ metaphor was catnip for journalists

David Cameron’s private and embarrassing use of the word ‘purred’ in the same sentence as ‘the Queen’ was very unfortunate but for us shows the huge power of a good metaphor. If he had just said ‘she was very happy’ in his aside to Micheal Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York, it might still have been reported, but the number of column inches and the amount of airtime would have been a great deal less.

This is the power of metaphor. Don’t use them by accident, use them consciously to supercharge your message.

typing

From marketing material to stories: mistakes to avoid

Who should decide what counts as ‘news’?

An interesting piece in this weekend’s FT highlighted the challenge that ‘corporate news’ now poses to traditional journalism. By which I mean the trend for companies not only to bypass the media by self-publishing PR stories, blogs or video clips but also to create their own community news portals in which they present their stories as impartial news.

Some examples are given in the FT piece, which I strongly recommend reading.

Now, I am all for companies telling the best possible version of their story but I am squeamish about them sponsoring community websites which mix only positive corporate PR stories in with other kinds of ‘news’ (which presumably is not so positive). It’s clever and I am probably naive. But as someone who is a former journalist and works with a lot of PRs, I’m not convinced this kind of approach won’t backfire in the long term because it seeks to control the terms of the conversation rather than genuinely expanding it. And that runs counter to the supposedly transparent, inclusive principles, which underpin the digital age we now live in.

That said, companies are doing a sensible thing by taking a more journalistic approach to tell their stories, not least because many of them have been their own worst enemy when it comes to humanising what they do and the broader social benefits they bring.

So, if you are going to do more storytelling for your company or client, here are a few tips.

typing

Turning marketing puff into good stories is not easy

1. Sell the benefits, not the product

People working on these stories are frequently only given marketing literature or press releases to draft from. These inevitably focus on what is particularly cool or new about the product rather than emphasising the particular social need it meets. So, for example, if you or your client manufactures a type of handbag that is made from 100% recycled material and still looks good and lasts a long time then you need to tell the bigger story of dwindling resources, saving the planet while looking good etc. Very few people who might read this story will care about the product or its qualities in their own right. But if you appeal to their values, they might.

2. Don’t believe the hype

This also means you need to challenge the cliches which pervade marketing literature but look lazy or over-sold in stories. Usual suspects include ‘innovative’, ‘experience’, ‘unique’, ‘transformative’ and ‘exceptional’. They succeed only in being simultaneously bland yet hyperbolic (and usually unsubstantiated). After all, we are still talking about a cup of coffee or a pair of headphones. Keep your language grounded and make a point of showing (using facts and examples and independent evidence) not telling. If you don’t have enough information, go back to your client or your colleagues and ask for more. This is an iterative process so don’t worry if you think your first effort is a bit thin.

This is a personal gripe but you should also limit your use of compound nouns. Used sparingly they are fine but when I read lots of references to ‘meat-eaters’, ‘coffee-lovers’, ‘tech-aficionados’ etc I can’t help feeling that is a lazy way to try and create a movement around something that doesn’t really exist. Now, I know this is a marketing technique but it doesn’t work for stories, particularly if used too often. I am all for making language interesting but this doesn’t do it.

Here are a couple of traps to avoid. If you have any other suggestions I’d love to hear them.

Writing

Top writing tips for new communicators

With changeover in the European Commission and Parliament well under way, this year’s Brussels rentree (‘return to school’) has almost certainly been busier than usual. If you are one of the many people moving out of the EU institutions or between communications roles, then chances are you will soon be doing a lot of writing for external audiences.

However, writing well is not something that comes naturally to many people performing these jobs. Despite being important, it’s one of the skills that is often neglected; both at the initial recruitment stage but also later on when it may be easier for time-pushed managers to re-write a junior’s work rather than sit down with them, explain what was missing and then get them to re-do it.

Here a few tips for writers and editors working both in the Brussels Bubble and beyond:

1. Good writing starts with good judgment

This means that you or your team need to be able to recognise what it is that you like and admire about other people’s writing. This is easy to do when it comes to talking about a favourite film or book. Less so when it comes to looking at a position paper or op-ed. However, taking the time to deconstruct someone else’s work – whether it’s that of a journalist or a colleague working in a similar organisation – will help you to identify what makes it compelling. You need to be quite tough here – when scrutinising something’s merits you need to be specific i.e. it’s not enough to know that something was good, you need to be able to say why.

2. Do a style guide

If you want your team to write in a certain way then you need to adopt a house style. This may seem

Writing

Writing is an essential but often neglected skill

unnecessary if you are a two -person outfit. But even if you are a small trade association or member organisation a style guide can still be a useful reminder that your writing needs to stand up to outside scrutiny – and not just be a lacklustre statement about the compromise you have had to put out because your internal audience can’t agree. More and more writing gets put out on different platforms now. Some basic house rules are essential. But keep them short and to the point. No one will respect your authority as a good judge of pithy writing if your style guide is two hundred pages.

3. Audience driven

Before writing anything, your audience has to be your priority. Who will read your work and why? How much do they know, and how much time will they give your text before they get bored and turn to something else? These are questions you should have at the forefront of your mind before you write (and sometimes they will determine whether or not you should write at all). When writing for the larger Brussels audience you shouldn’t assume that anyone has expert knowledge of the issue in question. Very few people are that niche and, if they are, you will almost certainly be sending them something specialist privately. For the general audience, keep it general. Which means tell the bigger story.

4. Make it interesting

Good writing is often about the subject but more often it’s about style. This means it needs to be both interesting and easy to read. To take the latter first: good writing uses active verbs, mixes up sentence length and uses jargon-free and compelling language to tell a story. Meaningful numbers and examples (particularly ones which show the impact or benefit of a particular policy at a Member State level) are also very helpful for making writing concrete and real.

5. Make it easy

You can do a lot to make your writing easy on the reader’s eye. Structuring it with clear messages before you start is an important starting point. And key points should be broken up with text boxes, bullet points or other aids that make it easier for the reader to absorb what’s important. Don’t overuse any of these tools: otherwise your final text will look shouty and messy, which is almost certainly not your desired effect.

These are just a few of things I notice people often struggle with. Good luck – and tell me what’s worked for you.

what works in risk communication

Risk communication: what works and what doesn’t

The article below first appeared in the Institute for Materials, Minerals and Mining. You can find it here.

PVC 2014 took place in Brighton in April 2014. The world’s leading forum on vinyl spanned three days and delegates were treated to talks from the best in the business. On day one, Laura Shields, Brussels Director of The Media Coach presented Risk Communication: What Works and What Doesn’t. In case you missed it, or you would just like to recap, IOM3 Communications Manager, Viki Taylor, asked her how people working in science-based, technical industries can communicate better with the public.

What are the issues surrounding risk communication?

Traditionally, when science-based industries have felt under attack, they’ve either put their heads in the sand or stuck a report up on their website to contribute to the debate by putting facts out there, but without actually engaging. But we now live in an age where these not possible solutions. Firstly, digital culture and increasing public pressure mean that people are used to frequent interaction, so silence is taken as a sign of guilt. Organisations need to build trust and trust is not always rational, so if you’re trying to talk to people about the safety of what you do, sticking the facts out there regardless of whether or not your audience understands, does not help. Taking a fact-based approach isn’t always going to help – people have a gut reaction.

Are time frames important when disseminating information?

Yes. With a lot of my clients, they see a scare story and it takes them a month and several different committees to agree on a response. If people are saying things on Twitter, you don’t have a month to reply. It’s important to make sure systems are in place to respond quickly.

How do you feel about digital platforms for risk communications?

Every organisation is different. At the very least, organisations need to have someone who is listening to this stuff. I do think some kind of presence is needed. The [PVC] industry is right to be nervous about it – the internet is a heated echo chamber. But nature also abhors a vacuum, so silence isn’t really an option if damaging and untrue things are being said in conversations you aren’t taking part in.

What is your advice for disseminating scientific information?

Facts and figures do matter. There are three things that can be really helpful when talking to the public. Empathy is important, people need to feel they’re being understood. You need to talk to them, engage and listen. Secondly, you need to help them translate. Don’t give people a report and tell them to read it, you need to provide the tools to help them understand for themselves what is a problem and what isn’t. That includes pointing them to independent information, not just your own. Teach people to appreciate the difference between good and bad science by asking who’s written the report, why have they written it and when. On top of that, they need to communicate well by speaking in a language people understand outside an expert community. Keep things jargon-free and use data selectively. Science data as a tool is viewed as very powerful, but if people don’t understand it, forget it. All of this requires a degree of personalisation as well – if you hide being a position paper, it’s very easy to criticise. As soon as you bring real people into it, it’s much harder for people to do so. It’s also important to note that we process risk visually. People often respond better to visuals than words.