English cricket and why sports PR is so hard

The words "English Cricket Board" and "PR disaster" are being used in the same sentence again. This week Strauss v Pietersen. Last week Peter Moores sacked by the rumour mill. Last month, new chairman Colin Graves doing the West Indies' team talk for them. Before that Graves on Pietersen and Downton on Pietersen.

To be fair to the ECB they are not alone on the sports PR own goal front. Football chairmen from Massimo Cellino at Leeds and Vincent Tan at Cardiff, to Venky's at Blackburn and Karl Oyston at Blackpool are recent offenders. And among governing bodies, how can we forget Sepp Blatter at FIFA, almost everyone involved in cycling, and the British taekwnodo association which refused to pick its world number one, Aaron Cook, for the London Olympics.

Why are sports bodies so bad at PR? And what does that say about the state of our profession? In my view there are two main factors at play, so to speak - the skills at the top of our profession and what some employers want from their PR appointments.

First of all the skills. When we join the ranks of communications and PR professionals, it is usually because we have some skills at media relations. You know, getting good news in papers and keeping some bad news out of them. But for a head of communications this should be the easiest part of the job. Too many comms leads still act merely as media relations officers with a "senior" or "head of" in their job title, still sweeping up the mess their leaders have made, but now it is higher profile and more costly mess than before.

The most difficult part of a comms lead's job, and one that we are collectively nowhere near cracking, is having a sufficient number of professionals with the skills we need at a senior level to stop our leaders making that mess in the first place - the influencing and negotiating skills to tell a chairman or chief executive: "You can't do that."

This is exacerbated in sport because, with the exception of a handful of clubs and organisations that are truly professional in their outlook, most sports bodies actually think they need someone to sweep up their mess, rather than preventing them from making it.

Very, very rich people would be regarded as being among the employers it can be most difficult to do PR for. Volunteers, potentially, are even more difficult because the rational, business reasons you may suggest they consider might not apply. If you put those two factors together into a chairman who has made lots of money in his (it's usually a his) chosen business; is now stepping into the completely different and irrational phenomenon that is sport; thinks that the things that worked in their gas or chicken business will work with millionaire sportspeople, under the media spotlight; and is in the role not necessarily to make money but to stroke his ego/play the patrician volunteer, that is a toxic combination for a head of communications to have to deal with. That chairman does not want to be told "No" under any circumstances. These are some of the reasons why sports PR is so hard, and done badly so often.

Having explained why this happens, I can't offer any solutions. But for all of us involved in reputation management, we should constantly evaluate whether we have the skills and authority we need in our role to successfully give unpopular advice in difficult circumstances. As a profession, we are not as good at it as we need to be.

Back to the future

Our fire service will shortly be changing its logo back to an updated version of its traditional eight-pointed star, on my advice. Naturally, I'm getting a bit of stick for this - so here's why I think it's a good idea.

First, it's an invest-to-save. The updated logo is costing us £640 and will be implemented on a replacement basis - so existing stock using the current logo will be used up first, not thrown away. The new design will also have a two-colour version that will be used on our printed materials, instead of the current six-colour one. Our printers have told us we will save £50 just on one order of letterheaded paper, so I think we'll make the £640 back on the first order of new community safety leaflets.

More importantly, I just think it's the right thing to do for us to re-adopt the eight-pointed star that is so synonymous with the Fire Service. The current logo had already been approved when I came into the Service eight years ago, and its implementation was the first job given to me upon arrival. Everyone I've spoken to about it believes it was the wrong decision and I agree. The current logo looks like a dull school badge. It definitely doesn't look like a proud Fire Service one, like the eight-pointed star does. I know that's a view particularly held among our operational staff.

I've wanted to change back for years but then austerity came and it never seemed the right time. I realise I may be criticised for doing it now but sometimes you just have to go back to your values and do what you think is the right thing, even though others may disagree. It will save us money and reconnect us with a past we should never have abandoned. I'm prepared to stick my neck out for that.

*If you're interested in the fire service eight-pointed star and what it stands for,

read this.

 

Maybe We Can Make This Work

Our Safer, Stronger Communities Fund has had a bad rep at work. People, including me, have questioned why our Authority would "give away" £2m to other organisations at a time when we're making frontline cuts and letting support staff go.

I've got a new perspective on this after listening to a seminar given by Bruce Katz in Sheffield last week. Katz is a former advisor to President Obama who is an expert on urban development.

The most interesting part of his presentation for me was learning that the spending culture of US public organisations is to fund academic research and private companies. The Americans believe that produces better value and more innovative and creative outcomes than public bodies spending the money directly.

It's worth thinking about as we prepare to embark on round two of our fund. I'm sure we can all think of small projects that make a big difference if only they had a bit of funding.

Instead of complaining maybe, as staff, we should focus on working with partners to help them develop really excellent bids to fund great projects that just need a kick start.

A New Beginning

Ok, so I've been meaning to blog more regularly for forever. Today we had a managers' meeting to go through our recent staff survey results. Two of the key issues are senior manager communications and employee involvement, so now seems like as good a time as any to make a start. I'd be pleased to get your feedback on what I write, whether you work in my function, elsewhere in South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue, or for another organisation.

Our staff survey results weren't great, but probably in line with my expectations. The important and positive thing is that they're slightly better than last time and, we discovered today, comparable with the other fire services which use the same survey.

The key take-out from today, for me, was that as a management team we are absolutely committed to accepting the results and determined to improve for the next survey. I'll admit that going into the meeting I wasn't entirely sure that would be the outcome.

So now the hard work starts again. Today we talked a lot about the fact that only 18% of our staff believe things will change as a result of the survey (the same as last time). We are all determined to change that next time. So here's a little blog which is my first step towards achieving that. It's only a small step but it's a start.

Finally for today I'd like to send my congratulations to Jill in my team and her husband Lee, who are expecting twins. It's only a few days since my colleague Alex became a dad for the first time. And my other colleagues Nicola and Michelle are off on maternity leave. It all seems apt considering this blog has been about fresh starts.

House and Home

Today I left my childhood home for the last time. We moved there when I was 10 and now, 29 years on, my dad has sold it to downsize. Next time I go to visit him I won't be going home any more.

It's the little things that remind you. I hadn't given it a second thought until last night, when we got back there late and tried to get our sleeping kids up to bed without them waking up. As I ran up and down the stairs in the pitch black it struck me that, even blindfolded, I would be able to sense exactly where I was in that house. I haven't lived there for over 20 years but I knew every inch of it just from sound and touch.

We don't often think about the things that provide us with our identity, values, and feeling of belonging. I hadn't realised until today that that house was a part of what makes me "me". The five of us who moved there in 1986 - my mum, dad, two sisters and me - now live in four different towns. That house is probably the only thing left that all five of us had in common.

I learnt at university that Kenya's Dinka tribe believe that people leave their memories at the place where they've experienced them. I've left a lot of happy memories there today.

Decision Time

My 10-point guide to re-hiring a former employee with minimal reputational damage after they have served time for a serious crime:

1. If you have time (say, around 2.5 years) to plan for making a decision, use the time well so your future decision is made and presented as slickly as possible
2. Be clear whether your decision is to be based on their work performance or personal conduct, and then make that decision quickly
3. Try to convince yourself it's the right decision. If you can't, don't do it. If you can, show yourself as being decisive and stick to it
4. Decide who is the right member of your management team to communicate the reasons for your decision (ie. chairman, director, Chief Exec, or operational manager) and make sure they proactively communicate their decision, any conditions, and the reasons behind it. Don't give the impression everyone is passing the buck, or that nobody wants to take responsibility for the decision
5. Ensure the member of staff leaves prison (at least giving the impression of being) genuinely contrite, as a condition for their re-employment
6. Ensure said person follows that through with actions to show they have changed, for example by donating money or giving voluntary time to relevant charities or support groups
7. Ensure all the above is completed before attempting reintegration. Then, if possible, start that reintegration before anyone else finds out
8. Have a media statement ready in the event of the reintegration being leaked. You've had over two years to write it. Don't take eight hours to issue a statement after the story has leaked
9. Ensure all your statements on the issue calmly and rationally put your point of view. Don't use emotive terms such as "mob justice"
10. Above all, get the difficult decision made, acted on and communicated as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Don't cause prolonged speculation and ongoing damage to your reputation by stringing it out for months

Saving lives with a "Please" and a "Thank You"

Saying "please" and "thank you" on a fire safety text message was 11 times more effective than a control text - that was one of the outcomes of a recent study we carried out in my work at South Yorkshire Fire & Rescue.

The studies, we believe, were the first wide-scale behavioural insight pilot studies in the UK Fire Service. We experimented by using direct mail letters to 4,000 addresses in Doncaster, and SMS messages to 15,000 mobile phone numbers across our county.

Much more work needs to be done on this, both by us and the FRS as a whole, but the initial results from these studies indicate that cost-effective behavioural insight work can have a useful place in the fire sector’s community safety toolbox.

 The three key findings from these initial studies are:

·      Direct marketing can be a very cost-effective way of filling gaps in community safety provision left as traditional prevention teams focus on higher risk groups – response rates to our letter were up to 34%, more than eight times the industry average.

 

·      If adequate contact details are collected at the time of the initial Home Safety Check (HSC), direct marketing can be a central plank of an HSC “revisit” strategy. If the results of our study with “very low” risk households were replicated, we could provide assurance equivalent to an HSC for just £2.89 per household.

·      Good manners save lives – adding the words “please” and “thank you” to a text message increased response rates by 11 times, compared to the lowest response rate.

Click here to read the full report.

Tour de Force

It brings a tear to my eye every time I see the footage of the amazing crowds on the Cote du Buttertubs on Stage One of this year's Tour de France. Bringing the world's largest annual sporting event to Yorkshire was a master stroke by the UK sports community, wasn't it?

Well actually, no. Because Le Tour wasn't brought here by any sports body. It was won, and run, by a tourism agency, and it was a classic demonstration of how an event should be used. Because events should rarely be run for their own sakes. Like all tools in the communicator's box, they should be an used as an appropriate way of achieving a wider objective.

Welcome To Yorkshire clearly identified the county's scenery, historic houses, countryside and outdoor pursuits as central to attracting tourists. What better way to showcase that than bringing a world-renowned event to the county for two whole days?

Chief Executive Gary Verity deserves a knighthood for what he achieved in organising the grandest of all Grands Depart. He also deserves a place in future communicators' text books on how to use an event to achieve a wider goal.

Losing Weight, Gaining Perspective

I'm sitting here, minutes after completing a two-week detox diet, large glass of wine and Green and Blacks chocolate in hand. The headlines from the past fortnight are that I lost eight pounds in weight but gained valuable new perspectives, both on my life and my job as a behaviour change manager.

I've never dieted before. In fact losing weight wasn't the motivation for trying this. I just wanted to do it for two weeks and see what I learnt from it. It was hard going at times, especially in the first few days. Basically, plain chicken or fish and salad or veg for almost every meal. No sauces, no carbs to speak of, and no snacking in between, except a small amount of fruit "if you're hungry"!

But, through the hunger, it was only a couple of days before I realised the main lesson for me, and most of the Western world. That is, because we have food at our fingertips, we have slowly trained our bodies to reach for it at the first sign of hunger. What I've learnt in the past fortnight is that we don't need to. It's purely a psychological crutch, and it doesn't take long to retrain our minds to eat only what we need to, not what we'd always like to, as humans have done for most of history. In that sense, it has changed my life. I'm going to carry on applying these principles to my diet from Mondays to Thursdays, and will reward myself at the weekend.

This brings me on to the second lesson, for communications professionals - long-term behaviour change. As I said, weight loss wasn't my reason for doing this. It was a happy byproduct of my main motivation, which was to see if I would benefit from a body detox. Which led me to reflect on my job, which is basically to try to change people's behaviour to reduce their risk of being killed or injured in a fire.

In a similar way to many other public policy professionals, I've been guilty of signing off on "Do this" or "Don't do this" campaigns without considering what will really motivate people to do it (or not). "Don't smoke", "Don't speed", "Don't be a petty criminal", "Don't forget to test your smoke alarm".

Deep down, I know that most people have a shield against fire safety messages because they don't believe that catastrophic event will ever happen to them, just like they think they won't be caught by the cops, the speed camera or lung cancer.

The past fortnight has reinforced to me the importance of getting past the message our organisations want to put out and tuning in to the messages which will drive genuine behaviour change. Everyone has their own priority, whether that's being there for their family, having a good quality of life, or saving up for and enjoying that ultimate holiday.

We must ensure our public policy campaigns tap into peoples' hopes and aspirations. In doing so, we increase our chances of success through acceptance and understanding that our own work goals of fewer fires, less crime and a healthier society might be a happy byproduct of a different primary motivation.

Can "Outstanding" Comms Be Bad PR?

This month, my fire service had its external peer review. One of the recommendations for improvement was that we should "celebrate success" more. It was felt people across our organisation do a lot of great work that the sector, and even our own colleagues, don't know about.

It was an interesting observation that led me to reflect on our organisation, culture, and how success is viewed, particularly away from the "front line". It took me back to last year, when my comms team won an LGcomms Reputation award and was named our regional CIPR's Outstanding In-House Team.

We were amazed, delighted, and...weren't really sure how the awards would be received in our organisation. On one level, there is always that faint embarrassment about PRing your own achievements. But my thoughts were on a different level.

We'd had a bit of stick when we were lucky enough to win a previous award, along the lines: "I don't care what the comms team does, they're not going to keep people safe."

Now, at a time of support staff cuts, I was wondering if it was wise even to let people know we are "outstanding" - maybe, I thought, in these austere times, our organisation would be content with "good enough" and view our award as proof we are over-performing.

More generally, whilst our awards have shown beyond doubt that we are frontline, in that we directly contribute to the core business of reducing fire deaths and injuries, that's still harder for people to understand than burly men in a red fire engine. Would people accept an organisation winning a PR award whilst cutting services more widely understood as "frontline"?

I'm lucky in that the people I work for clearly understand the value of our contribution. But, even in light of external feedback that we should celebrate success more, I'm still uneasy about making more of my comms team's achievements.

It just feels like promoting "outstanding"comms could be bad PR.

Remembering To Be Proud

When was the last time you sung the National Anthem? Or waved a Union Flag? Remembrance Day reminded me they were questions I asked myself a fortnight ago. I felt a little sad about it. People from other countries just seem to be prouder of their history and heritage than we are.

Is it because we Brits have phased out expressions of our national identity over the years? Is it partly to do with the far right having appeared to colonise national symbolism, making the rest of us ashamed to associate ourselves with flags, songs and colours?

Thinking back to my childhood, I remember standing and singing the National Anthem fairly regularly. Even though my dad is an immigrant, I was a cub scout brought up on Wimbledon, the Boat Race, the Royal Wedding, and supporting any England team in action. If I'd have taken Norman Tebbit's "cricket test" I'd have been top of the class.

But 30 years on, sitting in the stands at Wembley, anticipating the American Football match last month, I felt a faint wave of embarrassment at the opening bars of the Star Spangled Banner. "These Yanks give it the big one at anything," I thought. Less than a minute later, I was reluctantly admitting it felt rather good. And, instinctively joining in with the ensuing National Anthem, probably for the first time in 10 years, I wondered why we Brits don't do this more often?

I don't know the answer and I don't know what we can do about it. But Remembrance Day should be a reminder that we can be proud of our history when we let ourselves. We should be. We've got a lot to be proud about. So why should we let our national introversion or a few EDL meatheads put us off from celebrating our heritage more often?

Is it worth it? Measuring and evaluating FRS communication

For years I’ve been trying to find an easily understandable way to demonstrate the value of my Fire Authority’s spending on corporate communication. As I said in my last blog, in South Yorkshire, we’ve always evaluated the impact of our community fire safety (CFS) campaigns, and have constantly refined this to a good level now. We believe we can make a case for the impact our work with our colleagues in CFS has on reducing emergency incidents, some of which we showcased in our “Community Safety In Numbers” publication.

What has proven elusive is a way to measure the impact of the rest of our work, from media relations to our website; from social media to internal communication. We’re not there yet but, heavily influenced by Westminster Council’s excellent publication: “Evaluating Your Communication Tools”, we’ve made a start.

For the last two years in South Yorkshire, our main media relations performance target has revolved around “the percentage of media stories which include a community safety message.” In that time, our research tells us that the percentage of our population who can recall seeing a media story about us has significantly increased. I hope and believe this is linked. The performance measure has certainly provided focus to what our media relations work is there to achieve.

Our surveys over the past two years also tell us that whilst satisfaction with our emergency response service has slightly declined, the overall reputation of our organisation has improved. It’s far too early to tell whether there is any significance in these trends, or whether communicating effectively has helped our reputation score to hold up, but it’s something we’ll keep an eye on.

Westminster’s document has also helped us to start to evaluate our website, e-newsletter, social media and internal newsletter – these are all vital as we move towards more direct communication with the public, and put more emphasis on internal communication through the cuts. We’ve pulled our 2012/13 evaluation together in one short report. It’s interesting to us, gives us a clear picture of what is working and what isn’t, and goes some way towards showing the outcomes of our day-to-day work. It’s more tangible and scientific performance measurement for communication, which we haven’t been good at as a profession.

It’s something that we need to do better throughout the Fire Service, to provide clear evidence of what we’re achieving, and what may be lost in austerity cuts. I heard that one FRS boasts of cutting communications spending to just £12,000 by outsourcing it to an agency. But without a clear understanding of the role of communication in the FRS, and a way to evaluate its achievements, who knows whether £12,000 is too much to pay, or £500,000 not enough? We believe we can show the savings to society from our CFS campaigns in South Yorkshire alone run into the millions.

I’m convinced that driving ourselves to improve the proportion of media stories with a community safety message is improving public safety; now we’re turning our attention to researching the specific issue of smoke alarm testing because, more than smoke alarm ownership, this is a pure communication measure that will save lives. I’d love to be able to benchmark measures like this against other Fire Services; I’d be prepared to bet that the better-measured and more outcome-focused an FRS communications effort, the better it achieves desired behaviour change. I’d also be interested to know of any other ways Fire Services measure their communications work for its impact on community safety.

Finally on this topic, it’s worth considering the impact of the national Government Fire Kills campaign which, as with all Government campaigns now, is under constant review. The Fire Kills team regularly evaluate the impact of their key campaign periods, and the results are usually favourable – but it’s only carried out on a national basis. What I’d really like to see for 2013/14 is some evaluation which compares the impact in different FRS areas. Are smoke alarm testing rates pretty consistent nationwide? Or does local FRS support for the national message improve these figures during the campaign period? Is smoke alarm testing lower outside of the national campaign period, or does the message stick? And does a testing message put out only by a local FRS at a different time of the year work as well, and as cost effectively, as the national campaign? I’d love to find out.

Beyond Reputation: The Communicators’ Role In The FRS

Communication professionals in public services are basically spin doctors, employed primarily to manage their organisation’s reputation – right? Wrong.

In 2005 the Local Government Association and LGcomms published the Reputation guide, a checklist of things Councils could do to improve their reputation. The New Reputation guide followed in 2010. They clearly articulated a purpose for communicators in local government – to improve public satisfaction with Council services. I was never convinced that approach entirely fitted the Fire Service. In an era of austerity, I know it doesn’t. I don’t believe that public service communicators can justify their role solely on the grounds of reputation. We know that the public would rather see their money go on nurses, teachers and firefighters.

So what is a communicator’s role in the Fire Service? Could any of us articulate it in one sentence? Recently in the fire trade press, a private contractor seemed to suggest that communications functions could be outsourced to a call centre-type outfit, answering journalists’ calls. Suggestions like that fundamentally misunderstand what I believe our clear role in the Fire Service is.

It is beyond reputation. Communicators in today’s public services must show how they directly contribute to achieving overall organisational aims, whether by making services better, reducing demand, or changing public behaviour. In today’s Fire Service, that means proving our direct impact on reducing emergency incidents, improving prevention and protection, or helping to achieve change.

In South Yorkshire, I’d say 75-80% of our team’s role is community fire safety. Most of the rest is change management, or internal communication. At the same time, we maximise our reputation wherever possible, systematically measuring and evaluating our effectiveness along the way; but I can’t justify a penny of my Authority’s spending on communication for reputation alone. Firefighters drive a fire service’s reputation. Our role must be about community safety.

My South Yorkshire colleague, Alex Mills, has worked closely with our Community Fire Safety team to develop a range of successful and innovative campaigns which are proven to reduce emergency incidents, and have paid for themselves many times over in savings to society. We’ve published our ‘greatest hits’, which outlines some of this work. It’s called “Community Safety In Numbers”, because we’ve rigorously evaluated the impact of our work.

The Fire Service and the public have an inherent goodwill towards “traditional” community safety, such as school visits, youth engagement courses, and fitting smoke alarms – going out and doing stuff. Millions of pounds are spent on these activities every year nationwide, and some of them are clearly working in reducing emergency incidents. But which ones work? Which are the millions well spent, and which don't actually reduce risk? Whether these initiatives are properly evaluated or not, they’re “Community Safety” and people have an instinctive emotional support for them.

Far from the millions spent on “traditional” community safety, I agonise over spending £5,000 on a safety campaign that I know I will evaluate as to its effectiveness. I wonder if Fire Service communicators would be viewed differently by the public if we were instead called “Community Safety Mass Education Officers”, or something similar?

As it is, we will never have the luxury of inherent goodwill. If we can’t win hearts, we must win minds. We must clearly identify our role in contributing intelligently and cost-effectively to FRS’ overall community safety effort, and show how our work can be clearly measured. Aside from the campaign evaluation that we practise in South Yorkshire, in my next blog, I’ll outline how we can measure our day-to-day effectiveness to illustrate the value of communication.

We Need To Lead Change

Today I’m publishing a discussion paper on the future of corporate communications in the English Fire and Rescue Service (FRS). I’m saying we need to achieve more with less. I’m saying that we need to find a more efficient model than the historic structure of over 40 press offices at individual FRS level. I’m saying that, as communicators, we need to prove our worth to the FRS beyond doubt. I’m saying that we, and the Service need to clearly set out what we should be aiming to achieve, and how that should be evaluated.

This is a discussion paper I couldn't publish when I was FirePRO chair, when I spoke for us all. Today, I make it clear I’m speaking for myself. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. But I hope to provoke a debate in which we can all have our say, because I passionately believe that effective communication is needed more than ever by a changing fire service. The FRS needs to fully engage with its staff and the public about why change is needed, and how it will affect them. Without that two-way dialogue, the change that has to happen will be more costly, and take longer to achieve. And, as money gets tighter, the need for smarter, much more cost-effective community safety will grow. We need to show that the way to reduce demand in that elusive hardest to reach audience, at minimal cost, is through highly-targeted marketing and communication.

As well as saying what is wrong, my discussion paper also suggests a new communication structure for the Service. One that costs less but achieves more. It would reduce the duplication of technical aspects of communication, which are currently replicated 40 times over in the English FRS. It opens the door to new, strategic communication specialisms which are largely lacking in our Service, but so desperately needed, now more than ever. It requires us to be brave, to recognise that we need to get serious about shared services. We need a clear vision about what communication in the FRS is here to achieve. And we need to champion clear performance measures which demonstrate to Authority members and senior officers exactly what they get for every pound spent on communication.

We can do it; we must do it. Send me your feedback. Talk about the issues with your counterparts in FRS comms, and with your senior officers. Disagree with me if you like – and if you can put an alternative vision forward. But I don’t believe that in five years’ time we will still have over 40 in-house corporate communication teams in the English FRS. So let’s now lead the debate about what we should have instead.

Over the coming week, I’ll be publishing a few more “Thought Leader” articles. I’ll set out my thoughts on:

· The role of communication in the Fire and Rescue Service

· How it should be measured and evaluated, and

· Innovations in cost-effective community safety

Let’s not sit back and wait to see what post-austerity FRS communication looks like. Let’s use the challenge of declining resources as a catalyst to lead the debate about what we’re here for, and how we’re going to achieve it.

We’re communicators – let’s get talking.

Thatcher's Election Lesson

Much has been made this week of how Margaret Thatcher polarised opinion. There is no doubt about that.

Much has also been said about how she was only for the southern, middle and upper classes, and against everyone else. I believe that is wrong. And the reason it's wrong holds a valuable lesson for Ed Miliband and David Cameron as they try to plot a path to election victory in 2015.

For the last 15 years, I've lived and worked in Labour's union heartland, some of their safest seats in the country. But I was born and brought up for my first 18 years in one of the Tories' safest seats. I've experienced first-hand the way people viewed her from both ends of the telescope. But the electorate in these areas don't win or lose elections. Paradoxically, for someone seen to be so divisive, the reason Thatcher was so successful electorally was in the centre ground - the swing voters who hold the keys to 10 Downing Street voted for her in their millions.

To understand why, I'll give an example from my family - although I stress I am not passing my own judgements on the rights and wrongs of Thatcherism and I don't know how any of my family has ever voted. But this example is useful to understand the point I am making.

My parents were both NHS nurses throughout Thatcher's premiership, and for most of their working lives. In 1979 they were clearly working class. In 1991 they were landlords and shareholders, a status achieved only by their hard work as nurses and the opportunities they took advantage of in the 1980s. The concept of the Yuppie wasn't about rich people getting richer; it was about 'new money' earned by people from all sorts of backgrounds.

The lesson here is one that Cameron and Miliband would do well to remember. It is that Margaret Thatcher wasn't for any one class or region. Labour cannot win an election with only northern, working class votes, just as the Conservatives can't win one with only southern, middle class votes. She won three in a row, the latter two with large majorities - and, by the way, just like Tony Blair (and Cameron last time) people voted for the leader more than the party.

Far from being a leader for the few, Thatcher simply gave ordinary people of many backgrounds hope that they could make a better life for themselves and their families. That's what the current generation of political leaders need to do if they want to win in 2015.

Talking and Listening - The Sound of Music

The near ubiquitous presence of Peppa Pig, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Dora the Explorer in my house made me sceptical about introducing my kids to Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music. Why would they be interested in two near 50-year-old films with no cartoon graphics or special effects to speak of? I was amazed during half-term when they chose to watch one or the other every day, with modern-day DVDs being left untouched.

It led me to think about all the smart new tools we use as public sector communication professionals nowadays. Which of them will stand the test of time to become classics? And which will go as quickly as they came? It's hard to believe that VHS tapes and music CDs have been and practically gone within my lifetime. I've only owned a smartphone for two years but can now barely begin to think about life without Twitter. I know many others feel the same about Facebook. I think we'll still be using these resources, or their offspring, for many moons to come.

On the "disappearing" list, I'm putting dozens of social media apps which will come and go. And some of the very foundations of PR and marketing - press releases, local newspapers, and traditional paid-for advertising. It has long been the case that we need to target our campaigns better. Now, thanks to new media, we have the technical resources to do that. I future, I think we'll be doing better at targeting our messages at specific communities. Let's face it, we've never really known how many people have seen our piece in the paper, or heard our radio ad.

Finally, I think new media will eventually bring us back to some sadly forgotten arts that would save us a lot of bother - actually talking and listening to people. It's a theme of the Francis report in the NHS. If we listen more, to our customers and our staff, we will reduce failure and provide better services. Social media can provide us with new and effective ways of having those conversations, but they can only supplement the best way to find out what someone really thinks - a cup of tea and a chat. Now that's what I call the Sound of Music.

Conspiring against a generation

Less than six months after those amazing Olympics ended, the reputation of top level sport is at its lowest ebb. Sport collectively is in desperate need of a sustained PR plan to restore our faith in what used to be a noble cause.

There is no greater advocate of sport than myself. I’ve played, coached, refereed and volunteered for over 30 years. I’ve spent literally hours daydreaming about one of my kids scoring in the World Cup final, or winning at Wimbledon. Yet, after the drug revelations of recent months, twinned with Europol’s latest pronouncements about match-fixing in football, even I’m questioning whether it’s something I want my girls involved in.

For me, sport has always been about the glory. I remember those triumphant moments when Brian Kilcline and Dave Beasant lifted the FA Cup above their heads every bit as fondly as Keith Houchen’s diving header and Lawrie Sanchez’s flicked winner*. Can I really advocate my youngsters pursuing a path where their dreams could be dashed by a bookies’ bung, or because (I hope) they say ‘No’ to a doctor’s needle.

Sport needs a credible plan to show us that what we are watching, cheering, living, is the real deal. Governing bodies needs to work collectively to address the sins they are all suffering. They need to demonstrably throw serious resources at rooting out these evils, show us their efforts are working, and let us believe again that our heroes are genuine.

Coming from Sheffield, I spent much of last summer thinking how great it would be if one of my daughters could follow in Jessica Ennis’ footsteps. Sadly, I don’t want them to now. I’ve still got enough belief in me (maybe misplaced) that, in a skill sport, ability and endless practice can overcome the medicine bottle. But pure speed or power sports like athletics, cycling and swimming? I’m just not sure what I believe any more.

*Youngsters among you should consult the stories of the 1987 and 1988 FA Cup finals.

Horsemeat - it's our own fault

I only need to go to the bottom of my road for a reminder that the blame for this horsemeat scandal is ours. Sure, there is some industrial scale malpractice going on. But it's only possible because of our collective laziness and misplaced priorities.

At the bottom of my road is a parade of around 20 shops. Three of them are Chinese takeaways; three pizza takeaways; two Indian takeaways; a fish, chip and kebab shop; a fast food diner; a jacket potato takeaway; and a clothes shop and art gallery.

Our nation's inability and unwillingness to cook for itself, our dependence on microwave and takeaway dinners is coming home to roost. I don't accept the 'busy lifestyle' argument. My parents both worked full-time and had three kids in six years but I can barely recall eating a takeaway, except fish and chips maybe once a year, until I left home. They always found time to cook for us.

There are those who argue that microwave dinners and junk food are cheaper than fruit and veg. I have a little sympathy for this view. Except that I, like most of us, have some warped priorities here. When I was a student, I gave myself a weekly budget of £30 for food shopping but would think nothing of spending the same amount on alcohol on a night out, two or three times a week. While we're happy to pay £3 for a pint at the pub, or £7 for a pack of fags, but balk at paying more than pence for our frozen burgers and sausages, we're all to blame.

The answers, of course, are to cook our own dinners from fresh, and be prepared to prioritise buying decent ingredients over less vital spending, as nutritionists have pointed out for years. But those things aren't in the British culture any more, are they? If we can't think of ourselves, then maybe the focus should be on our offspring. My kids are all vegetarian, so I haven't had the moral dilemma about whether 'value' or 'economy' burgers are good enough for them, even if I'd take my own chances with them.

The problem is, horsemeat is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what else is in our processed food? To be honest, I inkling I'd rather not.

Why Tweetfests Could Harm Our Profession

The first time I saw a public sector Twitterthon I was quite impressed. It was probably done by Walsall or Coventry Council, who seem to lead the way on social media, and it added some colour to the traditionally dour or closed world of local government work. Then Greater Manchester Police took the innovative step of tweeting all their incidents in a 24-hour period*. I seem to remember being told it aimed to highlight the full breadth of Police work, as part of a wider strategy to try to minimise Government funding cuts.

Now, though, these Tweetfests seem to be twoapenny and, frankly, are becoming a little boring. Far, far worse, however, is that they could begin to undermine our profession by reinforcing senior managers’ long-term prioritisation of technical aspects of communication over the strategic.

An over-reaction? Well, to explain my thinking, one only has to consider the proportion of times an organisation’s communicator is summoned to deal with a problem, or promote some good news, with the cry: “We need a press release”; when actually, what was needed was a wider approach to consider the implications of that decision, and a strategy to manage its consequences. Or a discussion about whether a press release is actually the best medium by which to put that good news across.

It is many years since professional communicators stopped measuring their success in terms of press releases distributed or newspaper column inches. How many people actually read those articles? And what tiny proportion of that small number actually changed their behaviour as a result of that article? In my Fire Service, our comms team’s role is aligned with the Service aim of making people safer. There’s a bit of reputation management in there, but we measure our success in terms of our contribution to reducing emergency incidents. Sending out a press release often isn’t the best way to do that, but all too often a manager’s comms instinct is still to call for a press release instead of a strategy.

Twitterthons are now in danger of perpetuating the perception that the technical communicator’s role of writing stuff and send it out is more important than planning and managing a strategy to achieve a business objective. They have their place as one element of a wider plan to achieve a specific goal. But we should resist at all costs the morphing of the “write us a press release” request into “do us a Tweetfest”.

The Japanese inventor and industrialist Sakichi Toyoda pioneered the “5 Whys” concept – basically whatever your idea or problem is, constantly ask “Why” to boil the issue down to the key issue. As a communicator, our first question when asked to do a Tweetfest should be “Why?” If the answer is for a bit of good publicity, or to do something of interest to people, it’s probably, at best, a waste of valuable time. And if, by the time we’ve asked “Why?” for the fifth time, and we still haven’t reached a core organisational objective or work priority, then we need to be brave enough to say “No.”

UPDATE (24/1): I am informed that GMP's came first, but Council Twitterthons followed soon afterwards

No Winners, All Fees

Have you heard the one about the "No Winners, All Fees" lawyers? They've been particularly busy over the past couple of years and they're coming to a town near you.

The latest example was brought to my attention by a local journalist who tweeted about a Sheffield law centre looking to pursue action against the Council for an alleged lack of consultation over "a decision" to change early years provision. The minor flaws in their case being that the Council aren't due to make any decisions until next month at the earliest and the consultation is still ongoing. In fact, I'd attended a consultation event that very day.

I'm as concerned as anyone about these proposals. They directly affect the nursery attended by one of my children, and the actual provision I'm hoping my baby will receive in time to come. I've even signed a petition to register that concern. But, I am totally against any threat of legal action. Because the wider issue we should all be bothered about is "To what extent will it benefit us?"

Apart those who have lived in a cave for the past five years, we all know that the money has run out and cuts have to be made. Let's just say a legal challenge - to this, or any other Council decision - is successful. Will it end the world recession? Will it solve the funding gap in public services? No.

Actually, the outcome will be that the Council runs up bills to defend itself, has to spend more money repeating the consultation, and still has to end up making at least the same level of cuts, and possibly in an even less palatable way. There are no winners, except the lawyers who are eyeing up a quick buck at taxpayers' expense.

The Sheffield Law Centre isn't the first, and it won't be the last. They should take the time to actually take part in the consultation, which is still ongoing. I asked difficult questions and am not exactly pleased at the outcome. But I am satisfied at least that due process has been followed. Legal action should be a last resort. We are all losers when it becomes the first one.