In his parting words as Prime Minster Tony Abbott bemoaned the febrile nature of the modern media and the culture of character assassination that he believed contributed to his downfall.
Whilst he may be correct in that assessment he failed to acknowledge that he benefitted and exploited that media environment during his rise to the top. He can hardly have expected an immediate return to a more benign media climate once he attained the Prime Ministership.
Much has been written and said about Abbott’s tactical and strategic mistakes but his parting comment perhaps points to the most basic of miscalculations. That it would be possible to put the Genie of old, new and social media back in the bottle.
In the fractured modern news media all players are engaged in a constant battle for existence. If they don’t lead with stories, have a particular spin for a target audience, or find some other way to garner a sustainable following, be they on-line, print, onscreen or on-air, they will perish. The barrier to entry is no longer the need to buy a printing press or a gain a broadcast licence. A laptop with WiFi will do the job.
Therefore it is hardly surprising that there’s a feverish rush to get ‘news’, whatever the definition, out there.
Then add unfiltered social media commentary into the mix, remembering that it requires no rules of attribution, accuracy, balance or even logic. The result is a boiling soup of sensational headlines, thirst for conflict, rush to publish and blurred lines between reporting and commentary mixed with personal abuse, ill-formed and often offensive views, instant experts and transient superficiality.
That is the new normal of modern media. For politicians and business alike failing to recognise it and find a way to deal with it is a guarantee of trouble.
Commenting on the Turnbull ascendancy Victoria Liberal Party President Michael Kroger claimed it was essentially about modern politicians needing to be good communicators. True enough but, in the media firmament outlined above, message delivery alone won’t do the job. The performance needs to be believable and engaging.
Any marketer knows that if you can get the audience emotionally invested, so long as you then provide the basic framework of believable information, they will do the post-purchase rationalisation for you. When it comes to judging other people (which is essentially what modern politics has become) we all make the emotional part of that decision in seconds. So if the personality and performance do not connect we probably won’t even get to the message.
Unlikeable politicians, no matter how logical and well meaning, just won’t cut it anymore. Sad but true, because there have been some great leaders in the past who were not really the kind of folk you would want to spend time with.
American political commentator and former Clinton advisor Paul Begala famously said “Politics is showbiz for ugly people.” Well, not too ugly either.
The media environment will not suddenly become kinder, gentler and more principled. Consequently if you are a modern politician who can’t put on a believable performance to deliver an acceptable message, you had better stay on the backbenches until your pension is due.
Sorry, not sorryJune 21, 2023 - 1:27 pm
Data Breaches – It’s not if. It’s when!October 4, 2022 - 11:52 am
You will be accountable, but we won’t.May 19, 2021 - 3:14 pm
An Impossible Standard to Meet – or – Nobody Expects The Spanish InquisitionMay 19, 2021 - 3:11 pm
The rise of the echo chamberDecember 2, 2020 - 10:26 pm
The importance of being positive
This is not a piece about mindfulness. It’s a piece looking at the importance of delivering your message in a positive context.
Example one is Malcolm Turnbull.
Since being elected (by the Liberal Party) as Prime Minister on September the 15th this year the Australian mood has lightened a great deal. Why?
We ostensibly have the same policy settings that existed prior to MT’s elevation to the top job; it’s about jobs and growth, tough on borders, tough on terror (albeit with a more nuanced commentary), and a budget that is still in need of repair.
The economy has not miraculously turned around, it’s still “pitchy” and in a transition from the mining boom.
So what has changed?
It used to be the economy, stupid. Now it’s the manner in which the message is delivered.
Despite the somewhat hilarious appropriation of #ideasboom, the concept of embracing challenge, establishing policy settings that promote the very Australian pursuit of “having a go,” and accepting that failure is often the first step to success. Our public discourse is now framed in a remarkably different manner to that of the last 8 years.
The result; a nation that is more upbeat and a hope that is not based on “hard” data (if it was, one would expect to observe the status quo continuing), but based on being engaged in, and a part of, the discussion.
Update: I read with pleasant surprise earlier today in today’s The Australian (Shows potential but more work is needed, December 16, 2015) that Janet Albrechtsen agrees with my sentiment,writing:
Example two is climate change messaging.
When the Paris climate talks were being discussed recently, an observation was made that the negative “doom and gloom” messaging was no longer gaining any traction in the public realm.
The conclusion reached was that people were simply sick and tired of the negativity associated with the issue. It didn’t mean that they were any less interested in climate change, nor were they any less interested in seeing action taken. The general consensus was that they wanted the discussion framed differently.
Both previous blogs published by RMKA and media commentary in the immediate aftermath of Tony Abbott’s demise commented on the Australian public’s lack of appetite for overtly negative and aggressive discourse.
The takeaway here is that if there is an opportunity to ‘be the statesman’ and frame your message in a positive light it will have greater cut through and success in the current climate.
Finding your positive angle and framing the associated positive messaging is something that RMKA excels at.
The Icarus effect and the VW Diesel Scandal
Only weeks ago, VW CEO Martin Winterkorn must have been celebrating a new multi-year extension of his reign at one of the largest companies on earth. Just days ago, at the Frankfurt Motor Show, he confidently predicted that VW would secure the world automotive manufacturer number one spot. Today VW’s reputation is in tatters and he is gone.
It is safe to say that when the German Chancellor takes time out from dealing with thousands of refugees beating down the door to admonish your company and launch an investigation how you cheated emissions regulations, your days at the top are at an end.
Shooting for the automotive number one position seems to come with a curious Icarian curse. Ford suffered the Firestone /Explorer crisis, GM the faulty ignition switches, Toyota the floor mats sticking accelerators down and the Takata airbags and now VW.
In fairness to VW no customer’s lives are at risk (unless they breath-in too many exhaust fumes). In fact it is almost unique amongst such automotive industry failures given that vehicle operators are not at any risk. The risk is all at the company end. As the scale of the deception continues to unfold the reputation of VW, to say nothing of the share price, will take hit after hit.
A brand is a trust-mark and VW have shown they cannot be trusted. They have been devilishly clever, but they cannot be trusted. At least not the current management who must have/should have known about the highly sophisticated masking of emissions performance.
A senior management, and probably a board level, blood-letting will ensue. VW will, of course, survive but many more dark days are to come before one of the most recognisable brands in the world can regain the consumer and community trust it craves and needs.
The first Turnbull Ministry
The composition of Prime Minister Turnbull’s refreshed and reinvigorated Ministry has been sliced and diced by pundits aplenty.
The important thing for business is to understand who is responsible for what and the changes in responsibilities that have taken place.
The full Ministry, inner and outer, plus Parliamentary Secretaries now known as Assistant Ministers, is available at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/parliamentary_handbook/current_ministry_list
There have been some changes in responsibilities and even in departmental names and they are listed in the following two documents:
AAO_amendment_21_Sep_2015
renamed_depts-21_Sep_2015
The full list of responsibilities (for those with insomnia) is also below:
AAO_9_July_2015
It is not a safe assumption that a new broom will sweep away any controversial or sticky items on the predecessor’s agenda or that the new Ministry will immediately change the agenda on operational matters.
The business of government has a certain inertia and a change of administration, particularly one within the same party and one that has to rely on the loyalty of those who may not have supported the change, does not necessarily halt matters that are in-train. Where there has not been a change of Minister expect little immediate change. Where there has, expect that it will take some time before the new Minister’s influence, on anything other than matters that drive headline news, will become obvious.
For all the media excitement at a new era, it is still a Coalition Government with a clear eye on the need to get re-elected, probably sooner rather than later. The motivation to avoid conflict and mistakes is high. Worth remembering if you need to engage with our new Federal executive level of Government.
Febrile and Vituperative, The New Media Normal
In his parting words as Prime Minster Tony Abbott bemoaned the febrile nature of the modern media and the culture of character assassination that he believed contributed to his downfall.
Whilst he may be correct in that assessment he failed to acknowledge that he benefitted and exploited that media environment during his rise to the top. He can hardly have expected an immediate return to a more benign media climate once he attained the Prime Ministership.
Much has been written and said about Abbott’s tactical and strategic mistakes but his parting comment perhaps points to the most basic of miscalculations. That it would be possible to put the Genie of old, new and social media back in the bottle.
In the fractured modern news media all players are engaged in a constant battle for existence. If they don’t lead with stories, have a particular spin for a target audience, or find some other way to garner a sustainable following, be they on-line, print, onscreen or on-air, they will perish. The barrier to entry is no longer the need to buy a printing press or a gain a broadcast licence. A laptop with WiFi will do the job.
Therefore it is hardly surprising that there’s a feverish rush to get ‘news’, whatever the definition, out there.
Then add unfiltered social media commentary into the mix, remembering that it requires no rules of attribution, accuracy, balance or even logic. The result is a boiling soup of sensational headlines, thirst for conflict, rush to publish and blurred lines between reporting and commentary mixed with personal abuse, ill-formed and often offensive views, instant experts and transient superficiality.
That is the new normal of modern media. For politicians and business alike failing to recognise it and find a way to deal with it is a guarantee of trouble.
Commenting on the Turnbull ascendancy Victoria Liberal Party President Michael Kroger claimed it was essentially about modern politicians needing to be good communicators. True enough but, in the media firmament outlined above, message delivery alone won’t do the job. The performance needs to be believable and engaging.
Any marketer knows that if you can get the audience emotionally invested, so long as you then provide the basic framework of believable information, they will do the post-purchase rationalisation for you. When it comes to judging other people (which is essentially what modern politics has become) we all make the emotional part of that decision in seconds. So if the personality and performance do not connect we probably won’t even get to the message.
Unlikeable politicians, no matter how logical and well meaning, just won’t cut it anymore. Sad but true, because there have been some great leaders in the past who were not really the kind of folk you would want to spend time with.
The media environment will not suddenly become kinder, gentler and more principled. Consequently if you are a modern politician who can’t put on a believable performance to deliver an acceptable message, you had better stay on the backbenches until your pension is due.