Sherie Griffiths

April 29, 2010

SHHH! Mic’s Have Ears!

There was a serious issue behind yesterday’s news about Gordon Brown’s gaff, but I have a confession: my first response was to laugh!  I’ll tell you why in a minute. 

First, in case  you missed the Prime Minister’s unscheduled Party Election broadcast (if so, where have you been? – it’s been everywhere!), it came out of one of those chance encounters with voters of which all three party leaders seemed to have had so many ‘the other day’, before the first TV debate.  This time, Mr Brown had an apparently friendly chat with a lady who described herself as a lifelong Labour supporter.  When she challenged him on issues ranging from pensions to the national debt, he seemed to do his utmost to answer her questions and they seemed to part on quite amicable terms. 

Once back in his car, though, Gordon expressed his true feelings.  He growled that he “should never have been put with that woman” and called her a ‘bigot’ – because of her comments on immigration.  The trouble was that he’d forgotten he was still wearing a radio mic, which relayed everything he said straight to the three main broadcasters (Sky, ITV and the BBC) and so to the lady herself. 

Of course the Prime Minister immediately apologised – ‘profusely’, as the Chancellor, Alastair Darling, described it.  Perhaps not too surprisingly, the target of his spleen wasn’t impressed.  For what it’s worth, I think his apologies were genuine.  I’m sure he was truly sorry – for being overheard.

The coverage immediately after the event implied that we should be shocked that a politician could show one face in public and another in private – and maybe we should, but I’m not.  Call me cynical, but I accept that politics inevitably involves saying the right things at the right time – like marketing.  After all, that’s what electioneering is, isn’t it?  Each party is currently marketing its socks off, trying to win you and me as new or repeat customers. 

In case you’re wondering, when I say marketing is about saying the right things at the right time, I’m talking about finding out what the customer wants and finding a way to supply that want.  I’m certainly not advocating telling them what you think they want to hear, then going on your own sweet way.  Playing that game is bound to land you in the brown stuff eventually, isn’t it?  Marketing should never be about saying one thing in public and believing another in private – and if you’re in the marketing frontline (as the party leaders are)  but can’t deal with customer feedback, you’re in trouble.  

What did shock me when I first heard this story was that someone who has presumably had considerable media training – and experience – over the years, should make a mistake like this.  Then I thought again, remembered Tony Blackburn and the ‘Sky Channel incident’ – and burst out laughing!

In 1985, TB was part of the new team presenting music programmes on the still very new Sky Channel.  In March of that year, a story appeared in the paper about an unfortunate incident involving Tony, a radio mic and a ‘comfort break’.  Apparently, during the ads in the middle of a live show, he headed for the little boys’ room, did what little boys must do, washed his hands, came back to the studio, whistling all the way – and Europe heard it all, thanks to the radio mic on his lapel, which was still live.  OOOOOPS!

I guess if a seasoned broadcaster like Tony Blackburn can forget he’s wired for sound, Gordon Brown can be forgiven for doing the same.

Less excusable by his party colleagues, I suspect, is what this implies about their leader’s trustworthiness in the eyes of voters.  The last thing any of the participants in this election need right now is such stark evidence that ‘politicians say one thing and mean another’. 

The Labour Party will defend Gordon to the hilt in public, naturally, but I wonder what they’re saying in private … wouldn’t you like to be a mic on that walll …?

April 16, 2010

The big Debate –Did You Get The Message?

Well, did you watch?; and if so, what did you make of it? Did you feel you got an insight into the personalities behind the parties, or did it feel more like a marathon joint press conference?

I felt I was proved right about the audience being a prop. I’m not sure what was added by members of the public, some of them terribly nervous, reading out their questions and then not being able to respond to the answers they were given – and in some cases, the answers they weren’t given. I know what was intended with the use of that device – they were there to represent you and me. I’m just not sure if it worked.

Not surprisingly, there were times when the responses were distinctly ‘Political’ – in the sense of politicians trying to answer the questions they wished they’d been asked, rather than the ones they were actually asked; and I did hear some evidence of careful line-learning – especially when phrases were recited over and over. Repetition works in marketing – we all know that; but it can get pretty tedious if we hear the same soundbites in the same order again and again within a few minutes!

I also have to agree with everyone I’ve heard across the media this morning, who’ve said the show was too long. In marketing terms, we’re always being reminded that people today have a shorter attention span than they used to. I regularly find myself trying to squeeze 60 minutesworth of information into less than 30 for that reason. Ok, half an hour would have gone nowhere last night, but I think an hour would have been plenty.

I couldn’t help noticing that they were all extremely busy meeting ‘ordinary’ people ‘the other day’. I don’t know which day it was – but they must have been completely knackered by the end of it! It got to a point where, like a twitch, or (something I’m very familiar with in sound production) an ‘erm’ pattern, I started to see an ‘I was talking to’ pattern –and it threatened to distract me from what they were talking about! It was obviously intended to show they were all in touch with ‘real people’, but it was a bit overdone. It reminded me of non-media people who go through media training. They’re often taught that when being interviewed on radio or tv, they should ’use the presenter’s name’. Unfortunately, some take it to the cringe-making enth degree, throwing in the name at every opportunity – and sometimes even when there isn’t an opportunity – “Well, John, as I was saying, John ..” etc etc.

There were positives, though – despite the 40-page rule book governing the event. I thought some of the most telling moments came when the moderator, Alastair Stewart, had to battle to retain control – when the combatants threatened to break out into a real row! Also, even the diving around the issues I mentioned earlier told me something about these individuals. Whether it told me what they wanted me to hear, I don’t know; but that’s the constant challenge with marketing, isn’t it – making sure that the message we want the customer to hear is the one they actually receive? So often, messages are lost in translation, aren’t they?

I’m always telling clients to talk ‘to’ their market, rather than at it. If I’m honest, for much of last night’s programme, I felt I was being talked ‘at’. I had a mad idea earlier this morning – get each one of the candidates into a radio studio on their own, with no audience in front of them to play to and no opponent to compete with. I’m not talking about an interview here. I’m talking about turning them into temporary presenters – so that they have to talk to each of us on a one-to-one basis. If we let them loose with the format, what sort of show would each come up with, I wonder …

No, of course I’m not serious – but if they mean what they say about wanting to connect with us personally, it could be a fun way of doing it – fun for us, if not for them!

April 15, 2010

The Big Debate – Can You Ever Be ‘Too Prepared’?

Unless you’ve been living on another planet for the last several weeks, you can’t have failed to notice that we have a piece of ‘tv history’ to look forward to tonight – the first UK pre-election debate between the three main party leaders.  They’re going to face big questions about the economic situation and how best to get out of it, health, education etc.  We know all the questions have been agreed in advance and the audience aren’t going to be allowed to cheer, heckle or otherwise respond.  So I’ve got a few questions for you:  Are you planning to watch?; and if so, what are you expecting?  Perhaps more to the point, what would you like to see?

 When it comes to any kind of presentation, I was always taught that ‘It’s all in the preparation’, but as I watch, listen to and read the media promotion – dare I say hype – of this evening’s show, I’m asking myself: is it ever possible to be too prepared?

Making any kind of live programme can be real seat of the pants stuff.  Even recording in front of a live audience, with the knowledge that you can edit afterwards is hair-raising at times – as I know from experience.  The golden rule is to expect the unexpected.  Sometimes that comes in the form of solid gold – sometimes it’s a massive clanger, dropped just at a point in the proceedings which makes it particularly difficult to remove afterwards.  Tonight’s programme is going out live, so it has to be carefully stage-managed, to avoid it degenerating into a free-for-all .  That might be quite fun to watch, but might not add much to our knowledge of the candidates.  Although, perhaps it would.  You often only see someone’s true colours in a crisis, don’t you?

I’m at least as curious about the fall-out from this as I am about the show itself.  We know a large percentage of the UK population is disillusioned with party politics.  “I don’t trust any of ‘em!” is an oft-heard cry and has been for years – just look at the declining turn-out across successive general and local elections.  The tv debate is, of course, supposed to help rekindle our interest and enthusiasm, by allowing us to engage with the three candidates as directly as possible – to see them outside their natural habitat – the zoo which is the Commons!  I’m not sure this particular format will facilitate that.

I asked you what you’re expecting to see.  As for me, I have to say I’m expecting something quite sterile.  Maybe I’m being cynical, but I can’t help thinking the live studio audience is no more or less than a prop in what I’ve already called a ‘show’.  Yes, there must be structure; yes, there must be preparation; but I have a nasty feeling that what we’re going to get is the equivalent of one of my contributors who came into the studio for an interview, clutching his pre-scripted answers, resulting in a stilted exchange which was at least as uncomfortable to listen to as it was to produce and in which his true personality and core message were lost.  I always send my interviewees the questions in advance and I have no issue with them bringing notes with them on the day – but scripts will be confiscated!  Of course tonight’s contributors won’t physically read from a script, but I’ll bet they’ll know their lines pretty thoroughly and rather than showing us the policies behind the people, what we’re actually in for is a political ‘beauty pageant’ – yes, I am using that term in its loosest sense!  It could well come down to who ‘performs’ best on camera.  I was at A Women In Business lunch yesterday.  The network has just launched its own online video channel and it was interesting to see how many of the members were scared witless at the prospect of having a camera pointed at them.  The likes of Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are obviously quite used to that, but they have very different styles and I’m afraid this evening might come down to style over substance.  The big debate is supposed to be about the issues, but for me at the moment, it’s about the ‘event’ itself.

I don’t know if there will be any research afterwards into how viewers and listeners respond, but I’d be fascinated to find out whether those watching on tv and those who listen on the radio come away with different impressions.  Body language is an incredibly powerful communication tool, but the unadorned human voice can often give away what a winning smile and carefully choreographed gestures conceal.

Hosted by Killer SEO SuperBlogs