Blogs by Author: . [Show All]
By Anwen Pattinson
What makes a politician popular on Facebook? To the untrained eye, it might not make sense that Premier Mark McGowan has 100,000 more Facebook followers than Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, who represents a state twice as populous as Western Australia. But dig a little deeper, and you will find there is some method to the political popularity madness.
The recent WA state election saw Facebook used to an extent that it had not been seen before in West Australian politics. It would be easy to focus on the money spent on Facebook advertising given that between just Premier Mark McGowan and Zak Kirkup’s campaigns, more than $130,000 was spent on Facebook election advertising.
However, throwing money at a digital campaign does not guarantee its success. Rather, campaign success on Facebook relies heavily on a candidate’s presence and persona built outside the campaigning dates and, most importantly, their ability to find the line between the two.
So let me take you behind the scenes on what makes a successful political profile in the digital world.
First, what does Facebook itself say about what makes a successful political profile on their platform?
- Be themselves. High-performing profiles are often those that understand what their own personal attributes are and are not shy in promoting them to their audience. However, they also ensure that their tone is consistent.
- Be authentic. Politicians and candidates should bring their audience behind the scenes, showing or explaining things their followers would otherwise not easily know or understand.
- Be engaging. Make sure a relationship is built between the politician and their audience. In short, what is being said is what the audience needs or wants to hear.
While this information seems simple and logical, finding the balance between being both authentic and engaging, while still being yourself is far more difficult than it appears.
Take our current WA Premier, whose Facebook presence is clear and engaging, yet still shows a personal side. What can be learnt from Mark McGowan’s overall popularity through the prism of Facebook?
Let’s look at some of the key areas that Facebook has identified as important and see how our Premier stacks up.
I believe that this is Premier McGowan’s social media strength. One thing that is immediately noticeable to me when looking at his Facebook is that his tone is consistent. It is consistent with what he says in press conferences and also on his other social media platforms.
This consistency does not mean that his message and delivery is the same under all circumstances. Rather, there is consistency within each tone of voice, meaning a joke about April Fool’s or kebabs will have the same tone of voice, while an update regarding interstate borders or discussing a snap lockdown will be treated with tonal gravity.
This consistency is impressive given that most politicians do not write their own social media posts. The Premier’s staff appear to have a clear and comprehensive understanding of when each tone of voice should be used and is delivering them effectively.
Creating authentic posts that bring followers behind the scenes or break down comprehensive news is also something Premier McGowan has done well over the past year.
The Premier’s authenticity, I believe, was best seen in the last year when communicating with West Australians about the Clive Palmer court case. This was a complicated issue that had the ability to be spun purely through a political lens, but Premier McGowan brought his followers behind the scenes in a different way, explaining the complexities while also providing reassurance.
So, how does one create content that is authentic, and shows a part of themselves, while also being engaging? The answer is trust. Trust and time.
By being authentic and not shying away from taking followers behind the scenes, followers often begin to feel that they know the politician and that posts are being written with them in mind.
This trust assists in building the correct level of importance for each post, providing gravity to serious topics, while giving licence for followers to have fun with posts that encourage it.
This might be how Premier McGowan’s post announcing seven months of no community transmission in November 2020 had the same number of likes as his recent post announcing new state emblems for April Fool’s.
There are examples everywhere of political figures, domestically and internationally, who have managed to build that level of trust with their audiences in their own unique way. For example, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern does this by showing herself in a personable way, often jumping on a Facebook live to answer questions from everyday New Zealanders.
So, what do I suggest for politicians trying to find their way on Facebook?
They should ask themselves if they think their followers trust them and their message. If the answer is no, perhaps peeling back the curtain to show authenticity and not just a polished finished product might be the way forward.
By Daniel Smith
One of the most memorable moments from this year’s state election campaign for me was the reaction to Premier Mark McGowan’s answer on vision.
During the leaders’ debate, the Premier was asked about his vision for WA. In response, he talked about a recently announced initiative to manufacture components for iron ore rail cars in WA.
Some observers found that answer underwhelming, but in the wake of the election result, I think it’s worth another, closer look.
Vision is an undefined quality in politics. To some, vision means soaring Obama-style oratory. To others, vision means big, sometimes unexpected, announcements.
In WA, the developments you hear most commonly talked about as visionary are the Fremantle Harbour, the Goldfields pipeline and the North West Shelf development. A small, but increasing, number of people also talk of the Barnett government’s stadium development in this way.
What these projects have in common, in addition to being expensive and contentious in their day, is that they went on to underpin significant, long-term economic opportunities for the state.
Which brings me back to the Premier’s comments on rail component manufacturing for the resources sector.
On its own, this might appear narrow to some. But, when considered alongside Rita Saffioti’s achievement in securing the local manufacturing of METRONET rail cars in WA, and the enormous size of the iron ore rail car fleet that needs servicing (32,000 rail cars annually), we may be on the cusp of a whole new industry for WA.
Every focus group I’ve had a hand in over the past 15 years has had respondents screaming about the need for more manufacturing in WA, with those old enough lamenting the closure of the Midland rail yards in the 90s.
The current government’s achievements and commitments on rail manufacturing, its progress in developing new advanced manufacturing hubs in Kwinana and the South West, as well as the announcement of big incentives for manufacturers during the election campaign, point to a very solid direction. Add recent commitments to manufacture 1,000 standalone power systems for remote communities and cash incentives to meet the expected boom in local wind turbine demand locally, and the direction is clear.
McGowan Labor has a vision. A manufacturing vision.
Of course, some will say we can’t manufacture things in WA… our wages are too high. However, many believe the time is right. Modern manufacturing technology, a narrowing of the international gap in wage levels, plus the increased value being placed on sovereign capability post-COVID are levelling the playing field.
For years, WA has been manufacturing high quality, cost-competitive marine vessels for a global market. If we can do this, many within industry, government and the union movement believe we can do more.
Which is how we arrived at the announcement on local iron ore rail car component manufacturing.
In the last week of the election campaign, CGM commissioned our own poll of Perth voters to get a sense of what was driving voter behaviour.
A key finding was that more than three quarters of voters thought Mark McGowan and Labor had the best vision for WA’s future, compared to only 12 per cent for the Liberals.
The Premier’s previous performance on COVID clearly played its part in Labor’s extraordinary electoral success.
But the punters clearly liked the version of the future Mr McGowan was selling, also.
There’s no doubt in my mind Labor’s direction on manufacturing is central to this appeal. And, if the Premier, aided by Ms Saffioti and his Deputy Roger Cook, in his new capacity as Minister for Jobs, can deliver on their manufacturing commitments, they will be rewarded with long-term political support from the working people in WA’s suburbs and regions.
For all the projects we now consider visionary in WA, there were many sceptics in their inception, with it taking some time for consensus to settle.
I think Labor is on to something good here. So, let’s make a diary note to revisit the vision conversation down the track.
By Daniel Smith
Much of the discussion about the formation of the second McGowan Cabinet has understandably focused on the Premier and his taking of the Treasury portfolio. But there is a lot more to read into the Premier’s announcement yesterday.
Here are my key takeaways, including pointers to the future:
- Those predicting the Premier will give up Treasury in the short to medium term, might want to reserve their judgment. The Premier is known to have been highly involved in the budget process during Labor’s first term, and at least as passionate as then-treasurer Ben Wyatt about financial discipline. Having shifted a large portion of his previous workload to Deputy Premier Roger Cook, in the form of State Development, Jobs and Trade, as well as enlisting the support of Tony Buti as Finance Minister, the Premier has created a structure that might work for the long term. Given the value he has placed on stability to date, relinquishing Treasury mid-term and claiming some other portfolios would seem out of character.
- While the Premier has talked about the looming threat from other States to his GST deal with the Commonwealth as a key driver for his taking of the Treasury portfolio, it is possible the biggest challenge he will face in his first year as Treasurer is the effort by public sector unions to end the $1,000 per year wage rise cap. With a number of enterprise bargaining agreements up for negotiation over the next 12 months, unions will argue that public sector workers have done the heavy lifting in getting the state budget back on track and, with the state economy heating up, more competitive wages will be essential if the public sector is to retain and attract quality staff. Unions may find unlikely allies in industry, given the challenges many businesses had getting approvals and decisions out of government during the last boom, when public sector workers flocked to the private sector in pursuit of better wages. New Industrial Relations Minister Stephen Dawson will lead the government’s negotiations.
- Irrespective of what happens with the Treasury portfolio, if Australia continues to win the fight against COVID, Mr Cook is likely to hand Health to someone else in 12 months or so, after 13 years in the portfolio. Education Minister Sue Ellery has been talked about for some time as a suitable replacement, however Mr Dawson may have come into the frame now that he has picked up Mental Health with his new responsibilities. Either way, the Premier will be looking for a safe and experienced set of hands, given the size and importance of Health, leaving Mr Cook to focus on the new and important portfolios he received yesterday.
- As Minister for State Development, Jobs, Trade and Science, Mr Cook has become Mr Manufacturing and will help fulfill the Premier’s vision to diversify the State economy. During the election campaign, Labor announced initiatives to progress new advanced manufacturing hubs in Kwinana and the South West, and now has hundreds of millions in incentives and initiatives on the table to attract investment in local manufacturing. The announcement of an agreement to manufacture components for the maintenance of WA’s 30,000 iron ore rail cars in WA, when considered alongside Rita Saffioti’s achievement in manufacturing the new fleet of Metronet rail cars locally, points to the potential establishment of a major new strategic industry for WA.
- Ms Saffioti and Mr Cook will jointly have responsibility for delivering Labor’s Westport outer harbour vision, with Ms Saffioti leading the effort after adding Ports to her existing Transport and Planning portfolios, and Mr Cook having responsibility for promoting the landside benefits for industry in his electorate of Kwinana. With Labor now having the numbers in both houses, Westport will happen, the Beeliar Wetlands will become an A-Class Nature Reserve, and it will be almost impossible for any future government to build the previously proposed Roe 8 and Roe 9 extensions.
- John Quigley’s appointment as Minister for Electoral Affairs suggests change is coming. With Labor already proposing sweeping changes to political donation disclosures and having a long-term commitment to the principle of one-vote-one-value, the rules under which future elections are fought may be significantly different. Attention will focus on the Legislative Council, where a malapportionment currently exists strongly favouring regional voters. Striking a balance that ensures regional voices are not lost, given WA’s size and the concentration of our population in the Perth metro area, will be a significant challenge. I expect it’s a challenge Mr Quigley will lean into. Whatever the outcome, let’s hope this year’s election was the last election that micro-parties can game the system.
- Thinking forward, the possibility of a major reshuffle and injection of fresh blood into the Cabinet prior to the next election is real. Neither political party has won a third four-year term in Western Australia, and despite the obvious electoral advantage it enjoys following this year’s state election, Labor will not want to appear tired heading into 2025. The left’s Alanna Clohesy was considered unlucky to miss out on a Cabinet spot this time, and David Michael appears to have been anointed as the next cab off the rank from the right, with his elevation to Cabinet Secretary. However, there are now 10 additional names to keep an eye on, following the Premier’s appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries. These are Samantha Rowe, Darren West, Terry Healy, Simon Millman, Jessica Shaw, Jessica Stojkovski, Kyle McGinn, Sabine Winton, Yaz Mubarakai and Matthew Swinbourne. With only four of the existing 17 Cabinet positions currently filled by women, expect the Premier to use future promotions to work towards a gender balance that reflects the 50 per cent female Parliamentary representation achieved by Labor at this year’s election.
There is much more I could write about the personalities and policies that will confront the challenges and opportunities of the next four years, but these are the key takeouts as I see them, today.
As always, CGM is here to assist our clients understand key government drivers and identify opportunities for collaboration in the public interest.
On the sporting field, depth is the key to sustained success.
As AFL seasons wear on, the teams that can cover injuries with quality players often rise to the top. It’s no different in cricket, as we saw with the Indian team in the recently completed test series against Australia.
Second term governments often lose their way, with a key contributing factor being the people they bring in to replace retiring members not having the skills or, perhaps more importantly, the experience to deliver to the same standard.
Which is what make the six new faces being talked about as new members of the second term McGowan Cabinet so noteworthy. Those of us who have had experience engaging with them feel each would be ready to hit the ground running, if they get the opportunity.
For background, the Premier has to find three new Ministers to replace the retiring Ben Wyatt, Fran Logan and Mick Murray. If, as expected, the retiring speaker Peter Watson is replaced from within the ranks of the first term Ministry, the Premier has to find a fourth new Minister. With Morley MLA Amber-Jade Sanderson considered a certainty to receive a Ministry, her current position of Cabinet Secretary will also need to be filled.
So, there are five positions up for grabs, and six names talked about. This includes Ms Sanderson, as well as Don Punch , Reece Whitby, John Carey, Alanna Clohesy and Tony Buti.
We’ve put together this document to introduce you to WA Labor’s next generation. We haven’t attempted to predict which portfolios they may receive, but we’re expecting to see a significant reshuffle of portfolios, given the number of positions set to open up at the senior end.
As always, CGM is here to assist our clients understand the policies and personalities that will drive government during the new term, as well as identifying opportunities for collaboration in the public interest.
We hope you find this document useful.
By Mark Ravi
Although the loss of any lives to COVID-19 is tragic, Australia as a whole has fared much better than many countries around the world in managing this virus without an effective means of treatment or medical prevention to date.
Now, as the world approaches a year since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, a saviour seems to have appeared in the form of a collection of vaccines that are proving effective in the reduction of infection, hospitalisations, severe illness and death.
Results from studies covering the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccines by Public Health England and Public Health Scotland, in particular, were sufficiently encouraging for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to feel confident enough to declare that the rollout of vaccines had “dramatically changed the odds in our favour”.
These two vaccines have been approved for use in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, but even the most effective vaccine is useless if people aren’t willing to receive them.
Anti-vaccination protests in capital cities across the country late last month suggest that the next battle in the war against COVID-19 will be on the communications front.
While the vocal minority that attended the rallies will prove the most difficult to convince, getting the larger number of people who are supportive of vaccines generally, but are still lacking enough knowledge about these specific ones, on board will be the most important task.
To do so, the Federal Government – which is responsible for the rollout – will need to achieve two things with its communications: to make sure information is clear and accessible, and to be proactive in fighting misinformation.
The rollout only began last week, but I’ve personally seen early signs that there is work to be done to execute both of these.
With respect to the former, take the example of my sister, who recently gave birth to her first child. We were at lunch and I overheard her discussing the vaccine with our mother. While both are generally pro-vaccine, neither had heard anything conclusive about whether the COVID-19 options were safe for breastfeeding mothers to have, and as a result were leaning towards avoiding it.
The next day I heard Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt declare that the vaccine was safe for breastfeeding mothers on the radio. As this was new information, I wanted to check the facts for myself before passing it along to my sister, so I visited the Federal Government’s COVID-19 vaccine website in search of more information.
I had six options: information for COVID-19 vaccine providers, COVID-19 vaccine priority groups, COVID-19 vaccine distribution, aged care providers, people with disability; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
As a member of the general public with questions, none of these labels applied to me, so I picked one at random and started digging around. It took me more than 10 minutes and two websites to find the factsheet I was looking for that explained the science behind that declaration.
If it was my sister, or anyone short on time or determination, they would have likely given up much sooner and left without having their valid question answered.
This is an area that can easily by improved by looking to another government-funded organisation as a guide: the ABC’s frequently updated, easily navigated guide to the vaccine rollout.
This resource works for several reasons: it’s targeted at the general population in addition to specific demographics; it communicates in layman’s terms, while still providing links to more detailed information within the text; and it links to government factsheets and other reliable sources of information.
Of course, accessible information is important, but the Federal Government must also be proactive in identifying and combating misinformation by communicating the science in a clear, easy to understand way.
One of the most common complaints about the COVID-19 vaccines is that people feel they have been “rushed” or “not tested enough” and this is compounded by a lack of urgency among Australians. Outside of Victoria, we haven’t had mass deaths on any significant scale and many people feel safe enough behind closed borders to wait until the vaccine is more established.
Of course, the idea that the vaccine was “rushed” or “untested” is false. A recent episode of the Economist Radio podcast detailed how Professor Sarah Gilbert, the co-creator of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine, spent 10 years developing vaccine platforms which allow new vaccines to re-use components of previous vaccines. Professor Gilbert’s years of work have allowed the quick development of a vaccine for COVID-19 once the genetic sequence of the coronavirus was published, it only took a few weeks to use it to create the vaccine.
As far as why the approvals were achieved so quickly, there’s a fairly simple explanation. Instead of waiting until all stages of clinical trials were completed to provide data to regulatory bodies, the developers of vaccines were sharing data with regulators as it came in. This meant that when the final trials were completed, much of the approvals process had already been carried out.
If more people knew and understood this information, the feeling that the vaccines were rushed would be reduced.
This is just one example of misinformation, and one solution, but there are other falsehoods in circulation and the Federal Government must be proactive in combating it.
Ultimately, Australia might be a victim of its own success in containing the virus. More than 200 million vaccines have been deployed across the world, but few countries have been as effective as Australia in using border control to contain the virus. The lack of community spread of COVID-19 means that some people view the vaccine as a luxury, not a necessity.
For Australia to open up to the world again, widespread vaccinations are critical, and effective communications will be a cornerstone of this effort.
By Victoria Green
Thirteen years ago, reconciliation in Australia took a huge leap forward with ‘the Apology’. In 2016, Reconciliation Australia published its first ‘State of the Nation’ report, which introduced the five dimensions of reconciliation: race relations, equality and equity, institutional integrity, historical acceptance and unity.
This year’s report shows that progress has been steady, support has grown, and more Australians understand the issues faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders than in the past. The report highlights that the community is well ahead of the government on critical issues such as constitutional reform and realising equality and equity for First Peoples. The data is showing that actions around truth-telling, systemic racism, and inequality need to be addressed by organisations that are willing to tackle the harder issues. It concludes that Australia is at a tipping point and that now is the time to move from ‘safe’ to ‘brave’.
The question that I asked myself when I read this call to action was what does bravery look like? In the report’s foreword, Shelley Res AO states: “Bravery in the face of racism will be our change agent.” It goes beyond raising awareness and increasing knowledge, and it could start with something very personal like challenging those around you and having uncomfortable conversations, even at the risk of social isolation.
As a communications agency that works with a number of Aboriginal organisations in Western Australia, CGM is acutely aware of the importance of reconciliation and the responsibility we all have to help create a better future.
For me personally, ‘safe’ feels like discussing issues with like-minded people, signing up for conferences to find out more, using respectful and inclusive language and ensuring that I learn as much as I can about reconciliation issues. Now these are not necessarily bad, but are they brave? ‘Brave’ for me would be very personal, it would be challenging myself, friends, family, acquaintances or strangers on biases, beliefs or values and having more uncomfortable conversations.
Reconciliation Action Plans (RAP) are a tool for all organisations to use, no matter where they are on the reconciliation journey, as it provides a structured approach to identifying ‘brave’ actions and becoming accountable. As CGM embarks on the evolution of our Reconciliation Action Plan this year, we’re challenging ourselves to be braver.
There are four types of RAPs that you can develop based on where your organisation is on the reconciliation journey - Reflect, Innovate, Stretch, Elevate. Visit Reconciliation Australia for all the tools and templates you’ll need.
Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, more of the WA public is getting an insight into what happens during a live press conference.
It’s unusual for most West Australians to see a press conference in its entirety. Essentially, the public is now seeing how the sausage is made, and it’s been made this way for decades.
This new insight, however, has managed to upset the many couch critics who, during WA’s second lockdown, went after journalists, vilifying them for their ‘stupid’ questions.
I tend to disagree and would suggest these ‘stupid’ questions are more an ingredient in the sausage making.
To give you perspective, when the Premier announced conditions around the end of our lockdown at 8:40pm one night, most of the political journalists asking the questions also attended the media conference early that morning.
They were into their 16th hour of work and had already put together and filed stories, been to a number of press conferences and interviews, and likely did a live cross or five.
Most of the time when they are called to a press conference, they don’t get much notice and a lot of the time they don’t know what is going to be announced, so they are required to think on their feet.
And it needs to be said, they are not there primarily to facilitate a live press conference for the public’s viewing; they have a whole plethora of tasks to undertake during this conference and immediately after.
Each journalist has different needs. They ask questions for different reasons from each other and from the public, and yes it can seem odd. But hear me out; the television reporter is working on compiling a one-minute TV package and is interviewing in a way to get specific sound bites. Sometimes they ask a question twice because the Premier didn’t give a concise enough answer.
It’s very similar to when the public berate reporters for asking someone how they feel after a traumatic event. “How do you think he feels, you idiot?”, they say. But the journalist isn’t always looking for a factual answer, rather an emotional one for camera to illustrate to the audience the impact this situation has had. Is this uncomfortable? Possibly, but not stupid.
Then there are the journalists who need to go live immediately after the conference and are writing their live cross as the Premier is speaking. Newspaper reporters have more time and are looking for a fresh angle for tomorrow’s paper while also trying to file for their online edition before their competitor.
They are under immense pressure to relay information fast, which means as they are listening to the Premier, they are also live tweeting, answering questions and emails from their chief of staff and are being fed more questions from their producers back in the office. Sometimes they simply didn’t hear what the Premier said and have to clarify. Again, maybe irritating, but not stupid.
They don’t have a lot of time to ask questions, so not only are they trying to clarify something with an authoritative figure, they are also trying to compete with the dozen other journalists talking over the top of them.
But most importantly and particularly in a pandemic, journalists are simply trying to clarify the facts. We all know there were some grey areas when it came to where we should and shouldn’t wear our mask. Journalists were attempting to clarify every scenario they could think of in that moment.
The public became frustrated; told them to stop asking the ‘stupid’ questions and even joked about it with memes and viral videos.
I’ll admit they were funny, but we weren’t laughing a few days later when we all couldn’t figure out if we had to wear a mask in the car, doing yoga outside, or while walking the dog at a brisk pace. “Is this vigorous?” we thought. If only a journalist had more time to ask.
My point is, even after the journalists asked so many ‘stupid’ questions, there were so many still unanswered.
Following this press conference, veteran journalist Geof Parry copped the brunt of the public’s disgust as they called for him to retire. In good humour, Geof laughed off his critics, reading his ‘mean tweets’ live on radio.
I won’t deny that occasionally a stupid journalist asks a stupid question.
This is not Geof. Geof is a political reporter with more than 30 years’ experience, who has held our pollies to account over and over again, and who has uncovered countless wrongdoings in the public sector for decades. I think it’s fair to say; he’s got this.
Sometimes he needs to speak over the Premier when he isn’t satisfied with an answer. He’s there to keep the government accountable and our democracy healthy.
So next lockdown (let’s hope there isn’t one) when the live press conferences kick off – let’s give the journalists a break.
They aren’t always experts, but they certainly aren’t stupid.
The Federal Government is set for a collision course with tech giants like Facebook and Google over the future of access to news content online. Australia is leading the way as one of the first democratic governments in the world to move to regulate these powerful companies and force them to negotiate payment for content produced by domestic media outlets. Knowing the history and politics surrounding this issue is critical to understanding why such a bold move was made.
Over the past decade, digital platforms have fundamentally changed the way Australians access and consume media.
Gone are the days of waiting for the morning news for breaking stories or reading gossip magazines for the latest celebrity dirt. We now have all the information we need at the touch of an app and most people now get their news information online, specifically from social media.
According to research completed by Roy Morgan, the internet has well and truly overtaken TV as Australia’s main source of news, with 61 per cent using it as a primary source of news in 2020. Within this, 38 per cent specifically nominated social media platforms, and 17 per cent used news feed sites such as Google News and Apple News.
However, social platforms have control over what news and information we see. Our social media friends have become the “managing editors” deciding what we see. An article needs to be liked and shared multiple times before many people see it in their feed.
It’s not surprising then that the stories in our feeds are usually free to access, meaning the media outlets that produce it remain unremunerated while social and digital platforms profit from advertising as users skate through each piece of content.
A mandatory code
Australia’s independent competition and consumer regulator, the ACCC, identified these issues and conducted an 18-month-long Digital Platforms Inquiry. Following this, the Australian Government asked the ACCC to develop a mandatory code of conduct to ensure tech giants like Google and Facebook negotiate access to content with its owners.
After extensive public consultation, the Australian Government introduced the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code legislation to Parliament in December 2020. The code, which is designed to address the bargaining power imbalance between news media businesses and digital platforms, is supported by both the Labor opposition and the Greens.
The code uses the threat of mandatory arbitration to force the digital platforms to broker commercial deals with Australian media companies for the value they obtain from having news content in newsfeeds and search results. If they refuse, they face fines of up to 10 per cent of annual revenues.
Facebook and Google respond
Google and Facebook have indicated publicly that they are willing to comply with a code of conduct and are willing to pay for news content but argue the code in its current form is unworkable and exposes them to an unknowable financial risk.
At a Senate inquiry set up to scrutinise the proposed laws, Google Australia managing director Mel Silva said the code would “break” the company’s business model by forcing it to pay news outlets for featuring links and snippets of their content in search results.
Over the past few weeks, Google and Facebook have used their significant resources in an attempt to undermine the proposed code. This included advertising campaigns, political lobbying and even threats to pull services from Australia. Facebook and Google have recruited no less than five lobbying firms, according to the Australian Government Register of Lobbyists. Facebook’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has personally appealed to the Treasurer and Communications Minister, while the global head of Google, Sundar Pichai, has had “constructive” conversations with our Prime Minister.
Despite the high-level engagement, it's hard to imagine Google following through with their threats to withdraw their search engine – a service they make billions of dollars on every year. Facebook too have suggested they’ll pull all news from their feeds, despite news and opinion shared and debated on their platforms more than ever before.
The overseas experience
What Google and Facebook are perhaps most concerned about is a precedent in paying for content that would encourage other countries to do the same.
In 2020, French readers saw news snippet and extract results from European publishers pulled from search engines in response to a copyright law that was passed. In October, Google announced that they were investing $1 billion over three years to pay publishers for content showcased on Google News Showcase. The agreement with France allows Google to negotiate individual licences whereby payment will be based on specific and measurable metrics.
Interestingly, Google launched the same product in Australia only this month – a move that signals a major softening of its position. The initial deals cover 25 mastheads, including the Canberra Times, the Illawarra Mercury, the Saturday Paper and Crikey. No deals were made with Australia’s major news outlets including Seven West, Nine, News Corp and the ABC.
Showcase puts publishers’ content in panels providing more information and content from news websites than is found in search results or snippets in Google News. This includes Google paying on behalf of the reader for any content published behind paywalls, allowing users access to content they wouldn’t be able to see unless they made a payment.
However, Google News Showcase doesn’t address the issue of users downloading content using a search engine. This is the major sticking point, with Google arguing organic search should remain a free commodity.
The Senate Economics Legislation Committee are expected to complete their inquiry and report back to Parliament this week. And with the Australian Government, and every major party, supportive of the Code, it is expected the legislation will continue through parliament in the coming months.
Despite the power of these digital behemoths, it is difficult to argue against policy that ensures news media businesses are fairly remunerated for the content they generate and helps to sustain public interest journalism in Australia.
The rest of the world will be watching.
Accessing and sharing accurate content has never been more important in Western Australia as we navigate our second lockdown, an upcoming vaccine rollout and the state election in March. However, the ability to spread rumours on social media as quickly as facts means we all need to be careful about what we read and share online.
Digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter have increasingly become the primary tool for government to get its message out to the public without relying on traditional media channels. As we saw this week, this can be extremely effective in times of crisis when important information must be communicated quickly to an entire state.
Regardless of where you were on Sunday, whether you were out and about or in front of a television you would have known almost immediately through social media that most of WA’s population was about to go into lockdown following the first case of community spread of COVID-19 in almost 10 months. Through social media we were able to find out if we had visited the same places as the infected hotel quarantine guard and exactly where we could be tested if there had been any chance of contact.
The flipside is that this week, social media also allowed frightening and baseless rumours to run rife through the community. There were stories that although no new cases had been recorded by the time Premier Mark McGowan gave his press conference on Monday, up to 21 new cases were about to be declared.
Those with the correct information were quick to act on the rumours. Mr McGowan took to social media on Monday night to dispel them and remind people to only share news and information from official or trusted sources. The West Australian’s editor, Anthony De Ceglie, used a front-page editorial to help set the record straight and to remind people that if they did not read it in a proper news publication, then the information was probably inaccurate.
Unfortunately, this week’s rumours about new coronavirus cases are not isolated examples of inaccurate information being shared on social media in Western Australia. Spend long enough online and you will find countless examples of misinformation, whether deliberate or unintentional, about the coronavirus and more. It can be easy to be sucked in by some of this misinformation, particularly when you see that it’s been shared by a contact of yours. When you share it, you’re contributing to its spread, whether you mean to or not.
The best way to avoid spreading the problem is to watch the daily briefings by the Premier, Health Minister, and Chief Health Officer, which are hosted on various platforms. If there is anything you missed or you need more information visit official government websites such as www.healthywa.wa.gov.au. Additionally, get your news from reputable organisations like The West Australian, WAToday, the ABC, and the major television and radio stations. Unlike social media platforms, traditional media organisations such as these are subject to regulations and codes of conduct, which makes them a more reliable source. Many of them may now be behind a paywall, but don’t let that put you off. A subscription is a small price to pay to be confident that your information is correct before you hit the share button.
The introduction of social media fundamentally changed the way brands, community groups and businesses interacted with their audiences.
Social media has quickly evolved from a person-to-person communication tool into an online advertising powerhouse. This evolution has allowed organisations to communicate directly with thousands of customers on a personal level, which had never been possible before. The flood of behind-the-scenes content and the rise of video advertising is a testament to that.
However, therein lies the rub. By taking advantage of the freedoms that social media offers, an organisation can fall into the trap of communicating in a way it would never consider appropriate on any other channel, and one that may be inconsistent with its wider brand messaging.
This departure from brand messaging is rarely sudden, but rather a slow deviation that creates a confusing message and an eventual dilution of the brand.
Here are some of the most commonly seen missteps, which could lead to an organisation’s social media presence uncoupling from its brand.
- No clear brand messaging across the board.
This is one of the most commonly seen issues on social media, often in small businesses, where the disconnect in messaging comes from a poorly defined brand.
Without a clearly defined and integrated communications plan, there can be no way that a brand’s digital presence can be expected to remain consistent with messaging used across more traditional communication channels such as websites or press releases.
Communications plans need not be long and complicated documents, however they should contain certain key pieces of information to ensure that communication is clear and consistent. This information includes organisational goals and objectives, key messages, target audiences, and the brand’s position in the marketplace. As part of a communications plan, there should be a content calendar providing details on the type of content to be published on each channel, on what date, and to which audience.
- The ‘just throw it up on Facebook’ excuse.
Another commonly seen issue is when an organisation takes a piece of content that does not fit on any of their other communication channels, yet publishes it on social platforms, without asking the question as to whether it is providing value to their social media audience.
Not formal enough for the website? Throw it up on Facebook. Not quite long enough for a press release? Pop it on LinkedIn. It is seen time and time again and it is a guaranteed way to dilute a brand.
This issue further highlights the need for a communications plan. Spend some time to understand who your audience is and why you are communicating with them before pressing that post button.
- Set and forget mindset
A set and forget mindset is something that can damage a brand’s message in an instant.
A social media post, with the right image, message, and tone can be completely undone by posting it and then not monitoring it for performance and, most importantly, comments.
If nobody reviews previous posts for comments and overall sentiment, a few negative comments can suddenly derail the message. Add to that negative, or off-brand, Facebook shares and suddenly the best-intended post can land itself far off target.
Beyond that, in 2019 an Australian judge ruled that publishers are legally responsible for moderating comments on Facebook and can even be found responsible for defamatory comments that are allowed to stay visible.
Furthermore, if social media posts are not reviewed for performance such as shares, comments, and engagement it can make it difficult to identify that perhaps a post’s poor performance is due to a diluted or confusing brand message.
Avoiding these common mistakes
While issues with social media messaging can be varied and wide-ranging, there are some simple ways in which a brand can tighten their messaging to ensure there is continuity across communication channels.
- Always have an integrated communications plan that identifies the communication objectives and provides examples of messaging to be used on different channels.
- Be prepared to say no to posting on social media. If the post doesn’t have a message that matches the brand, or if there isn’t a clear purpose for posting, the question needs to be asked as to whether it is needed.
- Monitor social media posts. While it can be time consuming, it is paramount that brands keep an eye on how their audiences are reacting to their posts before comments get out of hand.
By Rebecca Boteler
As Perth radio listeners have started heading back to work and tuning in to their regular stations again, chances are they’re listening to their favourite radio personality in a different timeslot. At the end of last year, both major AM stations, ABC and 6PR, announced significant reshuffles of their line-ups. For those too busy with their Christmas shopping to pay attention, here’s a recap.
In the world of the ABC, which, being a public broadcaster, officially pays little heed to ratings, but unofficially keeps a keen eye on them, the 2019 experiment to make radical changes to their format by merging parts of the breakfast and morning programs and introducing the hour-long Focus program wasn’t a success, and the sliding ratings is most likely the impetus to quietly go back to the tried and tested regime of breakfast, mornings, afternoon and drive programs.
In radioland, the breakfast program is considered key in securing audiences for the rest of the morning’s programming. So with the declining ratings of the ABC’s Nadia Mitsopoulos/Russell Woolf program, things had to change. Interestingly, while the duo’s ratings floundered for most of the year, they staged a comeback in the final ratings survey of 2020, moving into second spot behind Nova 93.7 in the breakfast slot. However, the announcement the pair would be split up had already been made. Woolf is now flying solo in the breakfast slot, which suits his laid-back style, while Mitsopoulos takes on the harder news style of the morning program, which makes sense given her background as a political journalist.
The retirement of the ABC’s Gillian O’Shaughnessy from the afternoon program created an opportunity for new talent, with former weekend breakfast host Christine Layton taking over. Just about the only presenter not to join in the game of musical chairs was Geoff Hutchison, who slid into the Drive timeslot in the previous reshuffle after many years of presenting mornings. Despite some poor results during the year, his ratings increased in the final survey of 2020 to 6.7% of the market share, still almost a point behind his 6PR counterpart Oliver Peterson.
Speaking of 6PR, the elevation of breakfast host Basil Zempilas to Lord Mayor was one of the factors behind a shuffling of the decks at the commercial station. Basil moving over to 92.9 Triple M Breakfast (a revamped 92.9 going after 96fm’s radio share) solved two problems; 1. The accusations of a conflict of interest being Lord Mayor and on talk radio, and 2. Being a Channel 7 personality on a radio station owned by rival station Channel 9.
Basil’s departure left co-host Steve Mills without a partner. The most obvious choice would’ve been to leave Millsy to go it alone in the breakfast slot, but with the return to Perth of big gun Liam Bartlett, the whole line-up got a revamp. Mornings host Gareth Parker has made way for Bartlett, moving to Breakfast (not his natural habitat), while Millsy slides into the Afternoons chair, nudging current host Simon Beaumont into weekends. Once again, the Drive slot is the only one not to be drawn into the shuffle, with Oliver Peterson continuing in his role with consistent ratings.
The FM radio world wasn’t immune to the changes, either, with the retirement of 30-year veteran Dean Clairs making way for new talent in the breakfast slot at Mix 94.5, while at 92.9 Triple M, Basil is being joined in breakfast by the West’s assistant editor Jenna Clarke and Xavier Ellis. Clarke’s new position also means she won’t continue as host of the West Live podcast, which has been taken over by former Inside Cover columnist Ben O’Shea.
With all the presenters settling in behind their microphones, the only unknowns now are -what will the listeners think, and who will be the winners and losers in the first ratings survey of the year, due out on March 11.
If you live in WA and consume news, there’s a good chance you’ve engaged in a conversation about why former West Coast Eagle Ben Cousins’ indiscretions continue to make headlines.
The discussions tend to go like this; “The media should leave the poor bloke alone.” “This is not newsworthy.” “Why is Ben Cousins on the front page again?”
Sound familiar? I don’t disagree with the above statements, but what I do object to, is the suggestion it is the media driving this content.
It’s pretty simple, the more we engage with Ben Cousins-type content, the more the media will deliver it.
Who can honestly say they haven’t watched, clicked on or read a story about Ben Cousins, even though they didn’t agree it was newsworthy?
If you said no, you are either kidding yourself or you are in the minority. The media is being driven by the data. The data shows, Ben Cousins stories rate high.
Every time you watch, read or comment on a story online, or buy a paper with Mr Cousins on the front page, data is being collected.
Every little engagement, be it negative or positive, will only encourage more coverage.
So, what power do you have if you don’t agree with what the media is focusing its resources on? Perhaps consider the best complaint is silence.
By silence, I mean try adopting a conscious consumption mindset.
The saying ‘vote with your wallet’ is when consumers choose brands that align with their values, to support good behaviour and ethics.
I’ve begun embracing this idea in my news consumption by intentionally choosing what I engage in, to hopefully influence what is produced. Unfortunately, just like with consumer brands there needs to be a serious shift in public behaviour for it to make a difference.
The same can be said for clickbait articles. There is no denying media is influenced by ‘click’ targets.
They’re a bit like KPIs in the workplace, where employees focus their efforts to ensure success. This is what can happen with journalists and clickbait, which could ultimately be detrimental to the quality of news produced.
If journalists are motivated by these targets, they could put more emphasis on the trivial stories over those with more depth, resulting in more resources going to ‘the cat up a tree story’ over an investigative piece about the corruption at the local council.
Unfortunately, the more we click, the more demand created, which is forcing reputable organisations such as the ABC to follow suit.
There is in fact a science behind clickbait, the headlines play on our emotions like anger, fear, and excitement, and even though we know we are being manipulated it’s sometimes irresistible. Digital algorithms don’t help the situation either by catering the clickbait specifically to you.
Occasionally we all need a little clickbait escape, but going back to my original point, if you make this a habit, just like with the ‘Ben Cousins effect’, you’ll get the media you deserve.
My advice; start consciously clicking on what you want to see more of and stop clicking on the news you don’t.
My favourite ways to consume news:
- The Australian digital version
- The West Australian digital version
- ABC 720 Perth: AM at 8am
- The Guardian
- World news: Aljazeera.com
- Perth ABC TV at 7:00pm
- Scroll through all local TV Perth news bulletins online via catchup services
Member for Dawesville Zak Kirkup will lead the WA Liberals to the next election in March 2021 after being elected party leader unopposed on Tuesday.
The 33-year-old is the youngest person to hold the position within the party, taking the title from Matt Birney, who was 35 when he became leader in 2001. He is the second-youngest Opposition leader in WA’s history, after Labor’s Thomas Bath, who took on the job in 1906 at the age of 31.
Mr Kirkup’s political aspirations have been clear since he was 17, when he handed then-prime minister John Howard a business card with the words ‘Zak R.F. Kirkup, Young Liberal, Future Prime Minister’ printed on it during a 2004 appearance at Midland Town Hall while Mr Kirkup was a student at Governor Stirling Senior High School.
During his maiden speech, Mr Kirkup said his interest in politics stemmed from early childhood when his mother, who was a member of Greenpeace, would sit at the kitchen table and talk about protesting nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean, while his father would quiz him about prime ministers, premiers and treasurers.
Coming from a working-class background, Mr Kirkup became the first of his family to attend university. However, as he said in his maiden speech, it wasn’t for him, so he left to pursue a career in politics, volunteering in several positions before taking a position with the late senator Judith Adams.
He began working for the WA Liberal Party in 2006 and rose through the ranks to become the youngest ever Deputy State Director before serving as an advisor to Premier Colin Barnett.
Taking a break from politics in 2013 to work at BGC, Mr Kirkup was elected to the seat of Dawesville in the 2017 election, replacing retiring MP Kim Hames. Following his election, he used his maiden speech to highlight the need for Western Australia to diversify its economy beyond the agricultural and resources sectors, and for government to accommodate emerging industries.
Mr Kirkup used the same speech to reflect on the historical treatment of Indigenous West Australians, stating that it was “worth noting that we are standing in the very place that voted in favour of a series of oppressive and draconian pieces of legislation that sought to restrict and oppress the rights of all Aboriginal people” including members of his family. In 1904, his ancestor Thomas Kirkup was forbidden by the Geraldton magistrate to marry his fiancée because he did not have the consent of the Chief Protector of Aborigines. Mr Kirkup’s grandfather Brian, an Aboriginal man born in WA’s Midwest in 1941, was unable to own property or a business for much of his life. Mr Kirkup said the recognition of his family’s history would continue to remind him that the position of a Member of Parliament was to “forever to guard against the infringement of personal rights and freedoms”.
Within a year of being elected he had become the shadow minister for corrective services and in 2019 he was assigned shadow portfolios in health, mental health and Aboriginal affairs.
Upon Mr Kirkup’s first front bench appointment, then-opposition leader Mike Nahan described him as “energetic and hard-working”. Other colleagues have described Mr Kirkup’s time as an MP as “impressive” and talk about his future leadership potential began as early as last year when Mr Nahan announced his resignation as party leader.
In his first statements to reporters after being elected Opposition leader, Mr Kirkup said the WA Liberals would support the McGowan Government’s COVID-19 health measures and that the party would be guided by advice from the Chief Health Officer. Moving beyond the pandemic, Mr Kirkup said his other focuses would be keeping West Australians “safe in their jobs” as he promised a “smarter and safer today, and brighter and better tomorrow”.
Mr Kirkup’s election as Opposition leader came after Liza Harvey announced she would step down to give the party an opportunity to “reset” its election strategy.
This is the year where the phrase ‘change is the only constant’ took on a whole new meaning. Every aspect of our lives has been impacted in some way by COVID-19, and as we embark on our ‘new normal’ here in Western Australia with the introduction of the controlled border, let’s take stock of what this means for community engagement.
Traditionally, community engagement has been very much a physical endeavour. Best practice dictated that community groups, reference groups and committees were brought together around issues to debate, guide and provide feedback.
Honestly, is there anything better than real grassroots community engagement where passionate members of the community come together, the private sector listens, and together a real difference is made in the community? More often than not, this is achieved by sitting in a circle in a community hall, using an abundance of post-it notes and drinking lots of coffee.
At the height of the pandemic, we had to innovate and use methods that avoided social interaction. Far from being a diluted version of best practice, this move to digital platforms opened up a whole world of accessibility, and dare I say it, accountability.
Yes, a Zoom or Teams reference group might not be quite as engaging as a face-to-face meeting. Still, it has enabled people from anywhere, and with commitments that would previously have prevented them from participating to take part and have a say – which at the end of the day is what it’s all about. Community members were also provided with access to council meetings and other deliberations that yes, they could have physically attended before, but how many people have the time?
Last week marked seven months with no community transmission in WA, and this weekend our hard border turned into a controlled border with health screening and COVID testing, as well as no quarantine measures in place for interstate travellers from TAS, QLD, SA, ACT and NT. Although, as quickly as the controlled border went live, an outbreak in South Australia meant that quarantine measures were reintroduced, emphasising the uncertainty that our new normal brings.
Everyone will have their view on the controlled border, but as community practitioners, the most important thing we can do is understand the mood of the public and ensure that whatever method we choose to use to engage, we make them feel comfortable so they continue to provide their invaluable feedback. Let’s remember that the ‘community’ is also not a homogenous group. Vulnerable groups such as the elderly may be particularly concerned, and digital methods may not be their preference so putting ourselves in the shoes of the community will continue to be important.
Some things to consider:
- Revisit your COVID-Safe plans in light of the new environment;
- Things may change rapidly, be prepared to adapt and evolve quickly;
- Hybrid engagement may be a good option, providing in-person and digital alternatives; and
- Maintain physical distancing where possible, encourage good hygiene (always bring hand sanitizer) and encourage participants to stay home if they’re unwell.
Whatever the next phase of this pandemic holds, we need to ensure that communities continue to have their say over decisions that affect their lives. As they say, never waste a crisis, and when it comes to community engagement, we may look back at 2020 and see it as a time when the need for innovation led to a more accessible and highly responsive new normal – which I believe can only be a good thing.
So, you have a great story and you’re ready to pitch it to the media. You’ve checked all your facts, written your media release and got your spokesperson lined up. But the first question a journalist is likely to ask isn’t about any of that. What they’ll want to know is: have you got a case study?
News organisations ask for case studies (i.e. ‘real people’) for one main reason: they know that most of the time for a story to truly engage their audience, they must be able to relate to it on some level. And the fact is that people don’t relate to facts; they relate to people.
Having a ‘face’ of the story you’re trying to tell can make it far more powerful than all the beautifully crafted words or meticulously checked facts, or even articulate organisational spokespeople. A case study can tell a story in a personal way that audiences can connect to, often in very different ways. Your case study could act as an inspiration, or a warning, they could highlight the human impact of an issue, or pull at the audience’s heart strings.
Case studies can also be used to illustrate and interpret complex information in a way that audiences can understand. Take the state budget as an example. It’s a huge document filled with an overwhelming amount of numbers. If the media were to simply list all these figures in a story, audiences would switch off pretty fast. Instead, publications like The West Australian use real people in different financial situations to highlight how the numbers translate into real effects, which readers can then relate to themselves.
If your story doesn’t have a case study, you’re potentially missing out on communicating with the audience in a way they can understand; through a shared human experience. Having a ‘real person’ to talk about how the facts and figures in your media release actually affected their lives, their family, their health or their finances sends a powerful message in an authentic way. Real people are likely to be perceived by audiences as unbiased because they’re not trying to sell anything; they’re just talking about their experience. And while audiences would expect your organisation’s spokesperson to talk up your story, it carries more weight if the endorsement comes from a third party. Case studies aren’t usually media trained, they don’t repeat key messages and they may not be eloquent, but they are often the one part of a story that makes it real.
But while most organisations are happy to ask their clients to take part in a media story about a positive experience, they don’t feel comfortable asking people who have had a difficult or traumatic experience, even if they have been helped through it by the organisation. Generally, this is because the organisation is trying to protect them and to respect their privacy. And while these are very valid reasons not to ask, the point they could be missing is that some people who have been through a difficult situation actually want to share their story. Time after time in my role as a media advisor, I speak to really brave people who are willing to share their experience, and in difficult situations the reason is often the same; they want to warn others about what happened to them, so that other people don’t have to go through the same thing. Naturally, assisting people in delicate situations requires caution from your organisation, but there are many steps that can be taken to ensure the talent is comfortable and supported in talking to the media.
Of course, there are some stories where it is not appropriate to give the media access to a case study. Stories which affect disadvantaged or very vulnerable people, or children, or which could have legal implications may carry too great a risk for the person involved. In these cases, it may be possible to quote your case study anonymously, or your organisation’s spokesperson may choose to speak on their behalf.
But the next time your organisation has a story to tell, it’s at least worth considering whether you can find someone to tell it with you. It may give your story the impact news organisations are looking for.
The freight industry is critical to our economy, and our reliance on efficient logistics has never been more evident. But as our reliance on freight increases, so does the need for road, rail, ports and other infrastructure – potentially resulting in community pressure on all levels of government to impose restrictions on freight operations.
The road industry has recognised this threat and, through its peak body Austroads, commissioned Level 5 Design in collaboration with CGM to develop a best-practice approach to road freight and communities. The model developed looks at ways to work with community stakeholders to understand their concerns, and then to engage with the community around the significance and value of freight.
What we found through an analysis of case studies and extensive research of the literature was that the community’s tacit agreement for the freight industry to operate was critical and relied on an unwritten agreement between community and industry, in which communities support projects if they confer local and broader benefits, also known as a ‘social licence to operate’.
CGM used our understanding of social licence, refined through our extensive public campaign experience, and the IAP2 approach to engagement to develop a roadmap for building community acceptance and support for road, freight and infrastructure projects that could be catered to a state, regional and local audience.
The objectives of these campaigns were to raise awareness of the importance of an efficient freight industry to the broader economy, and to develop an understanding of how this improved the quality of life for individuals and communities.
Of course, all communities potentially impacted by infrastructure projects now have convenient access to project information through the internet, resulting in heightened awareness of how these projects may affect them. Social media provides a medium for concerned stakeholders to connect, form interest groups and mobilise against projects. This also provides the ability for people directly affected by a project to mobilise support outside of their geographical area and communities. According to a PwC report, a lack of understanding of digital culture and engagement is the biggest challenge for the industry.
Consider the “Rethink the Link” movement in opposition to Roe 8. This movement used online campaigning and environmental messaging to mobilise opposition well beyond the local community. Numerous protest groups mobilised to oppose the project, and the campaign was successful at pushing opposition for the project onto the state political agenda.
At the core of our proposed approach is genuine engagement. Any proposed local infrastructure project should first involve engaging with local constituents and audiences to understand their issues, identify opportunities, and address matters that emerge.
It is not just about listening, governments should be prepared to consider adjusting the scope or details of a project in response to identified community concerns. The CGM model also outlines a process to identify and involve stakeholders in message testing and content, to ensure communication has support and buy-in from the community.
Using our model, the resultant campaign should provide a suite of options that best works with the relevant community to communicate the importance of freight and how it addresses the specific concerns of that community.
CGM believes this best-practice model has the flexibility to be used for effective communication and community engagement campaigns for a range of infrastructure projects – not just roads.
Please note that an interactive webinar is scheduled for 10am, Thursday November 26. Please sign up by following this link Webinar: Best-Practice Approaches to Road Freight and Communities.
By Daniel Smith
The greatest political show on earth will reach its climax this Wednesday morning, Perth time, as the United States reels from its third wave of COVID-19 infections. Will Donald Trump pull off another come-from-behind win, or will Democrat Joe Biden make Trump the first Republican president since the 1800s to surrender the presidency after only four years of his party occupying the White House?
To help you make sense of what promises to be the most turbulent election count in recent US history, here are the vital questions to consider as the results roll in.
- Are the polls wrong again?
Since 2016, most serious pollsters have gone to a lot of effort to ensure the white, working-class voters they missed in 2016 state-based polls are fully represented in their samples.
These corrections delivered a high degree of polling accuracy at the 2018 midterms. Will this accuracy be reflected in the presidential election? We won’t know until the votes are counted.
- Will Biden’s advantage with suburban women hold?
When the Democrats swept to a House majority at the 2018 midterm elections, it was on the back of white, mainly female suburban voters who voted for Trump in 2016 but were repelled by the President’s personal style and strongly opposed his efforts to repeal ‘Obamacare’. But the question is: are they also voting for Biden? Current polling suggests they are and that many COVID-scared seniors are joining them.
- Will African Americans come back to the polls?
Will the death of George Floyd, the President’s divisive rhetoric and the energy of the Black Lives Matter movement generate a surge in turnout among African Americans, bringing voters who stayed home at the post-Obama 2016 election back to the polls? While polling suggests African American voters aren’t supporting Biden at the same level as they supported Clinton, early voting patterns point to a higher turnout and a likely net benefit to the Democrats.
- Can Trump increase white working-class turnout?
The core objective of Trump’s re-election strategy appears to be to increase the historically low turnout among his white, non-college educated, culturally conservative base, who represent the largest voting demographic in the US. But, can he do it? If he does, he may surprise us again. If not, he’s toast.
- Will record levels of early voting help or hurt Trump?
The laws of arithmetic suggest the record number of early votes cast will make it more difficult for Trump to turn things around in the final days. However, it is likely the small number of undecided voters that remain have not yet voted and might still be swayed. Interestingly, there are a handful of states that allow early voters to vote again, if they change their mind, including the key swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin.
- What will be the impact of voter suppression strategies?
We know that state-based Republican lawmakers have introduced stricter photo-ID requirements that have made it difficult for less advantaged, mostly Democrat, citizens to enrol. But voter suppression can take a variety of forms. Will Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power demoralise voters? Will Trump’s calls for his supporters to keep an eye out for voter fraud intimidate voters? Will Trump’s new Supreme Court majority support Republican challenges to early voting? Be sure that restricting the number of Democrat votes being cast and counted is a key part of Trump’s strategy.
- What about Trump’s rallies?
Trump’s rallies are designed to motivate his supporters to turn out on election day, but don’t assume they are the full story on voter enthusiasm. The most recent polling on enthusiasm suggests voters on both sides are more fired up than they were in 2016, with Democrat voters leading on enthusiasm at similar levels as they did in 2008. And we know what happened then.
- Which state results will we know the soonest?
Among the swing states, Florida and North Carolina are the jurisdictions likely to report their full results on election night, with postal votes having to be received by election day and systems set up to process early votes prior to election day. We may also have a good idea about what is happening in Arizona and Georgia.
If it’s revealed on election night that Trump has lost one or more of these, it will be difficult for him from there.
- Which states will keep us waiting for results?
The key mid-western swing states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan will be receiving and counting ballots for up to two weeks past election day.
With postal votes expected to favour Democrats, take a wait-and-see approach to results on the night. Unless, of course, Trump ends the night behind, in which case, it is hard to see him winning.
The critical state here is Pennsylvania, with most analysts downgrading the overall chances of both candidates if they don’t bring this state home. This is why Trump has been camped in this state since the debate, trying to convince voters Biden poses a risk to the state’s petroleum industry, and why the Democrats have been focusing so heavily on “backup” states like North Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Georgia.
- What are other Republicans saying on the night?
Should Trump lose, the battle will be on for the future of the Republican party between those who have enjoyed Trump’s patronage and the traditional conservatives who used to control the party. If this battle breaks out during the count, it is likely that Republicans believe Trump is losing.
- Will Trump run again?
Will a defeated Trump declare his candidacy for 2024? Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon thinks so. Either way, Trump is unlikely to go quietly into the night as former presidents have done before him, with continued speculation about him establishing his own news network and commercialising his loyal base of political supporters.
While predicting elections can be a fool’s errand, I am ready to make a call. In my view, America is thoroughly exhausted, the polling is more accurate this time and the lead Biden has enjoyed all year will be too much for Trump to overcome. If all the votes are counted, this episode of ‘the greatest show’ will end with Joe Biden becoming the 46th President of the United States.
By Mark Ravi
When Facebook first started, most posts were text-based status updates or posts on people’s wall.
With the increased availability of smartphones with cameras, it became easier for people to share photos and those that did got much more attention, sending text-only posts into the dustbin of digital history.
In 2015, when photos were well-established as the prominent post type on Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg predicted that video was going to be the future.
These days, it’s extremely rare to see any post on Facebook without either a photo or a video accompanying it. Visuals are no longer optional if you’re trying to not only catch and hold people’s attention on social media, but get them to engage with your post.
This principle also applies to a news media strategy. A picture is still worth a thousand words, and good quality visuals can instantly communicate a story in a way even a perfectly crafted media release can’t. The visuals you provide as part of a pitch to a media organisation can be the difference between your story getting picked up or left to languish in a journalist’s inbox.
The use of the word ‘provide’ is key here because gone are the days when organisations pitching their stories to media could rely on newsrooms to consistently provide a photographer or a cameraperson to get vision.
To increase your chance of getting media coverage you need to ensure you have visuals available and later on I’ll share some easy principles to improve photos as a starting point.
Organisations need to take more than a tick-box approach to visuals and should start thinking of what images could accompany a story as soon as they start putting it together rather than scrambling to arrange something at the last minute.
As an example, if it’s a new or proposed property development, consider hiring a drone operator to fly over the land and give a better sense of space.
If it’s a program or service you want to promote, then secure a case study who is happy to be the face of the story and set up a photo shoot.
Not all organisations with media needs will have the budget to hire or employ a professional photographer/videographer but the good news is that most modern smartphones can take a passable photo if five principles are considered:
- Lighting – when organising a photo outside, try to avoid the middle of the day when the sun will be directly overhead and cast unflattering shadows on people. If you’re shooting inside, be careful not to have the subject directly in front of a window or you’ll cast their face/s into shadow and the photo won’t be useable.
- Framing – although portrait videos and photos are becoming more commonplace with the use of smartphones, landscape is still the best format for newspapers and other traditional outlets.
- Selfies – while they are fine for a personal social media page, they should be avoided at all costs when taking photos for professional purposes.
- Flash – while the use of flash by professional photographers can bring an image to life, the built-in flash on a smartphone will only make a photo look worse and should also be avoided.
- Background – put some thought into what the background of your photo will be and try to shoot in a location that relates in some way to the context of the story you are trying to pitch.
These are just some of the steps that organisations can take to provide appropriate visuals with media releases without breaking the bank.
It might seem like a lot of work but putting in the effort to supply visuals can have multiple benefits.
Even if the journalist or news outlet doesn’t deem your visuals of high enough quality, even a low-quality photo can demonstrate the potential visuals that could accompany a story and will increase the likelihood of the in-house photographer being assigned to the story.
Even if the story is not picked up by the media, having invested in visuals means you already have something to post on your own social media channels.
Ultimately, visuals are only one part of the process of getting media coverage – if an important one.
For more on enhancing media releases, see my colleague Rebecca Munro’s eight tips on the subject from last week’s edition of CGM Voice.
Research suggests 70 per cent of reporters spend less than a minute reading each press release they receive to determine if it’s newsworthy.
When I worked on the chief of staff desk during my television news days, I was responsible for making a decision on whether or not a press release was newsworthy; I could usually tell in the first paragraph.
In today’s media climate of shrinking newsrooms and amalgamating newspapers, it is even harder to have your story told in the media. The way people consume news is changing and when it comes to writing a media release you need to adapt to that change.
Don’t get me wrong; a media release should have all the right ‘corporate’ messaging but there needs to be a balance of newsworthiness if you want it to cut through.
As a media advisor, I’ll admit there are challenges in attracting a journalist’s interest. For those who aren’t used to dealing with the media, it can be intimidating, and it gets confusing when trying to navigate who to send what to and when.
Understandably organisations want their releases to focus on strengths and to use them as a form of promotion. Unfortunately (for a journalist) sometimes a by-product of this is a heavily worded, jargon crammed advertisement.
But instead of giving up and opting to publish on your socials, there are a few easy tips to follow, to help you get the desired result from your media release.
Tip one: use clear, concise and interesting language. Journalists don’t have time to decipher convoluted copy. Corporate jargon may make sense to you but if a journalist doesn’t understand what you are trying to say in the first paragraph they will likely move on.
Tip two: find a news angle and lead with it in your headline. Think human interest, uniqueness or community impact. The press release needs to have relevance to your journalist’s audience. For instance, if you were attempting to promote your organisation’s new managing director, a community audience would be more interested in what changes they will bring to the community, rather than who they are or where they have come from.
Tip three: be available. It’s very frustrating for journalists when they receive a media release and can’t pick up the phone and ask follow-up questions soon after the release is sent out. Have a spokesperson on stand-by ready to go. This is also important if you want your message out on radio or TV.
Tip four: pay attention to each organisation’s news cycle. Sending a proactive media release to dozens of generic newsroom emails close to deadline is unlikely to be a successful strategy. Instead try targeting an individual journalist the day before you want the story to run.
Tip five: it sounds obvious, but news needs to be new. If it has already been covered, consider your unique point of difference. Have you got a perspective that reveals something new and adds to the conversation?
Tip six: include quotes. Journalists sometimes find it easier to use quotes straight from your release rather than an interview but make sure they are interesting and easy to understand.
Tip seven: have a delivery strategy. Could you offer it as an exclusive? Journalists want to be the first to break a story. Offering them a scoop could be the difference between your story being on the front page or buried in the back.
Tip eight: have you thought about accompanying visuals? We live in a digital era. Journalists want their story to go viral. This is especially important for television journalists, who can’t tell their story without pictures.
At the end of the day, mainstream media is unpredictable but a well written media release with a strong strategy behind it is far more likely to get you the coverage you desire.
With the Morrison Government projecting Australia’s largest ever budget deficits, it is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the economic and political landscape.
Central to this vastly changed environment is the expanded role government is now playing in our lives.
While the most visible aspects to date of this “bigger government” have been in the areas of health restrictions and income support, there are likely to be two more lasting changes.
Each of these present significant opportunities for industry, particularly for businesses who maintain strong relationships with government.
First, a near political consensus has emerged that supports significant deficit and debt to stimulate the economy.
The traditional left has always supported deficit spending in times of recession, but the progressive left’s growing support for Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) takes this a step further. At its core, MMT holds that sovereign governments should spend in pursuit of full employment, only slowing down when inflationary pressures emerge. Budget deficits are seen as irrelevant, as sovereign governments, through their central banks, can create (print) as much money as they want.
Indeed, some argue that the Reserve Bank of Australia is already financing deficits and debt in Australia, with the RBA currently purchasing Commonwealth and state treasury bonds on the secondary market with “printed” money.
As we move to the right, support for stimulatory spending from government is linked to historically low interest rates. For decades, central banks have reduced interest rates when they have sought to stimulate the economy. Now, with this lever fully pulled, they have no room to move. And, with the cost of borrowing to governments effectively zero (negative, in some cases), there has never been a more affordable time for governments to borrow and stimulate.
What this consensus means for industry is more infrastructure projects going to market, more funds for industry development and R&D, more programs to stimulate exports, more programs to attract tourists, and so on.
The opportunities for businesses who stay close to government, help shape policy directions and respond to the directions set by government will be immense.
The second set of opportunities lie in the recognition by governments that they cannot do it alone. They need the support of industry to drive economic recovery, and they are keen to unlock the relatively strong balance sheets (compared to the post-GFC period) of corporates to do so.
This means going above and beyond to encourage private sector investment, whether that be through the streamlining of approvals processes, the encouragement of market-led proposals from industry or, dare I say it, picking winners through financial incentives.
There has never been a more prospective time for industry to be monitoring a rapidly changing regulatory environment for opportunities to progress projects that may have stalled. And there has never been a better time for industry to approach government with well-formed ideas to drive economic activity and job creation.
The COVID-19 crisis has been tough, if not devastating, for many businesses and the people they employ. But, with the focus of Australian governments shifting to economic recovery and their pockets deepening, there will be significant opportunities for many within industry, particularly those with strong relationships and a strong understanding of government.
With the role of government in our lives and economy set to remain enlarged for some time to come, now is the time for industry to tool up on their government relations functions, get ahead of the game and make the most of the opportunities the current economic crisis presents.
Given the size of the economic recovery task in front of us, the Morrison Government, and all of our state and territory governments, need us to.
In an era of global economies, more than ever before, companies are intrinsically linked with the people that run them, and CEOs can be their best (or worst) brand ambassadors.
So, why should companies consider increasing the profile of their CEOs? Is the risk worth the reward? Advancing corporate responsibility initiatives, delivering industry and policy reform, progressing business priorities and bolstering the brand are all excellent reasons. In today's world, being a faceless organisation in a community can come at a cost, with reputation and loyalty becoming more difficult to establish and maintain during the ebbs and flows of business. Whereas a local face and identity can add real value to your brand – and your bottom line.
The public wants to see action on things they care about, and they believe it is the role of business to lead from the front on significant social and industry issues. It's not enough to fly under the radar. However, there are risks, and having a position on a societal issue can be polarising if the position taken isn’t authentic and overwhelmingly supported by both the business and the Board.
Consumers and employees alike want to know whether they believe in what the CEO stands for. By positively contributing to the overall brand identity, the CEO can help build a more personal relationship that will help them through the good and not so good times.
So, what should leaders, or anyone who wants to raise their profile, consider?
Passion is the most crucial ingredient when it comes to profile raising. Unless a CEO is personally invested in either the issues they are championing, or building their profile – the task is near impossible. Authenticity needs to be at the core of the proposition, and if a leader is not personally invested and just going through the motions then this can be spotted from a mile off, doing more damage than good.
Find a niche and repeat, repeat, repeat. The magic combination of relevance, timeliness and authority will help identify topics and issues that make the most sense to champion. A CEO needs to be able to speak with authority on the topic, but unless it's part of public conversation at that time, it will fall on deaf ears. Alan Joyce is an excellent example of a leader who is intrinsically linked with a household brand.
As a leader in business, he's quite rightly taken a stand on several issues. One issue that he was particularly passionate about was marriage equality. Mr Joyce, who is openly gay, threw his weight and the weight of Qantas behind the Yes campaign. Although Mr Joyce was subject to both positive and negative publicity due to his position on marriage equality, he used his profile effectively to urge other business leaders not to be silent. Passion, relevance, timeliness and authority – the perfect combination.
When building your plan, there are so many opportunities available to you. Host an industry roundtable, petition Government, campaign on social media, bring community members together, sponsor relevant initiatives, use a keynote to make a point or write an op-ed. Ideally, do all of the above. Whatever the method, it's not enough for leaders to only have a position on a topic anymore. Actions speak louder than words and beliefs, and the public want to see concrete examples of actions being taken on issues that matter to them.
Finally, building the brand through personal profile raising doesn't have to be the sole domain of a CEO or managing director. If appropriate, map out topics and opportunities for executive or non-executive directors to help progress business and social priorities. But make sure that messaging and activities are coordinated and complementary at all times.
Mr Joyce summed it up nicely during the marriage equality campaign, "I think corporate Australia, if it's to fix the reputation it has out there, needs to be vocal on social issues. That's what good businesses do. They are part of society, they help promote societal change, and help promote what's good for our people.”
By Rebecca Boteler
Listening is something that not necessarily everyone would think of as a skill. But while it is something that’s technically easy to do, it takes practice and skill to do it well.
Most of us would’ve had conversations with someone who is not listening, with the result often being a communication breakdown. We are all probably guilty of not concentrating, drifting off, cutting people off mid-sentence, talking over the top of people and listening only to respond, rather than listening to truly understand what the other person is saying.
As a journalist, listening is a skill that is developed through necessity. Being a good interviewer is based on being a good listener. It’s your job to ask succinct questions, properly listen to and concentrate on the answers, understand and process the information and then use that information to formulate your next question. An interview where a journalist sticks to a set of pre-written questions does not make compelling viewing (or listening). Because interviews are recorded or listened to live, it’s immediately apparent if a journalist isn’t listening properly because they misunderstand basic information or ask questions that the talent has already answered.
Working in the corporate world, listening to your colleagues, customers and clients is just as important. To have really good communication, you might want to practice the skill that has now been dubbed ‘reflective listening’. Reflective listening is basically listening to what the other person has to say, and then repeating it back to them. Yes, it’s used in counselling, but it can also be applied in the workplace. Wikipedia defines it as ‘an attempt to reconstruct what the person is thinking and feeling and to relay this understanding back to them’. This can often be started with the phrase “So what I’ve just heard you say is…”
Five tips for reflective listening:
- Ask succinct questions that don’t offer an opinion or suggestions for how the person should answer.
- Listen quietly – don’t interrupt, wait for the person to completely finish speaking.
- Concentrate on everything that’s said, and take notes.
- Understand and remember the main points and language.
- Feed the points back to them using the specific words they’ve used without adding your own values or judgements.
The benefit of reflective listening is that the person feels like they’ve really been heard and understood. Conversely, if you’ve misunderstood what they’ve said, it gives them the chance to clarify what they mean straight away. Hearing their words come back to them can also assist individuals to get really clear on what they mean and gives them the opportunity to change the language they’re using to pinpoint their true intention.
Reflective listening also has benefits for the person asking the questions. It allows you to really understand what your colleague, customer or client is saying, improves your communication and relationship, and ultimately, helps you respond to what they really want so that you provide them with a better service.
The most important aspect of any political, behavioural change or community campaign is to know your audience. The challenge is to know them well.
Advancements in surveying and polling technology have made gathering quantitative data more accessible than ever, and these are useful tools to understand things like brand awareness and perception, the important local issues, and voting preferences. That’s knowing your audience and that’s valuable to any campaign.
But to know your audience well you’ve got to delve deeper, and that’s where qualitative data that can only be gathered by more nuanced and dialogue-driven approaches like focus groups come in.
A focus group is a small group discussion involving up to a dozen people, led by a professional moderator. Groups could be made up of undecided voters or people that fit the demographic profile of a target audience, such as members of a community where a major development is proposed, for example.
Focus groups offer campaigners and communications strategists an opportunity to hear the unfiltered, unbiased opinions of your target audience. It’s not just about what issues are important or ranking the importance from a pre-approved list of issues (sometimes limited by the campaign’s or organisation’s biases), but how people feel about the issues, how people talk about the issues, and how people respond to messages and campaign material about the issues.
That’s knowing your audience well.
To get the most out of your focus groups, there are four things to consider:
- 1) Select your participants carefully
If your focus group isn’t representative of your target audience, then you’re unlikely to collect valuable insights. Some panels are full of self-selecting, regular focus group attendees – the ‘professionally opinionated’ – that may not be in tune with your target audience. While it will often be more expensive, steer towards randomly sampled participants, potentially screened through a preliminary survey to ensure they genuinely reflect your target audience, whether that be geographical, demographic, behavioural or attitudinal criteria. As the saying goes, “garbage in, garbage out”. Select your participants carefully up front and you’ll set yourself up for meaningful insights.
- 2) Trust your researchers
If you’ve chosen the right research partner, you will be working with a skilled and experienced professional, who has recruited, facilitated and analysed many focus groups, across a broad range of issues, involving thousands of participants over time.
Trust them. The researcher’s job is to manage a conversation that delivers on your research objectives. Be clear on what you want from the focus group, then let the researcher determine how best to get that information from the group.
- 3) Listen and question
If you’re provided with the opportunity to view or listen to the focus group, pay close attention. Focus groups offer a unique opportunity to probe the ‘shades of grey’ of an issue, and the value is in the smaller details. How do people react when they first hear your case or see your advertisement or mail piece? How do they justify that response to others in the group? Why do they think a certain way about an issue? Do they change their position when presented with more information? What language and vocabulary do they use to describe the issue at hand?
However, you should also question the conclusions you draw from observing your focus group. Remember, you arrive with your own biases and theories and you should be careful not to be overly receptive to evidence that supports these. Instead, take notes, then discuss these with your researcher after the session.
- 4) The more, the better
Early focus groups can provide you with social, economic, market or political insights to help you shape a strategy and message that you can be confident in from the outset. If your budget allows, further focus groups over the life of the campaign can provide valuable information to help you tweak strategy and messaging, as well as determine whether the campaign is meeting its objectives.
If your campaign has an opponent, or opposing views are being expressed to your messaging, mid-campaign focus groups can also help you test responses to opposing arguments.
CGM has extensive experience in managing focus group programs on behalf of our clients. We always recommend a research-driven approach to campaign strategy, including focus groups where appropriate and where a campaign’s budget permits. Campaigns that intend to invest significant resources into getting their message out should also invest in ensuring their message is effective with their target audience. Without research, messaging can be ineffective, at best, and do more harm than good, at worst.
While focus groups can require a significant investment of time and resources, it’s worth it. Know your audience well and you’ll set your campaign up for ultimate success.
While the priority of the State Government remains to keep West Australians safe during the health crisis, it is clear that more and more resources are being put into planning and executing our economic recovery.
Private sector investment will be critical to driving WA’s recovery, particularly as the infrastructure projects and smaller ‘shovel-ready’ initiatives the government is funding in its first wave of economic recovery reach completion.
Recent reforms to planning and environmental approvals are encouraging private sector proponents, who rightly interpret this as the government seeking to encourage investment and job creation.
Changes made to the State Government’s Market-led Proposals (MLP) framework over the past six months are also seen as highly encouraging, having the potential to drive innovation, as well as a second wave of investment and jobs throughout our economic recovery.
But industry believes there are opportunities to make the MLP policy even more effective.
More on that later.
To bring you up to speed, the McGowan Government introduced its MLP policy in March 2019, delivering on an election commitment designed to “create a clear, consistent and transparent process to manage unsolicited proposals from the private sector that fall outside of the normal competitive process”.
As the COVID-19 crisis took hold in March 2020, the government announced changes to the policy to align it with the recovery focus areas of health, economic and infrastructure, social, industry and regional WA.
The changes also included the introduction of a first-mover advantage, which would provide a pathway for proponents to retain a right of last refusal in the event that the government determined that a proposal didn’t meet the strict IP, ownership or single supplier criteria for exclusive negotiation.
In this event, the government would likely test the market, with the original proponent provided the first-mover advantage of being able to match a more competitive bid or receive a bid premium of between 10 and 20 per cent.
In August, the Premier and Treasurer announced the introduction of problem and opportunity statements, which are designed to “provide focused opportunities for industry to respond with innovative solutions that stimulate the economy and create jobs for Western Australians”.
A small number of problem and opportunity statements have been released since, focusing on areas as diverse as carbon farming, prison industries and PPE manufacturing.
The State Government’s evolving MLP policy has been welcomed by industry as a significant improvement on the ineffective unsolicited bid process that existed previously.
However, as indicated above, industry sees opportunities for further enhancements.
Two potential changes have been floated, with a view to driving private sector investment and job creation during the COVID recovery period.
In May, an idea was put forward (read here) to relax the requirement for a proponent to demonstrate that its proposal is “unique’” or “not market standard” – a requirement that some proponents struggled with, and one which they were required to meet to gain access to the MLP process and the exclusive negotiation and first-mover pathways it offered.
It was suggested that the uniqueness test be relaxed, so that proponents who could demonstrate that their proposal was in the long-term interest of the WA economy, or could provide a short-term employment benefit, could access the MLP pathways.
More recently, a second, and potentially more contentious, change floated involves the suspension of the requirements to qualify for exclusive negotiation. Advocates argue that it would drive innovation and investment by encourage more IP-protective proponents to engage with government. Critics argue it could deliver sub-optimal outcomes, with fewer projects subject to market testing, and be potentially more difficult to manage from a probity perspective.
It is in the interests of the State Government, industry and the broader WA community for the MLP policy to deliver to its potential. This is why we will likely see ongoing engagement and collaboration between government and industry on how the framework functions, with further changes a real possibility.
In the meantime, proponents will position themselves for success in accessing the MLP pathways by ensuring their proposals meet the priorities of government and the needs of the community, as well as demonstrating that their proposal is unique and developing an effective narrative and evidence base to support these elements.
As with the Global Financial Crisis, the period of economic recovery is likely to be long and bumpy. The potential for Market-led Proposals to generate a second wave of investment and job creation, as the stimulatory capacity of the State Government reaches its limits, cannot be overstated.
By Mark Ravi
In a world that is increasingly flooded with written content, organisations might have only a split second to make an impression on a reader.
While the most important part of any communication is the message, a superficial error in the copy could be the difference between the message cutting through or the intended audience getting side-tracked.
Not everyone reading articles and content will pick up on typos or grammatical errors, but, for those that do, minor errors can infuriate.
Examples abound in various fields where something has been lovingly crafted, only for a small, but jarring, mistake to undermine the whole product.
It was not so long ago that Game of Thrones held the collective imagination of audiences across the world, but the appearance of a stray coffee cup in one scene on the final season was quickly noticed and ridiculed.
Australia launched a new $50 note in October 2019 which was packed with technologies to prevent counterfeiting and make it more accessible, but it was also missing the final letter ‘i’ in the word responsibility.
Even the pinnacle of print journalism, The New York Times, is not immune to making mistakes, to the point where an anonymous Twitter account which regularly points out errors has amassed more than 13,000 followers.
While these examples are public, I’m sure anyone reading this could stroll through their newsfeed and pick out a few typos with little effort.
This begs the question, why are typos so common?
I believe there are three key reasons.
First, people rely too much on the autocorrect functions of digital devices.
While these can spot misspelled words and are getting increasingly sophisticated in understanding sentence structure, they were not foolproof.
Additionally, design programs used to create more visually creative documents might have limited error detection functions and can lead to mistakes appearing in the most visible content an organisation might produce, like posters or billboards.
Secondly, the prevalence of social media has increased the use of informal language to the point where even the use of the full stop has come under fire for its use in interpersonal communications as being aggressive and abrupt.
I don’t suggest that every message anyone ever sends should be perfect, but the more you write and consume that style of writing, the harder it can be to revert back to formal English when necessary.
Finally, many copywriters, social media managers and journalists are having to post across different platforms with greater frequency and less oversight or support from editors.
At best, these sorts of mistakes illicit a simple apology and are quickly forgotten, as was the case with the Australian Government’s misprint.
At worst, they cause tangible damage to the brand of the organisation responsible and can become emblematic of a broader decline in quality, as was the case for Game of Thrones and The New York Times.
Luckily, simple steps can be taken to limit obvious mistakes.
The first step is to be like Santa and check everything (at least) twice. Before hitting submit or publishing a post, take a moment to read through it again to check for obvious mistakes.
Of course, it’s easy to miss the details of something you’ve written and re-written several times, so the next step is to recruit a fresh pair of eyes to do the final check of your work.
Someone reading something for the first time is much more likely to pick up on missing words and errors because they won’t have the writer’s intent colouring their perception of everything on the page.
The next tip is the trust your gut. If you’re reading copy and something doesn’t look quite right, then act on that instinct and spend a few seconds conducting a quick online search to see if this is a problem or situation others have encountered and already solved.
Finally, and most importantly, be consistent. There isn’t always a single right answer about written English and elements like capitalisations, the use of hyphens and preferred terminology often came down to personal preference.
In these ambiguous situations, make sure that your organisation has a consistent approach to ensure all copy uses the same style and spoke in the same voice.
If it all seems like lot of effort to fix errors that only a few people might notice, consider the consequences if mistakes make their way into important documents and the wrong person notices.
Organisations with a reputation for quality that apply for government tenders might lose credibility if their proposal contains obvious errors and shareholders or investors could question the professionalism of a company if an annual report contains typos.
It might not be feasible to invest heavily in proofing every piece of writing you produce, when it comes to important or formal documents there is no reason why your copy shouldn’t be perfect.
However, English is a tricky language and people can’t detect mistakes they do not recognise, so consider engaging professionals to do the job for you.
NOTE: We have deliberately inserted several mistakes that weren’t flagged by Microsoft Word, how many did you pick up on?
By Anthony Fisk
Every day, businesses are attacked by cyber criminals looking to steal data for the purposes of financial gain, corporate espionage or general business disruption.
Smaller businesses, with lower levels of resources available to online security, are generally more vulnerable to cyber attacks. Bank accounts, email systems and business devices, including computers and mobiles, are just a few of the critical business assets that face compromise.
According to a survey by the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), 62 per cent of small business respondents had experienced a cyber security incident in the last year. In fact, the ACSC receives one report of cybercrime every 10 minutes.
This vulnerability has been further exposed in recent months as businesses responded to the coronavirus challenge. Cyber criminals took advantage of new security weaknesses that emerged as employees started working remotely – often using shared computers over insecure home networks.
Despite the obvious threat, many small businesses aren’t prepared for the impact of a cyber attack. If your customers’ sensitive financial and personal data is lost to a third party, what can you do to limit the reputational damage to your organisation resulting from such a breach?
The first step should always be preparation. Cyber breaches can happen quickly, so consider putting an incident response plan in place to respond to an attack or data breach. This includes your immediate reaction, which should include determining what type of attack has occurred and how to protect remaining data.
The second part of your plan should focus on communicating during the crisis and maintaining your reputation over the longer term. As part of this, you should acknowledge and plan for deviations, which occur in real scenarios, and prepare draft responses to these scenarios to minimise problems arising from rushed decision making.
Last week, my colleague described the 3 C’s of crisis management. Showing care, control and commitment provides the basis for all crisis communication. When it comes to a cyber breach, here’s some tips on how to put these principles into action:
- Obtain information first – when hearing about personal data breaches, your customers are likely to assume the worst, so be clear about what was compromised (or be genuine and tell people you don’t know)
- Disclose what you know openly – assume everything is discoverable so don’t withhold key details
- Convey accurate information about the breach – don’t make claims about the “sophistication” of the attack without clear evidence
- Use unambiguous and clear messaging – and if you are providing technical advice, ensure it is specific and actionable
- Communicate quickly and frequently – use all the channels available at your disposal including staff, email, web, social media and messaging apps, and make sure the messaging is consistent
- Take ownership for the breach – this is customer data that was entrusted to you; don’t play the victim
- Understand and admit the problem – explain what happened and how you plan to fix the problem
- Understand the true value of personal data – ensure your apology is genuine and empathetic
Of course, you want to avoid a cyber attack ever happening to you. If your business handles personal or sensitive information, you must be particularly careful about how it is protected. For further advice and practical tips visit www.cyber.gov.au
And for help with planning and preparation for crisis situations, including cyber breaches, please contact the team at CGM Communications.
Preparation, preparation, preparation is your best defence when it comes to protecting your reputation during a crisis. But what if you haven’t prepared, and you find yourself in a situation which presents intense difficulty, complexity or danger – what should you do?
The first step is to understand when you are in a crisis situation. Not all crisis scenarios are straight-forward, and declaring a crisis is always a judgement call. If uncertainty exists, I tend to err on the side of prudent overreaction.
Heathrow Airport is widely recognised as leader in crisis communication. During my time leading crisis communications at the airport, scenarios from emergency landings, protest and hostage situations to baggage system failures were desk-topped, simulated and documented within an inch of their life. At Heathrow this is totally appropriate, as almost all of these scenarios became reality, and this level of preparation gave everyone the confidence to do a good job under immense pressure – on a regular basis.
But what if you’re not a large organisation with a huge number of corporate affairs resources. What should you do then when your reputation is at stake?
If you find yourself in this situation, the best piece of advice I can give you is to plan your approach and messaging around the 3 C’s of crisis.
- Care and concern
Before you do anything else, as many people would do naturally, acknowledge your concern for those who have been adversely affected by the crisis, and express your empathy and care for their wellbeing – physical or mental.
Empathy is one thing, but the public, stakeholders and your employees want to know what you’re doing to get the situation under control now, so share what immediate steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the crisis situation.
After the initial shock or reaction, to help rebuild your reputation, you must show what longer-term commitments you’re making to avoid a repeat of the situation.
The State Government are delivering a masterclass in crisis management during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to clear, simple messages, delivered regularly, they showed care initially for those who contracted the virus, for families of those who had passed away, for impacted industries, the unemployed and more recently for Victorians. Controls were communicated almost straight away, which were then finessed into a clear staged approach as the situation escalated. Lockdown conditions were explained as more controls were put in place. Commitment is where they have been particularly strong. Hard border - say no more.
At CGM Communications, we have an integrated offering for crisis and all communication needs. We can not only help you prepare, prepare, prepare, but if you find yourself in a situation where you need a team who can work with you to deliver effective crisis communications quickly, then we’re here to help.
By Daniel Smith
I’ve got a confession to make that might get me in trouble with some of my peers. The formula for winning elections is actually quite simple.
Not easy, but simple.
Like almost everyone who has turned their hand to providing strategic political advice, I’ve had my wins and losses.
What I’ve learned is that nearly every winning election effort has the same qualities, as does almost every election loss.
The key ingredients for winning an election are ensuring that your priorities as a potential government reflect the priorities of the electorate at the time of the election, then effectively communicating those priorities to voters.
Having the same priorities as the electorate at the time of the election involves having an accurate view about what the social, economic and political circumstances will look like on election day, then rigorously engaging with the community and stakeholders about their hopes and fears, as well as the best way of addressing these and the issues that will emerge.
Effective communication involves positioning early for the issues that will matter at the time of the election, then relentlessly building your brand using a range of communication tools, so that your time arrives at the time of the election. When the polls open, you want everyone to understand both what you believe and what you will do, on the issues that matter to them.
So, if it’s so simple, why does it go horribly wrong, so often?
For those in opposition, too often we see a complacency built on the adage that “oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them”. While there is some truth in the second part of this equation (see below), the first part is nonsense. Whether it was Bob Hawke, John Howard, Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott, not to mention Richard Court, Geoff Gallop or Mark McGowan, each of these leaders who won government from opposition were energetic and relentless in their pursuit of power, as were the party machines behind them.
Oppositions who think they might slip into government often don’t do the work engaging with the electorate, they don’t develop policies that reflect the priorities of the community and they don’t spend the time building their brand or effectively communicating what they believe and will do.
Governments that lose are almost always characterised as having lost touch with the electorate, leading to them pursuing their own priorities or the causes of special interest groups, instead of the priorities of the community. Their leaders and senior Ministers are often exhausted, lacking the energy to consider how the world is changing, engage broadly with the electorate, develop new ideas or effectively communicate their vision. In some cases, this leaves them so disconnected from voters that they think they are going to win, right up until the moment they are turfed out in a landslide.
For those in the private sector, none of the above should come as any great surprise. Behind almost every successful project is a company that has spent the time engaging with the community about what they want, then carefully developing their project to meet those needs, before circling back to ensure their stakeholders are in no doubt about the merits of their venture. The same is true for companies involved in product development and promotion.
Companies that don’t adhere to this process lose the support of the community, or they lose market share. The same is true for our politicians.
The key thing to understanding my two ingredients for political success is recognising that they need to co-exist. The most effective communication strategy can do more harm than good, if it promotes policies and messages that don’t reflect the priorities of the community. Similarly, what’s the point of having great policies, if the electorate doesn’t know about them?
At the top of this piece, I said the formula for winning elections was simple, but not easy. The truth is politics is hard, with the responsibilities of government making it even more draining.
But, for those politicians who maintain their energy and focus, ensuring their priorities reflect the priorities of the electorate at the time of the election, then effectively communicating those priorities to voters, political success is almost certain to follow.
By Anthony Fisk
The last week has seen a number of large high-profile development projects stall at the approval stage. The WA Planning Commission (WAPC) vetoed Satterley’s long-planned North Stoneville residential community in the Perth Hills due to fire concerns. The controversial $320m Chellingworth redevelopment in Nedlands was also rejected by planning authorities based on excessive bulk, parking and traffic issues.
Some of our leading planning experts were surprised by these decisions. Each of the developments required significant investment and time to get right, and both proponents believed they had met or exceeded planning requirements.
But what these developments have in common is the widespread and strident resistance to the plans by many in the local community. In both cases, neighbours banded together to organise on social media, lobby their MPs, and even run a sophisticated media campaign.
The “Save Perth Hills” campaign certainly captured the attention of the Hills community. Whether it was the thriving Facebook page, the bumper stickers on cars across Perth, or the thousands that attended community rallies – it became clear that the community had rejected the development.
On the other hand, and just down the road from Chellingworth, Paul Blackburne’s $300m redevelopment of the Sundowner site in Claremont has been given the green light. This revitalisation of a neglected hostel site told a positive story of renewal, fostered a level of community acceptance, and had the support of the Premier, alongside the creation of 920 new jobs.
With the expedited passage of legislation to fast-track significant developments in WA, and a raft of new tax breaks, it would seem our State Government is doing what it can to help facilitate investment in the housing sector.
But despite this encouraging environment, early stakeholder and community engagement has never been more important. What’s more, engagement and communication is actively encouraged by planning authorities eager to get shovel-ready projects up and running.
To this end, the State Development Assessment Unit, within the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, has been established to help progress significant developments as defined in the new legislation. This team of experienced planners will receive and assess all proposals on behalf of the WAPC.
Again, early engagement is key to success in this new pathway. It is designed to address any issues prior to lodgement of the development application and also provide assistance and advice on essential stakeholder and public engagement.
Of course, any early engagement should include genuine conversations with neighbours and community leaders on what they want from any redevelopment and how they would like to be engaged. These conversations could prove to be the determining factor in gaining development approval, so it’s worth doing right.
CGM Communications works closely with developers and planning experts to help guide these proposals through the new processes and deliver the community, government and media support necessary to see well-designed developments succeed.
For further information on the new process please visit https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/sdau
By Daniel Smith
An important point in the maturation of any political strategist or government relations advisor is accepting that election results are very difficult to predict.
As Thomas Harris writes in Imperium, A Novel of Ancient Rome, you can always spot a fool, for he is the one who will tell you he knows who is going to win an election.
What makes elections difficult to predict is that many election outcomes have all the qualities of what have become known as ‘Black Swan’ events.
In Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s masterpiece, The Black Swan, the author outlines three qualities of such highly improbable events. These are that they are unpredictable (few people predicted them), they carry massive impacts, and, after the fact, explanations are concocted that make them appear less random, and more predictable, than they actually were.
Taleb cites examples of positive and negative Black Swan events as the rise of the Internet and the development of the personal computer, World War 1, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Global Financial Crisis would also fit the bill.
The Black Swan model also fits many of the (free) election results we have seen in recent years. It fits Bill Shorten’s almost defeat of Malcolm Turnbull in 2016, the Brexit referendum or Donald Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton in the same year. It fits Jeremy Corbyn taking Theresa May’s majority in the 2017 British election, and possibly Boris Johnson’s thumping of Corbyn in 2019 as well. It also fits with Scott Morrison’s ‘miracle’ victory over Shorten in last year’s federal election.
In each of these contests, very few people predicted the result, the outcomes had huge domestic and/or geopolitical consequences, and narratives were constructed – by both the winners and the losers – to rationalise the outcomes.
Taleb attributes the human desire to construct narratives about past events as one of the biggest contributors to our blindness to future Black Swan events, election outcomes included. Confirmation bias leads us to develop narratives that fit with our own world view or previous positions, then look for evidence to support the narratives we have developed.
Take Shorten and Corbyn, as examples. The narrative flowing out of their surprisingly strong showings in 2016 and 2017, respectively, was that they had tapped into community angst over inequality and other social injustices. This led to them doubling down on their platforms, putting forward even stronger redistributive policies. Despite high expectations of victory, both were defeated in 2019, in results that many, again, failed to predict. In Shorten's case right up until the results were announced, and for Corbyn until Boris Johnson assumed control of the Conservatives.
But what if the narrative that flowed from Shorten and Corbyn’s first attempts at becoming Prime Minister was that their opponents’ political ineptitude was the biggest factor in their relative success? Malcolm Turnbull, in having blown his political capital by doing nothing in the months following his elevation to the Liberal leadership, then refusing to run negative campaign ads targeting Shorten. Theresa May, who called an early election for no reason and then promised to take away free milk from British school children in her election manifesto.
While such a narrative wouldn’t have confirmed the merits of the policies they had taken to their respective elections, if it had been part of the takeaway for Shorten and Corbyn, perhaps they wouldn’t have tried to refight their earlier elections in 2019. Instead, they might have developed new strategies and approaches that reflected the social and economic situations at the time, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their new opponents, the much more politically adept Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson.
US President Donald Trump is going through a similar journey at present. The narrative flowing from Trump’s surprise victory over Clinton in 2016 was that a surge of support in white working-class voters swept Trump to a ‘massive’ win in the electoral college.
An alternative narrative is that, while Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton, he narrowly eked out a win in the electoral college, with his victory dependent not only on increased support from non-college educated white voters, but also on low turnout from African American voters and college educated Republicans reluctantly voting for him over the even more odious (to them) Clinton.
Of course, this narrative doesn’t confirm Trump’s view of himself or the world. But, if he had incorporated this thinking into his 2016 takeout, perhaps he would have made more of an effort to expand his supporter base over the past four years, instead of doubling down on the racially divisive approach that he believes won him white working-class support in the first place.
Will Trump be defeated as he seeks re-election in November. Who knows? Right now, the signs don’t look good for him, but anything could happen between now and then. That is the nature of Black Swan events.
For those of us interested in the political process, the acceptance of elections as Black Swan events carries a number of implications.
For political strategists, it means being clear headed and objective about the reasons for past successes and failures. It means not taking anything for granted about future elections, fighting them with strategies developed for the conditions and opponents of the day.
For those who engage with government, it means not making assumptions about election outcomes, instead preparing for any possibility by engaging with all sides of politics to develop relationships and a shared understanding of policy.
A mature political strategist or government relations advisor will be highly cautious in predicting election outcomes but will have a lot to say about how you shape outcomes or policies and best position yourself for any version of the future.
If you consume news via the internet, chances are you’ve encountered those ‘pesky’ paywalls.
We’ve all been there, enticed by an online headline only to be prompted to subscribe and hand over our money for the full story.
It’s frustrating, and many refuse to do it. It makes sense, budgets are tight and why now do we have to pay for something we’ve always received for free?
Here in WA it can cost anywhere between $1.75 a week for a WAtoday online subscription, to $1 a day for a full newspaper and online subscription for The West Australian.
There is a clear resistance to paying for news online, but the truth is, the pain to your pocket will be far less than the cost to Australia’s democracy if we stop paying for journalism.
Most of us are happy to fork out $9 a month for our Netflix subscription but why are we so hesitant to pay for journalism? Perhaps it comes from entitlement, a misconception that journalists perform a free public service. Many social media users who engage and comment on these locked stories seem to think so, often threatening publications with the dreaded ‘unfollow’.
There’s been arguments that paywalls create a socioeconomic breakdown of those who can afford to read quality journalism and those who can’t.
That’s a real concern but what is even more detrimental to a democracy, is unsustainable journalism.
Newsflash (pun intended) journalists need to get paid too, and you might be surprised to learn they don’t get paid much, for what they contribute.
Take for example recent Walkley Award winner Annabel Hennessy from The West Australian, who this year brought public attention to the incarceration of Aboriginal woman Jody Gore – convicted of killing her abusive ex-partner.
Ms Hennessy’s relentless chasing and investigative journalism resulted in Ms Gore being freed from prison and WA’s laws being re-written. She had the power to tell a story that wasn’t told in the courtroom.
Being a former journalist myself, I dare say Ms Hennessy likely spent long days and late nights having very difficult conversations and probably copping a fair bit of abuse for trying to find the truth – and that is worth our money.
When I see these outraged social media users complaining their news is trapped behind a paywall, I can’t help but think if they get paid for their job.
During the height of the pandemic in WA, we praised our health care workers, our shop assistants and all those risking their health and safety. Journalists were on the frontline too, providing the public with reliable up-to-date information when they needed it the most, and just like our other essential workers, they need to make a living.
If you think about it, this would have been the perfect time for newspapers to act like big business and jump on this in-demand opportunity by locking all content to gain more subscribers.
The majority didn’t exploit this and provided the daily COVID-19 online updates for free.
Yes, the media landscape has changed, and newspapers are forced to get sexier to sell more, but they haven’t lost the ability to create change, and keep our leaders accountable.
Unlike social media platforms, journalists and news publications are held to account for what they publish, and in return force our leaders, big business and members of the public to be accountable – that’s their job.
Journalists have university degrees and are trained to deliver balanced and factual information. In the past, newspapers have done well on advertising revenue but the more appetite for online content means a decline in sales, resulting in cutbacks.
The less journalists there are, the less time they have to dig deep into a story to find the truth on behalf of the Australian public. In other words, how else will we, as former Australian Democrat leader Don Chipp said, “Keep the bastards honest”?
Look at recent wage theft allegations against big companies including Woolworths. When journalists investigate these issues, they shine a public light on them and often force companies into doing the right thing in a bid to save their reputation. If it wasn’t for journalists, we’d likely see goliath winning many more battles.
Right now, we can’t rely on social media platforms to provide news organisations with enough advertising revenue for them to disable paywalls, despite the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission establishing a mandatory code of conduct.
The code is supposed to encourage social media channels to pass on advertising revenue to the ones who actually create the content. The journalists, who spend hours making the phone calls or waiting outside on long crime scene stakeouts, inside courthouses or at Parliament House. But Facebook still refuses to pay news publications for what they produce.
Google has announced it will come to the table with some compensation, but we’d need all of them to get on board with a lot of money if we ever wanted to see the end of paywalls and a return to newsrooms full of senior reporters who actually have time to investigate.
Supporting real accountable journalism dilutes the overwhelming misinformation and disinformation we face on a daily basis and contributes to a healthy democracy.
As Thomas Jefferson, the man who led the US democracy movement once said: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
The fact is that people were paying for physical newspapers long before the internet rose to prominence, but now seem put off by the fact a digital subscription isn’t something you can physically hold in your hand. I’d argue having your news available digitally, on any device at any time is even more bang for your buck – and that’s worth paying for.
As the WA state election approaches, organisations are turning their minds from the immediate COVID-19 management phase to recovery and rebuilding.
There’s no doubt every peak body, not-for-profit and major corporate player will be vying for attention and commitments from the government and opposition in the lead up to March 2021. So, how do you make your ‘ask’ stand out?
Here are our three tips to set your organisation up for success.
First, position your ‘ask’ as a win/win, for both your organisation and the Western Australian community.
Fortunately, the State Government has already told us what a win for the community looks like. Although deferred due to COVID-19, the Our Priorities whole-of-government targets provided a clear outline of what the government hoped to achieve and what it was focusing on. The government has since identified the five key COVID recovery areas of health, economic and infrastructure, social, industry, and regions.
By aligning your ‘ask’ to one or more of these areas, you’ll position yourself as a partner with government while supporting the entire Western Australian community.
Second, demonstrate stakeholder support.
Showing broad community or industry support for an ‘ask’ does two things: first, it validates the idea as good policy; and second, it signals to government and opposition that your ‘ask’ is good politics.
Politicians want to be community connectors. By demonstrating that you’ve reached out to community and industry stakeholders, you’ll provide government and opposition a path to reach them too.
Third, get in early.
You can be certain January will be a political write-off, as parties cement their final campaign plans and voters gradually return from holiday mode (and couldn’t think of anything worse than hearing from politicians). February and March will be filled with wall-to-wall announcements and campaign events. Timing will be crucial to your chances of success, and this year’s State Budget now falling in October certainly throws a spanner in the works.
Now is the time to finalise your ‘ask’. If you act quickly, you can be a part of the government’s budget thinking AND the election commitment thinking of both government and opposition. Then, if the budget doesn’t deliver for you, the weeks following could still provide an opportunity heading into the election.
So, how do you reach politicians in an election year? Make your ‘ask’ a win/win, demonstrate stakeholder support and get in early.
If you do these three things, you should be celebrating on 13 March 2021, no matter the outcome.
With Australia’s media landscape continuing to shrink, new approaches are needed for organisations who want their messages and stories to reach their target audiences.
Falling newspaper sales, declining free-to-air TV audiences and the subsequent fall in advertising revenue made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic have again forced news organisations to cut their bottom lines.
In the past month, News Corp and the ABC both announced significant staffing cuts. News Corp so it can pursue its move toward digital production, after announcing it would stop printing 112 community and regional newspapers, and the ABC to save costs after the Federal Government’s decision to freeze funding increases.
This latest round of cuts follows decisions this year by Buzzfeed Australia, which closed its Australian news operation, Network Ten, which scrapped its digital news site 10 Daily, and Foxtel, which cut more than 250 jobs as part of a restructure.
The COVID-19 pandemic hasn’t helped the situation media outlets find themselves in, with advertising sales plunging as many businesses went into lockdown and stopped advertising their services. For media outlets already facing falling advertising revenue, partly due to the rise of streaming services, job and programming cuts have been the sad result.
But the news isn’t all bad. After originally being targeted for closure, newswire service Australian Associated Press was brought back from the dead, after being saved by a consortium of investors and philanthropists. The West Australian newspaper is also having somewhat of a resurgence, bucking the national trend by increasing its audience by 4.5 per cent year on year, led by younger readers.
Despite the West’s increase in readership, the amalgamation of our two major newspapers, when Seven West Media acquired the Sunday Times, and the subsequent buy-up of Community News has seen the diversity of our media landscape continue to contract in WA.
For those of us working in PR, this means fewer news outlets and journalists to pitch to, meaning we have to consider different strategies, as well as alternate ways of giving our clients a voice.
Fewer journalists at traditional outlets means those remaining are inundated with requests for coverage. Doing the groundwork ahead of time, knowing when to pitch, and having established and trusted working relationship are imperative to getting stories published in this environment.
Tailoring releases to media outlets, rather than sending them out en-masse, is critical, with producers and Chiefs of Staff having little tolerance for stories that aren’t relevant to their audience.
Identifying what we can do to assist time poor journalists with case studies, photographs and other supportive content is also important.
The rise of independent online news sites provides an opportunity for a story to be published online if matched with the correct outlet. Online stories are more likely to be shared on the outlet’s own social media channels, increasing audience reach, and can have better engagement through the use of video or interactive images.
Clients can also take responsibility for telling their stories directly by addressing their intended audience through a brand journalism practice on their own digital platforms. Doing so provides a home for media releases that have not been taken up by journalists, as well as human interest stories that lack a traditional news hook.
Podcasts are also an increasingly popular news source and there’s one to suit almost any client’s needs. Taking a strategic approach to engaging with this new medium can enable clients to reach new audiences and engage in a deeper conversation than traditional radio programs can offer.
Increased competition, financial pressures and technological innovation will ensure that the most recent changes to Australia’s media landscape will not be the last. However, by continually monitoring these changes, as well as opportunities for innovation, we will ensure that our clients will always be able to get their message out.
By Daniel Smith
Donald Trump’s march across Lafayette Square to hold a Bible for a photo opportunity in front of St John’s Episcopal Church was a political ‘Hail Mary’ pass designed to get him back into the political game.
It was a calculated communication to his white, culturally conservative, working class base that was simultaneously designed to elicit a response from his enraged opponents that pushed his supporters further into his arms in an election year.
To many of us, it looked like madness. How could tear gassing your own citizens to clear the way for a photo opportunity at a time when Americans are suffering from both the health and economic impacts of COVID-19, as well as deep emotional pain at the killing of George Floyd be anything but electoral suicide?
To understand Trump’s thinking, we need to understand two realities. First, Trump is in deep political trouble. Second, motivating white, working class people to vote is his most plausible path to another come-from-behind victory.
But, first to Trump’s political problems.
The dominant narrative following Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election was that a surge in support from white non-college educated (working class) voters propelled Trump to victory in former industrial states that had traditionally voted Democrats.
Like most narratives, this represents only part of the story.
Trump’s victory also relied on college-educated Republicans, despite serious misgivings, holding their nose and voting for Trump over the even more unpalatable former Secretary of State, as well as African American voters not turning out to support Clinton at the same levels as they had to support Barrack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Which is where Trump’s re-election problems begin.
In the highest turnout midterm election in more than 100 years, Democrats swept to a majority in the US House of Representatives. Their largest gain in seats came in traditionally Republican suburban districts that not only voted for Trump in 2016, but also voted for Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for President, in 2012, with this swing delivered by largely college-educated, predominantly female former Republicans.
At the midterms, Trump lost a chunk of what used to be the Republican base, and there has been no evidence yet that he is winning it back.
Trump’s problems are magnified by the outrage among African Americans at systemic racism and their ongoing brutalisation at the hands of police, which was made most visible by the killing of George Floyd. The fact that both the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 are disproportionately impacting African American communities will be compounding this rage.
In this environment, the sharp decline in African American turnout experienced in 2016 may well be reversed, particularly if Democrat Joe Biden picks an African American as his running mate, which he is reported to be strongly considering.
As things stand, two of the three foundations of Trump’s 2016 victory are wobbly. Which is why Trump is seeking to reinforce the third - his base.
More than any other politician, Trump understands both the angst and potential political power of the white, American working class.
In their well-researched book, Deaths of Despair and the Future of American Capitalism, Anne Case and Angus Deaton describe how Americans without a college degree have few prospects in an economy where globalisation and technology are taking lower-skilled jobs. This has led to social decay and falling life expectancy in white working-class communities, on the back of rapidly increasing levels of suicide, drug overdoses and alcohol related illness – the deaths of despair.
Trump’s strategy in 2020 is the same as it was in 2016, being to position affluent, university educated Democrat politicians and journalists as elites who care more about ‘minority issues’ than they do about American workers, offering himself as the only one who understands the latter’s plight and, therefore, as the only one who can reverse it.
With white, non-college educated Americans representing about 40 per cent of the electorate, and historically having the lowest turnout rates at Presidential elections, Trump sees new voters and a path to victory in the family and friends of the people who voted for him in 2016.
Will Trump’s strategy be successful? There are signs, on the ground and in the polls, that some of his people aren’t buying what he’s been trying to sell in recent weeks. But, even if they did, whether this would be enough to offset what promises to be a much higher turnout rate among African Americans and any further drift of college educated Republicans to the Democrats is unknown.
One thing is certain, should Trump be re-elected in November, he will see his base as having delivered it and his Hail Mary law-and-order play as the start of his comeback. Draw your own conclusions about what this would mean for the tone and substance of a second Trump term.
Daniel Smith is executive director and founder of CGM Communications.
By Daniel Smith
The rapid change in government policy Australia has witnessed in the first half of 2020 hasn’t been seen since the early days of the Whitlam Government.
And, with the health, economic and political impacts of COVID-19 still playing out, the current policy whirlwind is set to last for some time to come.
For two weeks following his election win in 1972, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam formed a ‘duumvirate’ with his Deputy Lance Barnard. Together, they used executive power to implement many of Labor’s election commitments, including ending conscription, opening relations with China, removing sales tax from contraceptive pills, appointing an interim schools commission and banning South African sporting teams from Australia.
Whitlam’s duumvirate was about fast-tracking the implementation of policies that had been developed over 23 years in opposition and were clearly laid out in Labor’s platform.
During the COVID-19 crisis, neither employers nor employees have had this visibility of impending policy change. In responding to a crisis that few foresaw six months ago, we have seen a newly formed national cabinet develop and implement policies to address the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 in real time.
In response to the health crisis, borders have gone up and down, businesses have closed and opened, with the number of people we can associate with, as well as how close we can get to them, changing numerous times.
Changes in economic policy have included the introduction of wage subsidies and an effective living wage, free childcare, fast-tracked regulatory approvals and tighter foreign investment rules.
But we are not done, yet. In front of us lies the rolling back of some, but probably not all, of the COVID-19 emergency measures. New approaches to economic stimulus designed to mitigate the ongoing economic impacts of the crisis are certain, whether they be from the withdrawal of current government measures, or from a drop off in trade and international investment, as our major international partners face their own COVID-19 challenges. Further regulatory reforms designed to unlock private investment and job creation are also highly likely.
The risk of ongoing trade and diplomatic tension on the international stage is also real, with associated policy responses in Australia also possible.
The upside for both employers and employees as we move through this period of rapid change is that both the federal and state governments have been increasingly consultative in their development of COVID-19 period policy, as well as being open and responsive to feedback.
We all know that industry craves policy certainty, but, the reality is, policy certainty won’t return for quite some time. In this environment, all stakeholders will need to allocate resources to both shaping and responding to the change that will continue to come.
The Whitlam duumvirate lasted for only two weeks. The current period of rapid policy change could last years.
In this environment, all stakeholders need to keep their relationships with government strong and look for ways they can both shape new policy and assist its refinement in implementation.
In the COVID-19 world, most of us have had to adapt to working via Zoom or other technology, and the media is no different. As social distancing and isolation kicked in, journalists quickly ‘pivoted’ from conducting interviews in person to doing them via webcam.
While this was not only necessary during isolation, it was also an efficient way of conducting interviews, both for the journalist and the interviewee. For those being interviewed, benefits included not having to leave the safety and comfort of their own home, feeling more at ease by conducting interviews in familiar surrounds, not having the uncomfortable sensation of having a big TV camera in their face and not even having to wear pants if they didn’t feel like it (personally, I don’t recommend this, just in case).
But despite these benefits, there are also many pitfalls to doing interviews via your webcam. As a viewer, I’ve found it fascinating getting a glimpse inside people’s homes. But as a media advisor, I’ve often been alarmed about the quality of the interviews. Poor choices in background, camera angles and lighting can be, at best, amusing and, at worst, distracting. And that is where the danger lies: when viewers are distracted, you’ve lost your opportunity to get your message across, which is, presumably, why you agreed to do the interview in the first place.
And while we don’t all need to have TV studio-quality set ups at home, there are a few things you can do to ensure your webcam interview isn’t a disaster (and doesn’t reveal more than you want it to).
Here are a few tips to help you navigate the brave new world of webcam interviews:
Find somewhere quiet. If there are other people in the house while you’re doing your interview, find somewhere quiet and private to do the interview (preferably with a lockable door). We all remember the professor whose two children made an unscheduled appearance during a live BBC cross as their mortified mother commando rolled across the floor to retrieve them. And while it went viral, few people would remember what the point of the interview actually was.
Position the camera at your eyeline, or above, NOT below. I’m sure we have all seen up more people’s nostrils than we ever thought possible. As a viewer, it’s really hard to concentrate on what someone is saying when you’re mentally counting their nose hairs. Putting the camera at eye level during your interview gives you a chance to connect with viewers to get your point across. It’s also a much more flattering angle.
Choose your background carefully. You might love the ‘tasteful’ nude art hanging on the wall of your office, but think about whether it’s really appropriate for viewers to see, or whether it could be a distraction. As well as removing any controversial or distracting items from behind you, you may want to consider actually placing items in your background that reflect the tone of the interview or illustrate the point you’re trying to get across.
Choose a soft light. Any photographer will tell you that a yellowish, soft light is much more flattering than a harsh, white light.
Check your internet connection and webcam beforehand. It’s a good idea to do a test, with or without the interviewer, before going live to air. Watching someone try and work out how to switch on their microphone does not make great viewing.
For more in depth interview skills, CGM Communications runs full media trainings, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
By Daniel Smith
The urgent review of skills, training and workforce development announced by Premier Mark McGowan this week will provide important opportunities for industry to engage about skills needs during the COVID-19 recovery period.
The necessary public health precautions that were put in place to fight the coronavirus severely disrupted many businesses, forcing many to re-think the way they do things, as well as their resulting current and future skills needs. This thinking has been complicated by both international and interstate travel restrictions, which are likely to compel businesses to recruit locally for some time to come.
This review will seek to identify the skills needs of industry, the availability of those skills in Western Australia and, where there are gaps, how we can re-train local workers with these skills as quickly as possible.
Performed well, this review should be a win-win for West Australian businesses and workers. WA businesses will have the skills they need to drive recovery, and local workers will have the skills they need for the jobs that are available.
If this review is to deliver to its potential, it needs industry to engage. Our understanding is that this will not be a typical government review that takes months, if not years, to complete and is delivered with pages of recommendations and, sometimes, a shelf to sit on. The aim is for it to be responsive and nimble, providing advice and recommendations to government for implementation as it goes.
If there are positives to be found in the current crisis, the development of a local workforce that fully meets the current and future skills needs of WA industry is one we would all celebrate.
We encourage industry to engage with this important review.
By Anthony Fisk
This week’s announcement by the McGowan Government to reduce red tape on major developments is a game changer for many in the development industry.
These new laws, if passed, will streamline the lengthy and complex development application process and kick start significant projects to boost economic activity in the State.
The WA Planning Commission (WAPC) would, for 18 months, be given the power to approve or reject developments worth more than $30 million, or with more than 100 dwellings or a minimum 20,000sqm commercial space.
Developers that meet the criteria would be able to lodge plans directly with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, which would facilitate consultation, assess proposals and provide recommendations to the WAPC.
Regional and tourism projects of “State significance” could also be referred to the Commission by the Premier on the recommendation of the Planning Minister.
Under the current system, major projects require involvement from a range of agencies to deliver water, roads, fire safety, environmental outcomes and more. In the absence of a coordinated approach, each agency often has requirements that differ or even conflict with those of other agencies.
For example, a residential development on the urban fringe may be required by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) to cut down swathes of trees to act as a fire break. However, cutting down acres of native forests may not be consistent with the preferred outcomes set down by environmental agencies.
Without a coordinated approach and a level of urgency to see these major projects succeed, developers can find themselves negotiating complex access and other arrangements across multiple government departments for months and even years.
While the industry has welcomed the move to streamline the approvals process, there has been some concern that these new rules could sidestep local councils and reduce engagement with the communities likely to be affected by these major developments.
But while these concerns are understandable, it’s worth pointing out that the new legislation is expected to establish a consistent approach to community consultation and engagement for these major projects. The State Government is very much aware of the ability of communities to connect and activate very effectively over local issues.
West Australians expect to be listened to and engaged with when it comes to developments in their own backyard. Despite the laggard economy, locals can and will organise against developments they see as inconsistent with their community. You only have to think of the recent failures of the Roe 8 Freight Link, Point Grey Marina, and Scarborough Beach Twin Towers to understand the power of organised community resistance.
Our communities are not only looking for more engagement, they’re demanding best practice community engagement, including the framework established by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). Despite these proposed legislative changes, CGM Communications will continue to help developers gain community acceptance and support for these major projects using these best-practice models.
Our experience with our developer clients is that the most significant project delays are not caused by the local community, but by the red tape dispensed by government. WA Planning Minister Rita Saffioti is hoping to speed up the development approval process by having agencies prioritise major projects, by cooperating better and by providing advice earlier.
This new approach aims to tighten this process to make sure all agencies involved in providing advice to developers are doing it in a more timely and efficient manner, and without the need to bring issues and conflicts to the attention of government.
We anticipate this will bring projects we have been discussing with our clients for several years off the drawing boards, and significant developments, which may have stalled due to COVID-19, back to life.