A People’s Vote will not deliver an exit from Brexit


A People’s Vote will not deliver an exit from Brexit

Following Lib Dem conference, a nagging thought that has been growing in the back of my mind is getting louder. Atlas Director and former Lib Dem Special Adviser, Vanessa Pine, argues the Lib Dems must stop banging on about Brexit.

I don’t mean they should not talk about it ever, but at the moment they are pushing “an exit from Brexit” to the exclusion of all else. The party has become dangerously myopic. As the applause in the conference hall and the proliferation of fetching blue berets with yellow felt stars demonstrates, an imaginary get out of jail free card and the idea of a People’s Vote is like catnip to activists and the new members who joined following the 2016 failure of Remain.


Two years ago, when I first had this debate with the party’s then Director of Comms, the Lib Dems were a lone voice calling for a referendum on the final deal. Since then the Electoral Commission has called the spending of the Leave campaign into question, senior Brexiteers admitted their campaign promises were false and politicians on all sides of Parliament have now lined up to say the so called “Chequers deal” is rubbish. And so, as Brexit reaches its crescendo over the next few months, the opportunity to win new centrist, pro-European supporters has become more acute.


In which case, it may seem counter intuitive then to argue that it’s time for the Lib Dems to talk about other things. But there are two big reasons why, in my view. Firstly, because I do not think we can win a People’s Vote and secondly, because the party must not consign itself to becoming a reverse UKIP single-issue pressure group.


Be careful what you wish for


This week the official People’s Vote published thoughts on how a second European referendum – or a first referendum on the final deal – might be brought about. But they are focussed on process not persuasion. From the public messaging, it seems that little has been done within the Remain camps or the Lib Dems to address why we didn’t win the argument in June 2016. The message is still an uninspiring one of economic doom. The same project fear that failed to secure a win last time.  Back then only this Gordon Brown video sought to make the emotional case for remaining in the European Union. At best, People’s Vote are now saying “its ok to change your mind” which still implies “but we think you were wrong before”. The hope and the change, which uplifts and inspires voters, was and still is all on the Leave side.


More than 50% of the seats where Lib Dems are the main opposition (18 of 35) voted majority Leave. Setting aside a People’s Vote, the party cannot win Westminster seats again without the support of at least some of the Brexit coalition. Yet too often it talks to those voters without empathy. We reject legitimate concerns by lumping them in with racism and ignorance. Even those from within the party struggled to get a hearing on a controversial new immigration policy debated on Sunday morning, which was explicitly amended to give Lib Dems the right to call Brexit voters racists.


This failure to meet people where they are, may be because only three of the current MPs represent Brexit majority constituencies. Partly because it gets so little media coverage, the Lib Dem narrative and policy offer fails to address legitimate concerns about standards of living, cuts to precious services and rising pressure on those services from immigration. Those on the doorsteps of St Ives, North Devon, Hazel Grove, Winchester, and Wells must “Demand Better” than that. Telling more than half your voters “you’re wrong” and – if there is ever a single moment in time when Brexit can be proven to be bad – “we told you so” – seems unlikely to change their minds. The polling evidence that voters on either side have changed their minds is patchy at best.


I believe this double failure of messaging and empathy means, even if the long shot comes off, the Lib Dems and other remainers would lose a People’s Vote. And by a wider margin. Leave would argue compellingly to people who have been left behind by austerity, that metropolitan liberal elites are still talking down to them, telling them they know best and blind to their concerns. “They are ignoring your wishes and trying to get off on a technicality, Go tell them again louder…” is far more likely to get voters off sofas and down to the polling station.


One trick pony


Losing a People’s Vote would take the issue of our European relationship off the table for a generation at least, if not for good. And as the AV referendum shows, the Lib Dems love a lost cause, in fact they revel in the nerdiness of technical merits over the practical feasibility. Post-Brexit, the Lib Dem leadership will face huge internal pressure to become the party of return. That identity crisis could consign the Lib Dems to perpetual political obscurity.


The party urgently needs to broaden the conversations it is having with voters. New liberal answers to people’s day to day problems are needed. Under Vince’s leadership foundations have been laid - the so called “ideas factory” is open, cranking out policy suggestions on taxation, health, housing, AI and tech. His attempts to make the party fit for purpose may yet bear fruit. And it is to his credit that he has shown vision for the movement beyond his own tenure. He is in politics to do something not be something. But having signalled his intention to step down, the party, the Westminster Village and the voters will have to look to the prospective candidates who might replace him to meet this challenge.


Lame Duck: would a new name and a new leader revive the Lib Dems?


Lame Duck: would a new name and a new leader revive the Lib Dems?

With the hard left tightening its grip on Labour and the hard right dictating to a Conservative Prime Minister, there are millions of voters in the centre ground of British politics looking for a moderate, progressive party to call home. As Brexit reaches a crescendo this autumn, Atlas Director Vanessa Pine argues this should present a huge opportunity for the Lib Dems.


A little over a year into the job, the question for Vince Cable as he addresses the party’s annual gathering in Brighton is why those voters are not already flocking to the #libdemfightback? My erstwhile boss was the only person willing to put himself forward as leader after Tim Farron resigned in June 2017. Despite the coronation, Vince got a pretty poor inheritance from his predecessor. The party infrastructure was hollowed out, its volunteers and coffers drained by the defeat of the General Election. From when I first started volunteering in 2005, we’ve dropped from 62 to 12 MPs in Parliament. The party has spent the last seven years in single figures and endured a steady loss of council seats. To borrow a phrase from Sky’s Adam Boulton the “grassroots are parched.”


But this May, the Lib Dems secured their best local election results for 15 years. The current expectation is that 2019 will deliver more. The post-referendum membership surge continues to hold above 100,000. Two years ago, the Lib Dems ploughed a lonely furrow, calling for a people’s vote on the final Brexit deal. That call is now being embraced by people up and down the country and a growing number of politicians from other parties – most recently the Women’s Equality Party and Conservatives for a People’s vote.


Self-inflicted wounds…


It’s not clear why then, with things finally starting to move in the right direction, the Lib Dem Leader has chosen this moment to kick off a “going out in a blaze of glory” tour. His well-intentioned answer to the centre ground opportunity has been to suggest reforms to broaden the party into a movement, welcoming talent and support from outside. But a proposal to allow non-MPs to lead the party was read as implicit criticism of the talents of the current crop of MPs. There have been other needlessly self-inflicted wounds – not necessarily of his making – a no show at key Brexit vote, briefing a leadership speech weeks in advance that naturally gave rise to resignation speculation. This week even going as far as accepting the suggestion that the party could adopt a new name. It is to his credit that he has shown vision for the movement beyond his own tenure. But Vince has appeared a little too keen to embrace the idea of a “new” centrist party, to the detriment of his own.


Having announced his impending departure, the Lib Dem leader has made himself “an irrelevant lame duck” in the eyes of the lobby journalists. Those who are fed up with the Westminster Village soap opera may well say, who cares? Why do we pander to the myopic concerns of the dead tree media anyway? The practical answer is that harnessing their interest is vital if the party is to get the cut through it so desperately needs to support its campaigns. There is frustration at every level over the lack of the media coverage for Lib Dem stories, from the hard-working press team, to the activists and the armchair members.


Yet, the party has consistently underfunded its digital and social campaigning function, so it can’t match Corbyn’s efforts to bypass the so-called ‘MSM’ and speak directly to its base. Ten years ago, Facebook was a niche start-up, now over a quarter (26%) of the world’s population use it daily. YouTube gets more hits than Google. Video is king. And the Lib Dems are facing this digital age with an analogue leader. But this challenge goes far beyond the leadership. Lib Dems, always famed for their pavement bashing grassroots army, now need a digital one to match.  We should recruit and train volunteers who can weave politics and policy into visual stories. A dramatic investment in digital campaigning capacity is needed to spread the party’s messages beyond Brexit.


This weekend, party members from across the UK descend on Brighton for their annual conference. They will discuss reforms and policies that should help generate the boldly liberal ideas that, just might, engage those centrist, progressive, moderate voters that we need to win. I will be there too, hoping something can yet be done to save the Lib Dems from themselves. But it could be worse, instead of heading to the beach at Brighton I could be arriving in Liverpool as members of the Labour Party will be next week, facing a far bigger crisis of confidence in the leadership and direction of my tribe.





Tribalism and politics. A story as old as time itself. Since we first stood upright, we have split into tribes. What drives this and why in our modern interconnected world is our politics so tribal?

Our researcher Mike Hough looks at where tribalism originates from and whether this is a good thing.


At their most basic tribes are groups of people brought together by common goals or ideals. You name it; we will split into tribes about it! Politics is just one example.

Tribes exhibit group mentality and rally against criticism of their tribe and its beliefs. They can be defensive and tend to fight back against attacks from those outside their tribe or those who express a different opinion.

Sounds nothing like our politics, or any other aspect of our daily life, right?

American biologist and Pulitzer Prize winner E.O.Wilson put it like this “The answer is that everyone, no exception, must have a tribe, an alliance with which to jockey for power and territory, to demonize the enemy, to organize rallies and raise flags.”

It takes only five minutes over our office team break to show this behaviour in action. It might be the part of country you come from (Northerners are more friendly than Southerners allegedly); the supermarket you shop in (it has to be Sainsbury’s); the cordial you drink (I hear the only option is Ribena); the food you eat (does anyone really like marmite?) or even something more mundane (or vital?) like the football team you support.

We all belong to a number of tribes.

 Where is your allegiance?

Where is your allegiance?


And so to our political tribes. Labour or Tory; Brexit or Remain; diehard deliverer or floating voter; Republican or Democrat. But, you don’t need to dig down that much further to find tribes within these tribes.

Corbynistas and Blairites in the Labour Party. Brexiteers and Remainers in the Tory party. Orange Bookers and Social Liberals in the Lib Dems. This is merely scratching the surface. (Trust me, this could go on forever!).

Tribalism is everywhere. Sometimes it is more overt than at other times. But, even when not being played out in public, it is always there, bubbling away below the surface.

 Chuka Umunna MP from the Remain Tribe and Jacob Rees-Mogg MP from the Brexit Tribe

Chuka Umunna MP from the Remain Tribe and Jacob Rees-Mogg MP from the Brexit Tribe


“To run an effective political party you need a degree of tribalism, it’s the glue that holds everyone together.” (The Late Rt Hon Charles Kennedy, Former Leader of the Liberal Democrats)

From a party political perspective, tribalism can be effective. Group behaviour and group think is useful for party management. It ensures MPs are motivated to vote in the right way and make the right interventions.

MPs have long worked on the basis that above all the party comes first. Ultimately that is where their loyalty lies. There may be different notions of the party, but the party is where the loyalty is. It runs deep. It is why despite any misgivings MPs cannot walk away.

The party comes first!


Yet, there are problems. It discourages people working together. It discourages cross-party thinking. It encourages politicians to reject arguments not based on their thinking but on who has proposed the argument. Often it can get quite nasty.

Surely that cannot be healthy? A grown up pluralistic democracy takes ideas from across the political sphere and at its best takes from different political philosophies. Tribalism makes that harder. It makes politics far less attractive to those not part of the tribes. It puts off the 97% who don’t belong to any party at all.

So what do we do going forward?


Tribalism is not all bad. It is good to have a sense of loyalty. It can stand in the way of progress if it is not your progress. It can reject perfectly sensible arguments and can defend undefendable policies. That isn’t good.

Tribal behaviour is part of human nature, but that doesn’t mean we can’t curb its worst excesses. By recognising these excesses, we can check them and prevent them from dominating. That would look like progress.

And maybe, just maybe we could all get along a little better.


England will still be England


England will still be England

Nothing’s changed. Despite the heaving pubs and bars, the red-cross clad paraphernalia and the extra 500,000 pints of beer drunk (or spilt), football hasn’t come home.


A long, hot summer


A long, hot summer

Theresa May and her team in Number 10 are no strangers to political turbulence and firefighting. But by any measure the last three weeks have been amongst the most difficult since Theresa May entered Downing Street.

It was all looking so good

Although it seems a lifetime ago now, the marathon 12-hour Cabinet meeting at Chequers on 6 July produced what the Prime Minister described as a “collective position for the future of [the] negotiations with the EU”.

Despite all the talk of Ministerial walk-outs, WhatsApp tantrums and even David Cameron stepping in to placate Boris Johnson, it appeared Theresa May had managed to get her Cabinet to agree on a united approach to Britain’s future relationship with the EU. While the document continued to “fudge” certain issues and amounted to a “soft” Brexit, it seemed it was enough to satisfy the different Brexit factions within the Cabinet.

The wheels start to come off

As soon as the details of the Chequers agreement were published, leading Brexiteer Conservative MPs began to line up to express their disquiet and opposition to the plans including Jacob Rees-Mogg, standard bearer for the Brexiteers. Suspicions were raised further when neither David Davis nor Boris appeared over the weekend to endorse the plan.

Then late Sunday night, a little over 48 hours after the Chequers summit, David Davis and his junior minister Steve Baker announced they had resigned, stating they did not believe in the Chequers deal.

Number 10 now held its breath, waiting to see whether other Brexiteer Ministers would walk, with all eyes on the man opposite Number 10 in the Foreign Office.

The blond bombshell explodes

The PM and her team didn’t have to wait long. On Monday afternoon, Boris Johnson announced he too was resigning, claiming the Chequers compromise amounted to a “semi Brexit”. Although he said he was “sad” to be resigning he did manage to arrange for a photographer to be there as he signed his resignation letter.

As before when faced with trouble, Theresa May hunkered down and tried to carry on. Although, cheered when she   entered the Commons chamber moments after Boris had announced his resignation, she drew laughs and jeers when she referred to the “robust exchange of views” going on within her Party. The same afternoon, replacements were found in the form of Dominic Raab for DxEU and Jeremy Hunt for the Foreign Office.

With neither Johnson nor Davis calling for Theresa May to go, Number 10 was hoping that things might calm down.

Enter the Donald


However, just when it seemed things couldn’t get worse, enter Donald Trump. Having arrived in the UK, things started well with the President treated to a lavish banquet at Blenheim Palace.

However, that same evening the details of an interview given to The Sun emerged in which he praised Boris Johnson, said the Chequers deal would kill off a US-UK trade deal and complained Theresa May hadn’t taken his advice on how to handle Brexit talks.

The next day’s press conference at Chequers between the two was an awkward affair. Despite the President’s best attempts to back track on his earlier comments, Theresa May still had to endure Trump praising Boris Johnson as a potential future Prime Minister.

Over to Parliament

Despite all of this, Theresa May’s problems were not over as she started last week facing the prospect of defeat in Parliament and a possible Confidence vote.

The debate before the crucial vote on Tuesday was extraordinary. Deep divisions within the Conservative Party were on display in the chamber with “remain” MPs such as Anna Soubry viciously attacking fellow hard Brexit-supporting Conservative MPs and vice versa.

The Whips piled on the pressure, warning potential rebels a defeat for the Government could mean Corbyn in Downing Street. In the end the Government scraped through with a majority of just six.

What happens now

The last three weeks have demonstrated that Theresa May presides over a Conservative Party in a state of near civil war, with divisions deepening daily. However, as one senior Tory backbencher said recently, Theresa May is protected by having the “best Chief Whip ever… called Jeremy Corbyn”.

Certainly, the threat of a Corbyn Government is enough to scare many Conservatives into towing the line and May also benefits from the fact Brexiteers know there is no majority in Parliament for their vision of Brexit.

Therefore, not for the first time, Theresa May’s position is protected by the lack of a viable alternative.

Now that Parliament has risen, the Prime Minister and her team will be pleased to have survived the last few weeks and will be hoping things quieten down over the summer as they seek to turn around opinion over the Chequers proposals. Expect to see a succession of Cabinet Ministers hitting the airwaves over the summer, trying to show united support for the proposals.

While there is undoubtedly deep unhappiness in the Conservative Party, especially in local associations, the summer should be relatively quieter for Theresa May.

What will Autumn bring?

In many ways what happens in the Autumn depends on the EU and their attitude to the Chequers deal, which will become clearer over the coming weeks as discussions between both sides continue. 

If Michel Barnier, as predicted, demands further compromises the pressure from Brexiteers on Theresa May and the Government to say no and threaten a ‘no deal’ scenario will grow.

While Theresa May could agree to give further ground, the anger this would unleash amongst the Brexiteers is likely to be impossible to contain, resulting in a leadership challenge.

There also remains further difficult votes on Brexit-related legislation and the prospect of the Conservative Party Conference, where all eyes will be on the pretenders to the leadership, in particular Boris Johnson.

Without doubt, the Autumn will test the Prime Minister’s survival skills to the limit. Long, hot days lie ahead.


Time to prang out over PR?


Time to prang out over PR?

[prang out]

British Love Island

Verb: To worry, stress and behave erratically

It’s that time of year again. The sun is shining, the scantily clad millennials have taken centre stage - Love Island fever is gripping the nation. Whether the show is your type on paper or not, its success has sent waves of admiration and despair through the media landscape. This year’s BARB Viewing Report found that the reality show was the most watched live programme in 2017. It beat football matches, dramas, films, and prospective leaders of our country arguing on television. And it tells us something about the way we consume media.



It’s no surprise that Deloitte’s TMT team are predicting traditional TV viewing by 18-24 year old’s to further decline in 2018. Ofcom’s Media Nations report echoes this, finding that 16-34 year old’s now watch an average of one hour of YouTube per day on devices other than their TV sets. We now have the ability to pick and choose what we consume, where, and for how long. Despite this, live broadcasts and events are expected to continue to thrive in our evermore diverse digital environment. In a world of on-demand media consumption, the BARB statistics on live programmes confirms what we love the most: reality TV, debates, football games, the Grand Prix – they keep us part of a wider, cross-media conversation that we make time for. For better or for worse, live broadcasts help us avoid the rising creep of ‘fomo’, the fear of missing out.

This is symbiotically linked to a diversification of the devices we choose to use to catch the programmes we love. (Alongside a fair share of generational despair and general snobbery.) 



According to BARB, for the 2017 Love Island series, almost a quarter of all live and on-demand viewing was done via a non-TV device. And two thirds of those devices were either a smartphone or tablet. We are living in a world of diverse media consumption. Our content is getting increasingly mobile, and it’s changing our expectations of media as well as the way we interact with it.



This is echoed in our consumption on the internet. In their Media Use and Attitudes Report 2018, Ofcom found that 9 in 10 adults are online. No shocks there, but adults now spend more time online in locations that aren’t their home, workplace, or place of education, and the number of people using their smartphones to go online is up to 70 per cent vs. 66 per cent two years ago (Ofcom). As anyone who’s bumped into a scrolling commuter on a pavement or platform will know, mobile data consumption had coincided with the apparent death of spatial awareness.

Should we be surprised that TV is still the first port of call for news? Whilst Reuter’s Digital News Report found that BBC News, The Guardian and the Daily Mail are the big fish of the online news world, Ofcom’s findings state that television is still the first place that internet users go to for types of news that are important to them. Especially when they are looking for impartiality (66 percent), breaking news (62 percent), or news that provides digestible key facts (59 percent). As ever, it is in the Beeb we trust…so you can sleep easy at night, Huw.




Of course, social media should not be overlooked in this conversation. Ofcom’s report highlights that social media is most popular for those seeking an “alternative viewpoint” on the news, despite users being less likely to say they often see views that they disagree with online. What’s more, concerns about risks posed by the content we read on the internet are increasing, particularly the risks it poses to others or to society. Are we waking up and smelling the coffee of ‘fake news’? Or is our national paranoia simply increasing? It is certainly interesting that Ofcom notes the importance of critical skills in our evermore digital world to discern what is real and what is fake. “People need the skills to question and make judgements about their online environment” writes Ofcom – a hangover from a tumultuous 2016 US election, overt Russian use of propaganda, and the rise of “alternative facts” perhaps?



Critics forever theorise about the dystopian future headed for the social media generation. 🤷 However it appears that even everyday grammers and tweeters are becoming more aware of the downsides of social media. A third of people have said that they would like to cut down on the time they spend online. Importantly, nearly half of those asked said they had seen hateful content online in the past year. Whether you’re glued to your screens or not, operators are responding to these concerns. Earlier this month, Apple unveiled its new ‘digital wellbeing’ tool which allows social media fans to set limits on the browsing time for certain apps in a bid aims to reduce screen time. Instagram have also recently confirmed the development of a Usage Insights feature that is set to track the time grammers spend taking pictures of food, beaches, themselves, the dog’s dinner, alongside measures announced earlier in the year to combat bullying comments. Instapests of all kinds, take note.

It’s clear that we are using more and more streaming and on-demand services, see social media as an increasingly viable source of news however “alternative”, and have access to creative opportunities in an interconnected world. However it is important to remember that the internet is not ubiquitous. Consumption of media is not the same for everyone and there are still discrepancies by age and socio-economic group. There are still those who are not online at all and older people remain less likely to be ordering a online grocery delivery whilst dancing to beats from Spotify.



Our media landscape is diversifying. How we consume media is diversifying. The PR of the future needs to be just as diverse. The aim of any PR campaign or any humble press release is to be read, shared and heard.  How media is “consumed” should be at the heart of any strategy. Campaigns can harness the fear of missing out to their advantage, by making content that people want to share. We need to create content that can span the entirety of the media landscape, that fits naturally into channels and devices, with stories that people just don’t want to miss. PRs shouldn’t be pranging just yet…



Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018

Ofcom Adults’ Media Use and Attitudes Report 2018

Ofcom Media Nations: UK

Deloitte UK Technology, Media and Telecommunications Predictions 2018

BARB Viewing Report 2018


82% of people clicked on this link


82% of people clicked on this link

  An excerpt of a Facebook status shared by influential right-wing actor Scott Baio. All the claims are incorrect. The status was shared more than 28,000 times.

 An excerpt of a Facebook status shared by influential right-wing actor Scott Baio. All the claims are incorrect. The status was shared more than 28,000 times.


For as long as human beings have told each other stories, fake news has existed; Roman emperors, Greek politicians and Egyptian pharaohs all disseminated fake news about their enemies. Leaders could choose to a variety of methods; commission poems, use powerful rhetoric, erect a symbolic statue. As the saying goes, “a lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its pants on”.


Figure 2 Statue of Augustus. The Roman emperor used fake news to help him legitimise his war against Anthony and Cleopatra, turning it from being a civil war to a defence of the Republic.

Propaganda is a tried and tested tool in the arsenal of political campaigning and international cyber-warfare. The term “fake news” has been popularised over the last two years, with a 365% increase in usage from 2016 to 2017. Collins Dictionary made it their Word of the Year in 2017. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign flourished on the back of conspiracy theories and fake news generated and shared across social media in 2016. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán utilised disinformation around illegal immigration to help him secure another term as Prime Minister this year. In Myanmar, fake news was used to stoke tensions and incite violence against religious minorities. All three relied heavily on Facebook as a vehicle for spreading their message, ideas, and beliefs. 

It’s not hard to see why. Every second, five new Facebook profiles are created, adding to the two billion already in existence. Every minute, 510,000 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses updated, and 136,000 photos uploaded. Every day, 4.75 billion pieces of content – news stories, articles, viral videos – are shared across the platform. The amount of raw data Facebook needs to process and regulate (filtering posts that break the law) each 24-hour cycle is vast. On top of this, Facebook then personalises each newsfeed to each user, considering over 1,000 variables per post to make it as engaging as possible for the users. Eventually, around 300 posts are selected and placed in a user’s Newsfeed each day.

Screenshot (15).png

Figure 3 Most popular fake election stories in the United States in 2016, by Facebook engagement (in thousands)

It took Trump’s Presidential campaign and allegations of Russian interference, along with incoming legislation in Europe threatening fines for extremist content, to jolt Facebook into action. The increasingly partisan nature of the American political landscape proved a fertile breeding ground for fake news articles to be shared, commented on and spread far and wide. More than two thirds of American adults use Facebook to get at least some of their news, compared to a quarter of Brits. Furthermore, as Facebook tailored its algorithms to try and keep users on the site, it pushed and recommended related articles, regardless of the authenticity of the site it was taking them from. Conspiracy websites like infowars, which continues to preach that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, began prominently featuring on Newsfeeds after breaking events took place.

Trump Fake NEws MEME.jpg

Figure 4 An example of a fake news story shared by far-right site Your News Wire

Clearly, Facebook had a problem. However, tackling the spread of fake news on the site raised ethical questions for management. Accused for a long time of already having an anti-Conservative leaning, the leadership team struggled with the ethics of determining what exactly fake news was, and if it was their job to limit the freedom of expression of its user. Whilst ‘Ranking’ news sites has been floated as the latest possible answer, the company seems to only want to utilise this as a last resort.

Facebook initially decided to tackle the spread of fake news articles across the site by introducing ‘Disputed Flags’. The idea was simple; when a user saw an article on their feed, it would have a small flag next to it. Red flags would indicate an article that had been disputed by at least two independent fact checkers, and therefore a user would know that the article in question was likely to be fake news. In theory, this would stop users from being fooled by fake news sites posing as genuine established media companies. Unfortunately, Facebook failed to comprehend human nature. Red flags next to articles actually made it more likely for users to click on the link, and in some cases reinforced the pre-conceived beliefs of the user.

Facebook next toyed with the idea of minimizing attachments from untrustworthy sites in the newsfeed. Links shared by users from ‘untrustworthy’ sites would not include image previews, in theory making them less visually attractive and therefore less likely to be clicked on by someone’s Facebook friends. The jury is still out as to how successful this has been. 

At the beginning of this month, Facebook entered its most recent chapter in its war against the spread of fake news – it eliminated the sidebar of trending articles. A long-contested feature, the sidebar accounted for only 1.5% of clicks throughs to publishers but often contained inflammatory or inaccurate news reports. Examples in the past included strange headlines such as “DEEZ NUTS” and “LADY GAGA – Photos appear to show singer falling to ground while getting in her convertible”. In the states, Conservatives launched a campaign against the trending sidebar, accusing it of having a deep seated liberal bias, a claim Facebook was forced to refute. In the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage accused the company of censoring conservative viewpoints, citing a drop in engagement on his page. In a statement, Facebook’s Head of News Products Alex Hardiman credited a change in consumer habits to the removal of the trending section, saying: “We’ve seen that the way people consume news on Facebook is changing to be primarily on mobile and increasingly through news video. So we’re exploring new ways to help people stay informed about timely, breaking news that matters to them, while making sure the news they see on Facebook is from trustworthy and quality sources”. The company also released this cutesy video explaining how they would be using new algorithms to try and predict what news stories a user wants to read, based of a variety of factors.

Perhaps greatest hurdle when it comes to the spread and dissemination of fake news across the site is its complicit userbase. Facebook’s fastest growing audience are 55+ years old. Since 2012, this group has grown by 46% while the younger generations either leave the site or refuse to sign up in the first place. Unfortunately, the older generation tend to be the least internet-literate. Unlike younger, more internet savvy generations, they haven’t grown up with instant access to information from across the world at their fingertips. A reddit group called r/oldpeoplefacebook that shares screenshots of old people’s internet mishaps has a dedicated following of over half a million people.

Meet Daniel’s mum Lorna…

Facebook old people.png

Facebook can continue to roll out measures that aim to reduce the spread of fake news across the site. It can minimize links and bump articles down the order to manipulate newsfeeds. But at the end of the day, the user base will decide what content is shared or not shared. Ultimately, as multiple studies have highlighted, users are more likely to share, interact with and react to stories that engage with them emotionally. 62% of users will click on a news article shared by a friend on Facebook. Depressingly, a recent study found 59% of people share stories without ever clicking beyond the headline. And if these stories happen to be poorly-sourced or ill-judged fake news? So be it.

So what does this mean from a communications perspective? Primarily, two things. The first is that Facebook is now more than ever a pay-to-play platform for brands and companies. For your page updates to reach current and potential followers, even clickbait headlines are unlikely to be seen unless you are paying to promote your posts; long gone are the days of organic reach. The second point is that Facebook is currently looking to prioritise human-on-human interaction. To this end, posts shared by other users will be far more likely to appear in the feeds of their friends than a post from a page they ‘liked’ two years ago. Every positive interaction with your page is therefore crucial – meaningful engagement and discussion that keeps people coming back will be rewarded in the newsfeed and keep surfacing up top. Our advice? Quality over quantity is the key to success.


Print media isn’t dead – but what does the future hold?


Print media isn’t dead – but what does the future hold?

In her first blog post for Atlas Partners, Nina Doehmel-Macdonald, explores how the increasing fragmentation of media impacts the world of PR (and why there’s cause to celebrate).


A merger between Trinity Mirror and Northern & Shell Media is on the cards. If approved, the move will mean that a single entity will own and operate almost half of the country’s newspapers. In terms of circulation, the new group would also become the second largest national newspaper organisation, with a 28% share*.

The merger is currently being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority – a step which many consider justified given the ongoing debate around freedom of opinion and expression. Of course, the announcement in February this year isn’t the only thing that’s keeping the nation’s print pages in flux. A month doesn’t go by without another print title shutting shop. The Independent, Company, Glamour, Interview Magazine and NME have all moved online in the last two years. Whilst their audiences differed, they shared the fact that their print operations were no longer commercially viable.

By contrast, edgier, cause-specific and niche titles are seeing growth. Newsstands are full of beautifully designed pop culture titles like Purple and Pop Magazine, and Balance, a lifestyle magazine, launched both online and in print in 2016 in a response to our national ‘wellbeing’ obsession.

Political and current affairs titles including Private Eye and The Economist have both recently enjoyed a sales boost, and we’ve heard rumours that The Guardian’s circulation is on the up since it adopted the Berliner format last year.

Edelman’s 2018 Trust Barometer found that whilst people are consuming less media (with some actively avoiding it altogether), there has been a vast increase in trust in traditional media** in the UK.  Maybe our need for something substantial, researched and more trustworthy is what we hanker after to balance out the fear of fake news. Perhaps the proliferation of the 24/7 news-cycle means we’re all craving a corner and a screen-free twenty minutes to read something that has more longevity than a simple tweet or the latest ‘breaking news’ update from BBC Online.

Of course, there’s a space and need for an online world – that goes without saying. However, it was The Mail on Sunday which first broke the news that Megan Markle’s father had staged photographs a week before the Royal Wedding, not the title’s infamous, celebrity-fuelled ‘sidebar of shame’. KFC published its apology only in the print versions of the Metro and The Sun, in an attempt to manage the fallout that followed what can only be summarised as ‘the great clucking chicken crisis’ in February.

Politically, print publications continue to have the biggest impact. We’ve been in the room when a Secretary of State reviews the morning papers so have first-hand experience of how public opinion and media editorial shape political debate. The Daily Mail is considered the most influential – politicians are terrified of being lambasted in the nation’s second biggest seller. Tim Shipman, political editor of The Sunday Times and a former Mail journalist summed it up nicely: "There isn't a prime minister over the last 30 years who hasn't been looking over their shoulder wondering what Paul Dacre thought of them."

In an increasingly polarised age of ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ and ‘left’ versus ‘right’, we need a plurality of views that challenge and push our thinking. Our self-selected newsfeeds aren’t healthy. We can’t continue to shut out voices, simply because we don’t agree with them. We’re lucky to have such an array of daily opinions and I’m certain that the next few months and years will see more publishers continue to try different business models to ensure that our valued dailies survive. I also expect alternative news sites to continue popping up left, right and centre.

So what does this mean for the PR industry? We already lose out to our marketer colleagues when it comes to measuring tangible impact, and the growing fragmentation of communications channels is unlikely to help this (…I’ll save that topic for another blog post). The cycle of change won’t slow down any time soon. We have to consider the communications mix as a whole and look at every story on a case-by-case basis. We need to make the most of the hundreds of new channels but not forget about the more established, traditional routes to our audiences.

Above all, however, we need to capitalise on and celebrate our most significant skill – our nimbleness. The nature of our world means that we’re ready to stop and start at a moment’s notice, react quickly and instantly decide whether to make the next move or hold off. The media’s recent fragmentation has forced us to hone our nimble minds even further. As a result, we change, adapt and adopt new ways of working to navigate the increasingly fragmented waters successfully. Flexing our nimble muscles means that we will continue to share the stories that we’re employed to tell, regardless of where the media tide turns.


*based on circulation figures for 2017 among national titles, including daily and Sunday titles

**defined as mainstream media sources that are available in print or broadcast format, such as newspapers, magazines, television news and radio news.




No, There Will Not Be Another Snap General Election


No, There Will Not Be Another Snap General Election

So, as we commemorate the one year anniversary of Theresa May’s lost majority, we return to the theme of General Elections, and whether another snap poll is imminent.

Well, according to media speculation, election junkies may not have long to wait.

In this blog, Atlas Researcher and (one) of our election junkies Mike Hough looks at the current situation, how this could lead to a General Election and ultimately whether we should dust off our best pair of trainers for another tour of marginal seats.



Let’s begin by exploring the current situation.

On Tuesday the Brexit Bill returns to the House of Commons. In this mammoth sitting, MPs will vote on the 15 amendments passed in the House of Lords. The most controversial of which is the negotiating of a customs union arrangement with the EU.

What could happen at this point?



Firstly, the Prime Minister could win all of the votes in the Commons. The Bill would then return to the Lords. With the mood in the Lords hardening rather than softening, they are in no mood to acquiesce to the will of the Commons and could send the Bill back. Additionally, the now renowned “enemies of the people” could then seek to play havoc with Brexit legislation. The prospect of parliamentary ping-pong would loom large. Traditionally the Lords has to back down over any manifesto commitments. Brexit was in the Tory manifesto, but this manifesto did not secure a majority Government. Therefore, the Lords may see no need to stand down. This could lead to a high stakes game of poker with both the Lords and the Commons waiting to see who blinks first.



Well, they never really disappeared did they? A more possible scenario is the Prime Minister compromises, wins the votes and wobbles on. Leading Brexiteers will continue to rail against the ‘lack of guts’ displayed by the Government. Threats of leadership challenges will continue. But with the Brexiteers so close to their dream, will they really push the button marked leadership challenge? Never say never, but a leadership contest and a new Prime Minister is highly unlikely.



Parliament would have to bypass the Fixed Term Parliaments Act to trigger a General Election. This would require either a Vote of No Confidence in the Government, or two-thirds of the Commons voting in favour of an early General Election.

Under both scenarios, sitting Tory MPs would need to be the archetypal Turkey's wishing for Christmas to come early. This isn’t going to happen. Firstly, Tory MPs are scarred from last year’s disaster and however divided they are on Brexit they are united by their fear of a Corbyn Government. They will not do anything that makes this more likely (the DUP MPs are also in this camp). Taking down their own Government or voting for an early General Election would definitely fall in this category.

Even in the long shot scenario where we have a new Prime Minister, they’d be ill advised to go to the country again with a divided tribe, a depleted war chest and Brexit no closer to being realised.



The Government is in a bind, but that does not mean a General Election is forthcoming. The potential for a stalemate does exist, but deciding to trigger a General Election to break that deadlock seems a bit dramatic. We are not at that stage yet!

Don’t worry Brenda. You are safe for now!


The Pay Gap Crescendo: A Year in the Headlines


The Pay Gap Crescendo: A Year in the Headlines

The Gender Pay Gap filled the headlines in the lead up to April 5th, with barely a day going by without the media putting a company and their data in the spotlight. Whilst it was impossible to avoid in that final run up, we’ve been reading, tweeting and obsessing about what good looks like, who’s got it wrong, and what we can do to help for a lot longer than a month or two. Here’s our look back at the inaugural year of the Gender Pay Gap, how it went down, and what we’ve seen.



Whilst over 10,000 companies revealed their pay gap data this year, there is one that seemed to get more criticism than any other - the BBC. The ONS puts the UK’s average pay gap as 18.4%, so the BBC’s median gap of 9.7% is significantly below that, and better than the majority of media companies. Despite that, they have received more criticism than any other organisation with a significant Pay Gap. Why is that?

One factor is the high profile nature of their employees, with Gary Lineker, John Humphrys and Chris Evans all topping the highest paid roster. Recognisable names and faces mean it is easier to criticise them and create a story that will grab the public’s attention. When Victoria Derbyshire, Clare Balding and Mishal Husain spoke up in September, their names helped maintain the scrutiny. In our experience, the reaction of staff was the number one concern of companies reporting – whether they were positive or not.

The BBC has always received criticism from all angles, whether left or right. Justified or not, the rest of the media were happy to put the organisation in their scopes as soon as the differences in pay for men and women became apparent. Most of the media left their own revelations until the final month, so whilst the results from ITV, The FT, The Telegraph and The Guardian all created discussion and debate, it never matched the intensity of criticism the BBC received.

pay gap 1.png



There were some real clangers throughout the year, such as John Humphrys being recorded disparaging Carrie Gracie after she stepped down, and the Presidents Club Dinner, which led to revelations of shocking behaviour at an annual charity event. Both events caused media storms and reminded people of the problematic behaviours and challenging attitudes that women still face in their careers, and how this effects the pay gap.

But women were front and centre of just as many headlines. Throughout the year celebrities drove the news agenda. Stars such as Emma Stone, Oprah, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain all opened up about being underpaid in Hollywood and what needed to change. Despite people frequently conflating equal pay issues and the gender pay gap, it was encouraging to see the message break through that more needed to be done to support women across all industries. By April 2018 positive stories and calls to action, such as EasyJet’s efforts to improve their pay gap, were gaining as much attention as the scandals and outrage.

pay gap 2.png



Big stories on the Pay Gap broke consistently throughout the last 12 months, but only in 2018 did the peaks became more frequent. Furthermore, discussion of the pay gap outside of these peaks increased in the early months of 2018. Our graph below shows that for the month before the deadline, Pay Gap news dominated the headlines far more often than not, reaching a fever pitch on the final day. The numbers themselves tell the story. In March, 7,375 UK stories ran with “Pay Gap” in their title, over five times more than in February. And the numbers for April reveal a 40 percent drop in pay gap reporting. What this shows, however, is that Gender Pay Gap reporting has persisted following the deadline, hopefully suggesting a lasting shift in the prevalence of the pay gap conversation. 

So interest in the gender pay gap has grown over the last year. The language of the pay gap debate has also spread, becoming part of some journalist’s everyday scrutiny of companies. Consistent reporting on the issue from all the major newspapers, accompanied by useful guides such as this one, are helping to build understanding. Whilst we know that 78% of organisations pay men more, year one saw most organisations and articles at pains to clarify that a pay gap did not mean an equal pay issue. To a degree that was inevitable, and at least it means we can hopefully put the ‘Gender Pay Gap is a myth’ arguments to bed.

pay gap 3.png



If year one was the start of the conversation, what does the future look like for pay gap reporting? Year two will undoubtedly peel the next layer of the onion. Organisations will be tested against their own rhetoric. Worsening numbers will drive the biggest headlines. In terms of plans – once a women’s network is set up and there’s been unconscious bias training for all – where will companies go?

This isn’t a ‘girls jobs’ to fix, and it is illusionary to think that the argument should only be concerned with women’s choice over their lifestyles. As men become more aware of the problem, having to collect and address the stark facts, they too can help.

Part of the future of Pay Gap reporting needs to be concerned with the workplace stereotypes that remain frustratingly persistent. The same unhelpful gender stereotypes that teach girls to be polite and helpful, not pushy or bossy, also teach boys not to cry. These dangerous stereotypes should not be overlooked when searching for solutions, meaning a focus on mental health support at work and shared parental leave for male managers are just as important as affordable childcare and negotiable skills for women in the executive pipeline.

If you need help planning for gender pay gap 2019 – get in touch now.


What to look out for in the local elections


What to look out for in the local elections

Regardless of who wins, an election should be a time for optimism and fresh approaches
— Libertarian leader Gary Johnson, prior to losing two Presidential elections.

As voters head to the polling booths on 3rd May for the latest round of local elections, they will have much to think about as they decide on which party gets a cross next to their name. Currently, the national political scene is being dominated by the Windrush crisis, potential military intervention in Syria, and an ongoing anti-Semitism row in the Labour party. Despite these major issues, it will most likely be local concerns that will influence the results. Atlas intern Sam Hogg looks at some of the factors at play.



These local elections will see contests up and down the country with over 4,300 seats up for grabs - including all councils and councillors in London.

In 2014 when these seats were last contested, Labour gained control of six additional councils and 300 councillors. This means the party will have more seats to defend on this occasion and in theory Labour may find it difficult to make significant in-roads. In contrast, the Conservatives start from a lower base having lost 236 councillors in 2014 although early predictions suggest they're in for another long night. The Lib Dems also suffered a disappointing night in 2014, losing over 300 councillors - resentment across 'Remain' areas of London may offer them a chance to win back seats with their anti-Brexit message. 



Wandsworth and Westminster

Pundits across the political spectrum will be keeping a close eye on two boroughs in particular: Wandsworth and Westminster. Both are traditionally Conservative strongholds – the former was rumoured to be Margaret Thatcher’s favourite borough, whilst the latter has been in Tory hands for the last 54 years. Now, with local elections imminent, there is a palpable sense of worry among the Conservative party. Theresa May used Prime Minister's Questions to remind voters that Conservative councils cost residents less in council tax than their Labour counterparts. Citing two London boroughs (naturally), May highlighted that residents in the Tory Wandsworth pay about £700 a year, whereas in Labour Lambeth they pay about £1,400. “No clearer example can there be that Conservative councils cost you less," concluded the Prime Minister. Winning either or both would be a significant and symbolic result for Corbyn’s Labour – with this in mind, we predict a Tory hold in Westminster, and a Labour gain in Wandsworth.

Kensington and Chelsea

There are a selection of other boroughs worth keeping a close eye on. Firstly, the Conservative stronghold of Kensington and Chelsea. Currently, the Conservative party have a 24-seat majority, holding 37 out of a possible 50 seats across 18 wards. However, with the Grenfell Tower disaster fresh in voters’ minds, Tory councillors are likely to come under intense pressure to hold onto their seats. Labour also tasted success at the 2017 General Election when Emma Dent Coad MP seized the seat from Victoria Borwick. 

What about new entrants? Advance has put forward 14 candidates for selection and are running on the promise of bringing local interests back to the forefront of the borough. Can they breakthrough, possibly even holding the balance of power? The odds are against them but everyone loves an outsider...

However, on balance, this borough is unlikely to change hands. On the theme of balancing power, Renew and the Women's Equality Party will be looking to make minor gains in their chosen boroughs. Although both parties campaign actively across the capital; we don't anticipate any major breakthroughs for either.


Let's move north to Barnet. The borough boasts one of the largest Jewish communities in London and until last month was governed by a narrow Conservative majority until a Tory councillor resigned his seat. For Labour, this borough may prove an interesting measure of how, if at all, the ongoing anti-Semitism scandal has affected the party; a clear change from being favourites to win the Council only last month.

With London Labour mayor Sadiq Khan claiming he had spoken to Jewish Londoners who “genuinely believe” the party is not for them, could Labour actually go backwards in Barnet? It’s too close to call, but Labour’s recent problems point to a narrow Conservative hold.   


Let’s go to the South-West London and sunny Kingston-upon-Thames. This is Lib Dem territory - or used to be at least - until the Tories seized control in 2014. Energised by Ed Davey’s general election win last year and running on an ‘Exit from Brexit’ theme, the party will be hoping to pick up disenfranchised ‘Remain’ Conservative and Labour voters. Tentatively we suggest a Lib Dem gain.


uk 3.png


Across England, four metropolitan boroughs have council seats up for grab: Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Labour historically perform well in metropolitan areas north of the Watford gap and will be looking for gains. A further 30 urban boroughs have a third of their seats up for election, so we expect to see a solid, if unspectacular, Labour performance.

Outside of the cities, the picture looks a little brighter for the Tories. Thirteen boroughs have at least half their seats up for grabs, with seven having all their seats available. The Tories and Labour will battle to win seats from the ailing UKIP, who pollsters believe will be all but wiped out. Expect to see (former) UKIP strongholds like Dudley and North East Lincolnshire being hard fought over by both parties, with the Tories more likely to make gains.



What about the other parties? There will be various areas that will be the focus of their attention. Sunderland is a good example; although a Labour stronghold, the local council has been plagued with scandal, resulting in an arrest and a Facebook group springing up in protest calling voters to “Vote Anything But Labour.” Likewise, the Green Party often perform well in university cities, currently holding seats in Leeds, Brighton and Liverpool. Monitoring the Green’s performance in these wards will provide an insight into whether the party still holds any clout on the local stage. 



In the hysteria of the moment, while the votes are being counted and the tension builds on social media, expect to see doom and gloom forecasts for the future of the Conservative party, and scenes of elation for Labour. Should the results be poor for the Tories, some pundits will call this the end of Theresa May. Likewise, a strong Labour sweep will be heralded in some circles as definitive proof that Jeremy Corbyn is on the march to No10.

The reality is, as ever, more complex. For a variety of reasons, the governing party tend to perform poorly at local elections. A moderate loss for Theresa May’s party would not be reflective of the national voting intention. Likewise, a strong sweep for Corybn’s Labour will boost his credibility and standing but is not representative of how the population would vote should a snap election be called tomorrow.

Political commentators are near universal in their belief this will be Labour’s night – they have never been wrong before, have they? Our recommendation: keep your eyes on the marginal seats we have flagged. They will prove indicative of how recent national news has affected politics at a local level, but don't bet that it will be a true reflection of national sentinment. We mustn;t forget that last year the Tories 'won' the local elections one-month prior to the General Election. And we all know how that turned out...


What can we learn from Facebook's last two weeks?


What can we learn from Facebook's last two weeks?

A month on, and Facebook seems to have weathered the worst of the storm – their share price is recovering and the shareholders somewhat pacified. The twenty-four-hour news cycle has allowed the company to slip out of the limelight, with fewer voices now calling for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from his position as CEO.

Yet Facebook appears to still be struggling to grasp the implications of the Cambridge Analytica scandal on their reputation. Although he faced a congressional grilling, Mark Zuckerberg has refused to present himself before a committee looking into fake news and disinformation in the UK. Instead he sent his CTO who managed to not answer 40 questions. 

Yesterday, the chair of the committee Damian Collins MP issued an ultimatum; Zuckerberg can either present himself voluntarily to answer questions about Facebook’s role in the Brexit campaign, or he may face a summons next time he enters British territory (a rarely used parliamentary threat). Although the share price is recovering, it is still short of its pre-scandal value. Little has changed in the way Facebook handled the chain of events from a crisis communication perspective. The lessons are still valid and provide ample learning experiences.

When the news report dropped on March 17th that intelligence firm Cambridge Analytica had harvested and abused the data of 50 million Facebook users, you may have been forgiven for thinking that the announcement had hit Facebook almost out of the blue. This was not the case. The company had been warned as far back as 2014 that data gathered on their website was being manipulated – in this case, a Cambridge University researcher collected the personal information of 30 million users using an app, which he then sold to Cambridge Analytica. The leading journalist on the case, Carole Cadwalladr, had been writing on the issue for over 18 months.

Both The Observer and The New York Times warned Facebook on March 16th that they were preparing the report to go live the next day. The company was given twenty-four hours to prepare statements and get their story together. They responded by sending out legal letters and posting a blog explaining that this data leak did not technically constitute a “breach”, whilst kicking Cambridge Analytica off the site. It would be five days before Facebook leadership issued a response, by which point there had been numerous lawsuits, governmental inquiries, a #DeleteFacebook user boycott campaign, and a drop in share price that’s erased nearly $60 billion off the company’s market cap.


The first 120 hours

In the absence of a statement from Facebook, traditional and online media across the world continued to pile on the pressure. In the United Kingdom, The Financial Times published a hostile Long Read, whilst The Guardian created a special folder to scrutinise the ongoing fallout, titled The Cambridge Analytica Files. Online behemoths in the tech world such as WIRED and The Verge published critical pieces which were met with silence from the Facebook leadership team.

Zuckerberg then began a flurry of interviews with American media organizations, including CNNWiredThe New York Times, and Recode. Facebook also took out full page ads in the Sunday editions of the UK newspapers: The Observer, The Sunday Times, Mail on Sunday, Sunday Mirror, Sunday Express and Sunday Telegraph. In the US, the ads appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. The chief executive then had an interview with CNN that same Wednesday during which he publicly apologised for Facebook’s role in the scandal: “This was a major breach of trust, and I’m really sorry this happened,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our responsibility now is to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

Facebook apology ad.jpg


What lessons can we take away from this situation? 

Hindsight is 20:20. It was always going to be difficult to handle the immediate aftermath of having to tell your users that their private data had been used by shady intelligence firms after they signed up to play Farmville when they were fourteen. However, it didn’t have to be this difficult. A proportion of the blame sits with Facebook founder and leader Mark Zuckerberg. His first response took the form of a Facebook post, nearly a thousand words long, which did not include the word ‘sorry’.


Front up to it

Everyone makes mistakes. We are all human. Sometimes we break a wine glass, other times we swear in front of children, occasionally we misplace fifty million peoples’ confidential data. It took Facebook five days to field a senior spokesperson, which left a vacuum ripe for press speculation to build. Again, we will never know what events are going on internally at a company, but five days is too long. Get someone up there and make a statement – be empathetic even if you don’t have all the facts yet. This reassures customers and users that you acknowledge the issue and that you are proactively working on fixing it. Just make sure that statement is not a…



This new entrant in lexicology is becoming something of an art form – particularly for male celebrities. A sort of apology just doesn’t cut it. As we highlighted earlier, Mark Zuckerberg’s first response was a Facebook status of 937 words, none of which was the word ‘sorry’. The comment section on the post should tell you all you need to know about how this was received by the public, let alone shareholders and the media. When he did get around to apologising during a CNN interview and with full page adverts in the press, the impact was lost and it felt forced, as if he was doing it purely to protect his commercial interests. And finally..


Be prepared

Boy Scouts and Brownies learn this aged 10. Who knew this news was not new news at all? Facebook did. Journalists had been asking them for comment on these issues as long ago as 2010 yet Facebook was seemingly unprepared when the issue raised its head again. This should have triggered internal action to both renew the operational systems AND prepare for the next round of media enquiries. They were given a full twenty-four hours to scramble together some sort of statement before the news was broken, and they settled on an obtusely worded blog post. Worse, they seemed to imply they did not know about the breach until they were alerted to its existence by the press. This suggested Facebook did not have a grasp of its own security – a revelation almost as damaging as the leak itself. Whether any of that personal data was actually of any real use – let alone facilitated electoral success for Trump & Leave.EU is questionable. But the damage the story has done to Facebook’s reputation is undeniable.


Facebook stock.jpg


So what can you do?

Every organisation should have a risk register that covers everything and an escalation process in place for managing media inquiries. If you operate in a highly regulated market you should test those processes with regular training. The psychological impact of these drills for all your team – and especially your top spokespeople – can be huge. If you want help ensuring you are ready to face whatever reputation challenges come your way, do get in touch.

Find out how to view your Facebook data here, and how to alter your privacy settings here.


Not another one!


Not another one!

Another week and another discussion about another centrist party. Renew and The Centrist Party are just two of the latest concoctions. Groundhog Day or history in the making? A political inevitability or a 'third-way' fantasy?

The recent spike has been driven by reports of a new campaign group which has access of up to £50 million in funding. But beyond money, what does it take to make a new political party that would work, and why is this happening now? As you may have guessed from our previous blog on this subject, we’ve got a bucket of cold water ready and we’re not afraid to use it…


Where’s the demand?

Let’s start by asking where the demand comes from both within and outside politics.

31% of people didn’t vote in the 2017 election and only 19% (according to the latest IPSOS Mori poll) say they trust politicians. So faith in mainstream political parties is on the decline, but does that indicate desire for 'more of the same' or are the majority disenchanted with the entire political system?

Is the 48% of disappointed Remain voters more fertile territory? Many of these describe feeling a new political awakening and are looking to engage in politics more as a result of the Brexit vote.  But the evidence is far from conclusive. The most overtly pro-European party, the Liberal Democrats failed to gain traction at the last General Election despite offering an ‘Exit from Brexit.’ So we would caution would-be leaders of a new party against putting all their eggs into the anti-Brexit basket. 

So what other evidence of demand for a new party is there? A survey conducted during the 2017 General Election by NatCen suggests there is potential grassroots opportunity. It reported 56% of people feel no political party represents them, which - in theory - means they could be interested in something new. But amongst this majority there will be many different elements, who want different things.

Despite these caveats and for argument’s sake however, let’s suggest there is a particular group of voters. Voters who have supported Labour or the Conservatives, but have done so holding their nose. Voters uncomfortable with Theresa May’s ‘citizens of nowhere’ rhetoric, but perplexed by the Corbyn project and who - for one reason or another - cannot bring themselves to vote for the Lib Dems. Voters who would largely identify themselves as centrist, internationalist, optimistic yet pragmatic. Voters who perhaps would have backed Blair in 1997 and in 2001 and Cameron in 2010.

Appeal to these voters and the new party may just be in business.

There goes my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.
— Mahatma Gandhi

And who will lead these people?

To be successful, a movement needs leaders.

Both Sophie Walker, leader of the Women’s Equality Party and Phil Collins, former adviser to Tony Blair, have rightly questioned whether a new party led by political names from the past could succeed. Collins argued If a new party looks and sounds like an attempt to get the old band back together it will be stillborn”.

En Marche had Macron - the political insider turned outsider. The Republicans had an outsider in Trump, although his rebellious credentials were more spin than substance given his money and connections. Who is there in the UK? We cannot tell you this known-unknown. The as yet undiscovered charismatic political outsider who will lead this new party is yet to be found.

So does a new centrist moment need leading current figures from across the political sphere? You don’t have to search hard or attend too many dinners (often with the aid of free alcohol) to find MPs disapproving of their current leaderships. Are these MPs really looking for a new tribe? In their collective misery, could they be persuaded to join a viable new party?

“Moderate” Labour MPs are the most obviously unhappy, having publicly and privately bemoaned their leadership’s left turn. For political nerds and historians this brings about memories of the early ‘80s. Unhappy with Labour’s direction under Michael Foot, the “gang of four” who were big political beasts in their day, split away to form the Social Democrat Party (SDP). Expecting to sweep all before them, they came second in 313 constituencies in the 1983 General Election. Unable to top that, they merged with the Liberal party, creating the Liberal Democrats in 1988. In Labour circles, even today, this story is an apocryphal tale of the inevitable misery that shall be heaped upon traitors to the cause.

Not all is rosy in the Tory camp either. Many MPs of the Cameron and Osborne vintage are far from convinced by the direction of the party under Theresa May. These MPs are even more concerned about the potential of a Jacob Rees-Mogg takeover. Yet, their current status as the party of government and their ability to control who will be on the ballot in any future Tory leadership race, makes a split from a Tory perspective far less likely.


So back to that bucket of cold water

Talk about ‘something happening’ has not been in short supply. Former political heavyweights such as David Miliband, Tony Blair, Sir Nick Clegg and Sir John Major have all hinted at a major change to come. Yet, no-one seems to know what that change is and what the trigger will be. The most likely trigger (if there is one) could be the moment when Momentum, the grassroots pro-Corbyn Labour group, goes up a gear with its efforts to complete the hard-left takeover – by de-selecting sitting Labour MPs who are too moderate for their tastes.

Momentum will probably push their luck, but the barriers to de-selection are high and large-scale success for them is likely to elude them. Therefore, most moderate Labour MPs will largely be safe in their seats from internal critics, riding out the Corbyn storm whilst looking for opportunities to undermine his leadership, knowing it will take at least one more general election before significant change happens.

A Tory party run by Jacob Rees-Mogg? Well, stranger things have happened. But, probably not on this occasion. There are too many sensible Tory MPs who will ensure Mr Rees-Mogg’s path to the leadership is blocked.

So is it going to happen? Are we on the precipice of a major new political party? We beg to differ. 

No matter how much some of the liberal moneyed elite in London may want this to happen: history, tribalism, realism and spinelessness make the odds of a successful ‘centrist’ party with political clout extremely long. But then, we could always be wrong, three years ago few would have predicted electoral success for Brexit, Trump and Corbyn.


Less than a week to go to the gender pay gap deadline…


Less than a week to go to the gender pay gap deadline…

I’m sitting in a client meeting feeling decidedly uncomfortable. Their reputation is at risk. The Chief Executive and Head of Marketing are having a difficult conversation about how to manage an issue and it’s, partially, my fault. Naturally I apologise, but inside I’m cheering because this is a discussion they need to be having. They are talking about having to publish their gender pay gap numbers and they are not happy about the picture those numbers paint. They already worry their staff will be pissed off, and they suspect it won’t go down well with customers, shareholders or the wider world either.


Celebrating our Grandmothers on #IWD2018

1 Comment

Celebrating our Grandmothers on #IWD2018

We often talk about who influences target audiences when we plan campaigns. As PR and PA professionals we then turn our focus on media and political channels, but we never forget that friends and family are the most important and trusted source of inspiration for most of us.

To mark #IWD2018 and the hundred years since (some) women got the vote, we are sharing some stories about those who experienced first-hand the changes since and helped shape our views of the world. Debutants, pilots, race-car drivers, chemists, teachers, wives and mothers, we feel we have a lot to learn and live up to still from our grandmothers. Happy International Women’s Day and happy reading…


Isabel surtees.jpg

Isabelle Napier (nee Surtees)

Born in 1906, my grandmother was a remarkable woman who lived a long and fascinating life. She left home at 18 to travel the world, ending up in South America. On returning to England she entered the swirl of the 1920’s debutant party life eventually meeting my grandfather and marrying him in 1930. She also found time to become one of the UK's first women qualified pilots paving the way for women to join the Air Transport Auxillary.

Following the birth of my father and uncle, at the outbreak of WW2 she got involved with the Polish military forces based in Britain. She served as the Vice President of Poland’s Armed Forces Comforts Fund undertaking roles as a canteen organiser, wholesale supply administrator and from 1944 onwards running a rehabilitation centre for wounded Polish servicemen. After the war, she continued her links to the Polish army and in 1945 presented new colours to the 1st Polish Anti-tank regiment. In 1989, to mark her services to Poland she was decorated by the Polish Ambassador in London.

In her spare time, she loved fishing and golf and is featured on the honours board at the Berkshire Golf Club a number of times. She died aged 99 and would have been very miffed not to have got to 100 and receive her telegram from the Queen.


Paddy Pine

Paddy Pine (nee Trant)

Born in Devon in 1914, my grandmother was a curious book-worm and who believed deeply in service to others and her community. With long red hair, she was beautiful apart for one eye which “refused to look in the right direction”. Many operations during her childhood taught her to bear pain bravely and to love roman history. She wasn’t allowed into the grammar school in Kingsbridge because they only took boys, but did get enough of an education to be accepted to University College Exeter, completing her a teaching qualification in 1933. Whilst teaching in Birmingham, she met a handsome Welshman William ‘Bill’ Pine from the valleys, who had previously worked in the coal industry but left during the depression and ran the local YMCA.

Married in 1940 just before his call up papers arrived, she gave up teaching to be near where Bill was posted in Chester with the Royal Artillery and they had four children in eight years. When he was demobbed the family moved back to Devon, so Bill could work in the flour mill and Paddy returned to teaching to supplement their income when her youngest son Anthony was big enough to sit on the back of the bike for the precarious ride across town down the hill to the school. Reflecting the liberal-minded tolerance and internationalism of her local and Methodist community, the family hosted many of their german cousins in the immediate aftermath of the war to promote reconciliation.

Widowed in 1961, she embarked on a new adventure, moving across the country to Cambridge, becoming an assistant librarian at the University and teaching herself Russian in order to file some of the foreign periodicals.  She read and cycled almost every day, sometimes up to 150 miles a day well into her 80s and did 200 lengths in the local pool once a week. Always open minded, her compassion for and interest in all people and her ability to set aside judgement or complaint continue to inspire me today.


Pamela Heijbroek (nee Harding, formerly Howard)

Born in 1917, my grandmother started her life in the midst of war. At the age of 22, on the outbreak of WWII, she joined the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force, tasked with the maintenance of radar systems. During this time, she met and fell in love with a young paratrooper, John Howard. After a whirlwind romance they married, but John was soon called out to participate in Operation Market Garden, an airborne operation attempting to liberate occupied Holland. When dropped over Holland, John found himself separated from his fellow soldiers and took refuge in a nearby Dutch house.

As this was German territory, the family took him in, hiding him in the basement alongside two other soldiers they had found. Unfortunately, German forces took over the house, leaving the Dutch family and soldiers hiding in the basement. This situation was volatile and after months of hiding, the Englishmen found their chance to escape. With the help of the eldest son, they left one night to cross the Rhine. Tragically, one of the soldiers couldn’t swim, and John, attempting to help his fellow countryman died trying to help him cross the river. A year later, in 1945 my grandmother received a letter from Holland, explaining the fate of her husband, with an invitation to visit the house where he’d spent his last months. She accepted and travelled to Arnhem, where she met the letter writer, and eldest son, Henri. It was love at first sight, and just 5 months later, they married.

Optimism, hope and strength through adversity were my grandmother’s great traits, as a working woman in the WAAF and in her personal life. Without such strength of character, she would have never taken the journey that changed her life.


Irene Morley (nee Stock)

My grandmother was a fan of chemistry and unfortunately for her, the school she went to only taught the subject to boys. Her mother took it upon herself and complained to the school and campaigned for the subject to be opened up to girls as well. Fortunately, (after a number of strongly-worded letters!) her mother was successful and my grandmother was able to pursue her scientific studies, a huge triumph for her in the early 30s. This opportunity meant she was able to pursue a chemistry degree from Aberystwyth University – almost certainly a rarity in her time!

A short while later and, no doubt after connecting over their love of science, my grandmother married and had to give up her chemistry career. Her priorities went from labs and periodic tables to looking after and caring for eight children! As money tightened and mouths needed to be fed, my grandmother had to go back to work (much to the displeasure of my grandfather), and this time she trained to be a teacher. She was one of the first people to take part in the on the job training scheme at the time, and was given the opportunity to talk about it on the national radio! Despite not always being able to pursue her own career ambitions, my grandmother was always there to encourage and support my mum in her career.


Mary Otoole

Mary O’Toole (nee Frost), 1919- 2014

Born in Wolverhampton in 1919, my grandmother led a sheltered, relatively privileged childhood as the baby of the family. She went to boarding school in North Wales and endured “character building’ swims in the sea. Her father would not allow her to go out and get a job when she left school, because he said she would be “taking work from someone who needed it more.” She was twenty when WW2 broke out and joined the Staffordshire 96th Detachment of the British Red Cross, experienced eye-opening culture shock when tending to wounded soldiers and making friends for life amongst her fellow nurses.

Mary fell for John (a fellow member of the Lawn Tennis and Squash Club) in the early 1940’s. Her father thought him “a bit wild” because he worked in the coal industry, but she got her own way and they were married in 1942 and went on to have four daughters.  She never worked, save for her roles as hostess, entertaining her husband’s business associates, and mother, teaching her daughters to cook, sew, swim and ride. She encouraged them to go to secretarial college so they could have “a bit of a job” before getting married, a piece of advice they universally ignored. Never actively political, she always voted because she firmly believed it was her civic duty.


Emma's granny.png

Jean MacMillan (1930-2010)

At the age of 19, my grandmother built her own car and went on to race and rally cars, which was quite unusual for the time. She married Paul Vasey after he lost a bet with her that she would not be able to beat him in a race. Men and women weren't allowed to race each other at the time, so to beat him she raced in her male friend's car and came out on top. She only stopped racing when she had her third of four children.

She always, always voted and did the 'telling' at the Village Hall for the Conservative Party from 7am-10pm on polling day. She said, often, that it was the best way of making sure she caught up with everyone in the village. She also kept a record of every dish she prepared for every dinner party, to make sure she never served the her guests the same thing twice. I love the balance she held between being a race car driver and the perfect host, it reminds me that you shouldn't make assumptions about people based on only one thing you know about them. 


Phyllis Sharpe (nee Mossman)

My grandmother was born in Cornwall on the 17th February 1934. Upon growing up in the Second World War, her school in Bude was home to a number of evacuees who had been forced to move as a result of the conflict. Phyllis then went on to work as a midwife and a nurse in Bristol in the 1950s, often riding a bike to arrive at different locations to help women in labour. Phyllis went on to have three daughters with her husband Ronald, becoming a full time Mum and housewife. Additionally, Phyllis would help Ronald who had become a doctor when on call with answering the phone and other tasks and also travelled across the globe to assist him with his work including spending some time in the Caribbean.

There are many traits which I admire about my grandmother. Her ability to accommodate and host, to ensure all people she met and visited the house were always made to feel welcome and her desire to help in all situations are just some of these traits. But above all, what I admire most is the fun and joyful atmosphere that my Grandmother and Grandfather have always gone out of their way to create.  For all these reasons, my grandmother will always serve as an inspirational figure to me.


Angela Harris (nee Withers)

My grandmother was born in the early 1930s and grew up in Wolverhampton, until was evacuated during World War II. My Grandpa worked abroad for British Airways, and after they were married she had to constantly move with him for his job. From Trinidad to Senegal, Bogota to the United States, there's hardly a corner of the world that she hasn't lived in.

She's a fantastic painter, wonderful mother and grandmother, a master of macaroni cheese and a devoted Christian. What inspires me most about her is her ability to encompass a full range of characteristics, from quiet and caring to devastatingly witty, and switch between them in a matter of seconds.

1 Comment

If only Brexit wasn't so, you know, Brexity...


If only Brexit wasn't so, you know, Brexity...

Let’s exercise our imagination for a second. 

In an alternate universe, Theresa May is the champion of the consumer, defender of JAMs, and lynchpin of Conservative majority rule following a landslide victory in the 2017 General Election, where her “nothing has changed” campaign won advertising awards for its cut through, simplicity, and honesty. In this timeline, May’s agenda is in full swing: house building is on the up, tax avoidance is decreasing, and the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. Oh and, of course, Brexit hasn’t occurred (let’s skip over the fact Cameron and Osborne might still be around). 

Sounds like utopia?

Back to reality and the Prime Minister's initiatives to defend consumers from broken markets are side-lined, the JAMs (Just About Managing families) are forgotten – along with her dream team of Nick and Fiona – and her majority rule is dependent on thirteen unruly Northern Irish DUP MPs who seem to be the only people in Parliament enjoying themselves…

As the news and parliamentary agendas constantly remind us, Brexit is all consuming. It is not simply an innocent bystander in the log jam that is Government policy. It is the roadblock, stretching from Trafalgar Square to the end of Victoria Street, from Holyrood to the Senedd and over the sea to Stormont. No elected official or civil servant can escape it.



May and her Cabinet are desperate for alternative news stories. Their agenda (I’ll let you know when I actually find out what it is) is being lost in the day-to-day in-fighting of what type of Brexit we might negotiate. Will it be hard, will it be soft? Will we be in the customs union, a customs union, or none at all. Never has the indefinite article carried more meaning. 

But amidst all this non-debate, a serious issue is growing. Domestic policy is languishing. The NHS is still experiencing its worst ever winter crisis; the number of homeless has reached 275,000, with over 4,500 rough sleepers nationwide (a 175% rise since 2010); and the standard of social care has reached critical levels as Councils fail to balance the books after 8-years of austerity. One Council had their budget deemed “unlawful” by their auditors earlier this year. 

Major infrastructure decisions such as on Crossrail 2, Heathrow, HS3 and the urgent repair work on the Houses of Parliament are kicked down the road (again). Emergency services reaction times have grown as pressure on their limited resources increases. Rural public transport routes continue to be disbanded, leaving elderly citizens cut off from vital links to their communities – exasperated even further by the recent ‘Beast of the East’ weather surge. 

In Whitehall, over 600 civil servants are feverishly working within DexEU (Department for Exiting the European Union) and DIT (Department for International Trade) – although what the latter is actually doing at the moment is anyone’s guess (air miles are great if you can get them). This doesn’t even include the teams working within other Government Departments on how Brexit affects separate sectors: from farming, to air travel, to immigration, down to manufacturing standards. 

600 people who could be, and IMHO would love to be, working on any number of the issues mentioned above, rather than dealing with the consequences of Brexit.



So how can the Government find the time to focus on other priorities? In short, only with great difficulty.

Last Friday’s keynote speech by the Prime Minister on (you guessed it) Brexit provided some breathing space and allowed the media team, led by Robbie Gibb, to control the news cycle for the first time in months. May’s homebuilding initiative launched smoothly, and the choreographed State Visit of Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia would have led headlines if it weren’t for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Salisbury. 

But this is the problem, only a landmark Brexit speech by the Prime Minister herself can push Brexit off the news cycle long enough for one announcement to sneak in, then, like an angrier version of Boris, Brexit screeches back into the limelight. 

The respite is just not long enough.

MPs want to help their constituents and focus on the issues they care about most. Our job as communications and public affairs professionals is to get that cut through. To ensure the issues are debated, challenged, and now more than ever, pushed forward. If you want help getting round the all consuming dementor that is Brexit to get your issue on the political agenda, we are here to help you conjure your patronus.


Comcast reaches for the Sky


Comcast reaches for the Sky

A new twist in the ongoing tussle for ownership of Sky has seen shares of the company soar as media titan Comcast placed a £22 billion bid for the company. Last week’s surprise news triggered a takeover battle with Murdoch owned 21st Century Fox that looks likely to rival only Nedal vs Federer in length, complexity and sheer resilience. Yet with gold and silver medals at the Jewish Olympics, does the CEO of Comcast Brian Roberts hold the advantage point across the pond?

Comcast's offer has firmly placed a cat amongst the proverbial pigeons, coming after 2 years of merger talks between Fox and Sky that have been plagued by the red tape of political consent. Only last month, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found the Murdoch bid “incompatible with public interest due to a lack of media plurality,” following intervention from (then) Culture Secretary, Karen Bradley. 


What calls for such intervention? 

The Murdoch empire already owns a third of British media under News Corp and 39% of Sky. Regulatory forces are set against further expansion; suggesting a full take-over of Sky could threaten the diversity of media opinion and leave an ever-increasing portion of the British media subject to the Murdoch agenda. 

Anne Lambert, chair of the CMA highlighted that "media plurality goes to the heart of our democratic process. It is very important that no group or individual should have too much control of our news media or too much power to affect the political agenda." Dare we mention Brexit, Trump or #fakenews? What appears in the headlines of our leading media outlets has always had the power to sway hearts and minds, of both voters and those who they elect to represent them. Potential for increased corporate involvement behind the scenes should inspire no truly democratic society. 

Enter Comcast, the NBC and Dreamworks owner, which is hoping to “use Sky as a platform for growth.” Shrek and Kung Fu Panda are planning their takeover of Europe, and this fairy-tale idea is being well received. On Tuesday 27th February Sky’s share price rose from £2.10 to £13.10, overtaking the Comcast bid of £12.50. The exact share prices matter less than what this reaction indicates, a clear excitement in the market over the deal. Heavy investment in NBC also signals support for its potential to retain and invest in Sky - Comcast is scoring points over Murdoch.

Fox’s 39% ownership of Sky adds complexity to this ongoing saga. Excluding Fox shareholders, the threshold is set at 81% for Comcast to gain the controlling interest in the firm. With Murdoch’s bid raising political risks and threats to media plurality it could well be game, set and match to Comcast. 


But why does media plurality matter? 

Media plurality hardly sets pulses racing down the pub, so why should PRs or politicians care? Ownership itself shouldn’t cause concern, provided editorial integrity and diversity of voices in our media sources is kept intact… so what else could be going on? 

Last Thursday, under a blanket of snow, Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport confirmed that the Leveson inquiry would go no further. The second stage of the process was set to consider the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International and other media outlets, and assess police conduct in investigations. 

Labour’s shadow culture secretary Tom Watson called the move “a disappointment, a breach of trust and a bitter blow to the victims of press intrusion.” Matt Hancock stressed that enough had been done, referring to the establishment of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and reform to policing practices. 

Cynics might argue that the current focus on media plurality serves as a convenient distraction from failing to go further on Leveson. What is clear though, is that this new episode in the series confirms the status of the British media as a world leading asset, though Murdoch's expansion hopes may remain simply pie in the sky. 


Snapchat: where's it going and should you follow?


Snapchat: where's it going and should you follow?

Snapchat, the image messaging / social media platform with over 180 million daily users, is arguably the defining generation dividing app. There are millions using it as their default for communicating and sharing, but most parents barely understand it beyond the warnings of drug dealers and inappropriate exchanges. Snapchat remains a wilderness for many "grown-ups." 60% of its users are under 25, compared to 40% for Instagram and 29% for Facebook. But if Kylie Jenner is tweeting that she’s ditched the app, should your brand or campaign even bother trying to get their heads round it?



Snapchat was an instant hit. Within a year of its September 2011 release date, over 2 million images were being sent per day. First known as the sexting app with the sole function of sending auto-deleting images, a few years on and the app has (mostly) shed that reputation, whilst receiving a design facelift. Now there are ‘stories’ that stay up for 24 hours; a map where you can track your friends (which has unsurprisingly created a few privacy issues and caught out a few cheaters); and a ‘discover’ tab occupied by celebrity gossip, sports news, media companies and adverts. This is where you’d turn to for updates on the Kardashians, footballers and anyone that falls under the category of rich and famous.



Last month, Snapchat unleashed a redesign (we'll spare you the details incase the ins and outs already confuse you) which has been criticised for confusing and obscuring some of its user’s favourite features. The backlash has included a million-strong petition (enough to earn 10 debates in Parliament), celebrity stamps of disapproval and dropping share prices. The “all publicity…” line rings true here as the controversy has helped drive a 55% increase in downloads. Whilst some are predicting Snapchat’s decline, increased downloads and a loyal, young and traditionally hard to reach audience mean there are still opportunities for campaigns and brands to take advantage of.



Smart, funny and weird content on Snapchat can still go viral, as proven by the bizarre popularity of the ‘Dancing Hot Dog’ filter last summer. Cadbury’s released a filter that turned your eyes into Creme Eggs, which, whilst expensive to produce and promote will be front and centre and people will share it.

Shrewd and savvy companies are now trying to make short clips that are funny and natural, matching the lo-fi look of user-made content. The way Snapchat adverts blend into other news and user content means that while the 10 second videos used for Instagram may work, they’re often too slick and stand out as advertising.

For the 2017 general election, Snapchat teamed up with the Electoral Commission to add a filter that encouraged people to register to vote. The Vote Leave Campaign and Donald Trump’s team both claimed the platform was important in their electoral victories. How vital they were is up for debate, but clearly Snapchat is the best place to go if you want to target under 25s and get your message or product in front of them.


What do journalists want?


What do journalists want?

*4pm on a Friday afternoon – press office phone rings*

Journalist: “Hello, is this the press office? I’m writing a story about XX and would love to hear from YY about this – do you think I could get a comment from them or speak to someone about it?”

Me: “Possibly! I can see if there’s someone around. What’s your deadline?”

Journalist: “5pm this afternoon”

Me: “…”


The news never stops, which means there’s always a journalist, out there somewhere, frantically typing away trying to get their copy submitted in time. Journalists have urgent deadlines they must meet, and while this has always been the case, it’s no secret that social media and its need for instant reaction has put a further strain on their timescales. The same information is still needed to write a good story, but there’s less time to gather it.



If a journalist is in the middle of writing a story and gets in touch looking for a comment to include in their article, you need to be clear what they want from you, while also getting your point across.

No one likes to be left hanging, so we need to be quick to respond. The more responsive you are, the more likely journalists are to get in touch. Our journalists friends have told us first hand they like reliability, and they want trusted sources who will say something engaging and get a reaction from their audience – because that’s what helps make a good story. So, take the time to consider:

  • What worked well in the past, and what didn’t. Keep track of comments or statements made, feedback received and what was actually used in the final copy.

  • What you want to get out of an interview, as well as what they will want to get out of it. What are the three key things you want them to understand? What are the most likely questions - both naughty and nice - that they will ask?

  • What's your overall positioning in this story? Who else are they speaking to? Everyone thinks they are the hero of their own story but, in the battle between good and evil, sometimes you might be painted as the pantomime villain!

The above is true too, if you’re trying to jump on a story by wading in with a reactive comment - something we like to call "news-jacking". If this is the case you'll need to be doubly clear on your role and why the journalist should be listening to what you have to say.



First and foremost, journos need a good hook – and preferably one that no one else has. I’ve lost count of the number of times a journalist has said “great, can you hold that story and give it to me as an exclusive?”

How solid is the information to support what you’re saying? Is it a survey with just 500 respondents, or one with 3,000 – because you’ll need credible evidence to be taken seriously. Journalists have to convince their editor that a story deserves space in the paper over the work of their colleagues; it’s a tough industry to work in and can be highly competitive - not just between the different news outlets, but within the individual news and editorial teams as well.

When you’re limited to just 30 pages or so in print, or a 30 minute news broadcast, you need to be able to fight your corner. This is why the pitch is so important. Before picking up the phone or writing that pitch email, you need to be sure why your story is the winner, why your story is worth their time. That means doing your research on their audience and their editorial agenda so make sure its a good fit. 

You only need to take to twitter to see what happens when you don't... #PRfail



Print news is limited to physical space, and broadcast journalists are also competing for time. Interviews on radio and TV can last from anything from two minutes to 10 minutes, but a lot can happen in that time. 

Spokespeople are key to making a good story. Journalists want someone that’s punchy, controversial, personal or emotive. If possible, take the opportunity to call for change or illustrate your argument with empathy. This might not always be possible, but there are a couple of things you can do to help make the most of the exposure:

  • Giving a real-life example, or personal reference that might resonate with the audience.

  • Reiterate to the listeners, or audience directly why this issue might affect them.

  • Make a connection to something else that’s happening in the news that day, reaffirming that the debate is relevant and newsworthy.

Interesting copy, or punchy remarks, will undoubtedly be gratefully received and will be more likely to ask you to comment again on other stories.

Remember that journalists aren’t the enemy. They’re not all out to get you and destroy your reputation in a heartbeat. They see themselves as tellers of truth in the public interest. Their number one priority is their audience. They want content that will appeal to their readers, viewers or listeners and keep them engaged. You need to be confident that you are the person that can help them do that. And (*plug alert*) if you're struggling - with five front pages and counting in the last year - we reckon we might be able to help.


The New Cabinet - 1 Month On


The New Cabinet - 1 Month On

Yes, it has now been over a month since Theresa May’s reshuffle. Doesn’t time fly? Here, we present some of our new Ministers with a report card from their first month.




There can only be one place to start. New DCMS Secretary, Matt Hancock, and the now famous (or infamous?) Matt Hancock App. The app (with over 1,000 downloads), the first of its kind, updates users on Mr Hancock’s activities and allows members of the public to sign up as friends and chat with other users of the app.

To date, the app appears to have drawn an eclectic variety of users with one user (as shown below) particularly engaged if not entirely serious!

It is easy to poke fun at the Matt Hancock app. If this seems familiar you may be remembering a Thick of It episode and a hapless Minister, but by not taking it too seriously, Hancock is getting good interaction at a time when the wider party has been having somewhat of a crisis of confidence when it comes to social media.



A blog post written in 2012 by new Tory Vice-Chairman Ben Bradley has recently resurfaced following some media digging after his promotion. The blog post suggested benefit claimants should have vasectomies. Rightly, Mr Bradley has apologised.

Alas, Mr Bradley’s problems do not end there. He has also been forced to apologise for posting a tweet saying Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn passed British secrets to a Czechoslovakian spy. However, as one of our recent blogs has suggested he isn’t the only one to have said something on a public forum he later regretted. Still, Must Do Better!



Which Secretary of State has the toughest new gig - it's a close run contest? New Northern Ireland Secretary Karen Bradley has not enjoyed the easiest of starts. Inheriting a row over "regulatory alignment", stalled power-sharing arrangements in Belfast and managing the DUP Ms Bradley has quite a challenge on her hands.

The Northern Ireland post has never been the easiest role in Government. Despite the success of the Good Friday agreement, tensions have persisted. In addition, she loses key SpAd Peter Cardwell to the Home Secretary at Easter. Ms Bradley could be forgiven for wishing all she had to worry about was an appropriate black dress for the BAFTAs.

Onto our second candidate. In January, David Gauke became the fifth Justice Secretary in three years. However, any hopes of a quiet introduction were quickly swept aside. Gauke, a solicitor by trade, was immediately faced with the decision over whether to pursue a judicial review to stop the release of sex attacker John Worboys. He declined this opportunity. In response, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, announced he would launch a legal challenge, as did some of Worboys victims. Expect this story to run and run and pressure to increase on Gauke to find a way to stop Worboys being released.



With many junior Tory MPs positioning themselves for what follows May, this is a crowded field. However, there is one clear choice; new Transport Minister Nusrat Ghani. Ms Ghani in answering Transport Questions became the first Muslim women Minister to speak at the Despatch Box. A notable first and one to watch.



Ministers; both new and old continue to grapple with ongoing political headaches such as pressure on living wages, a house building crisis, the NHS and of course Brexit. Theresa May clings on, Labour continue trying to keep their head down. UKIP have a new leader (again) and another new anti-Brexit party has been created.

This conclusion could give the indication that our politics is entirely bleak and predictable. But that would be wrong.

As we all battle through the daily negative political headlines, taking a longer view reminds us politics can be transformational and inspirational. As this photo of over 100 female parliamentarians from across the political spectrum joining together to celebrate the anniversary of female suffrage, not all politics is inconsequential. And as Polly MacKenzie has recently written in the Evening Standard, maybe it is time for us all to give up despair in politics and focus on the good we can do. Perhaps, that is something to reflect on.



New party Chairman Brandon Lewis has also identified social media as a prominent battleground. He has written of how many Tory voters are too shy to fight Labour online. A coordinated social media strategy had seen many Tory MPs bombard social media with pro-environmental messages after Blue Planet 2.

It is not merely Blue Planet 2 which has been causing excitement on the Tory backbenches. According to an article from Iain Martin in The Times, Hollywood blockbuster Darkest Hour focusing on the life of Winston Churchill is leading Tory MPs to consider “action this day” and removing Theresa May.

Watch this space!