PR Campaigns and Issues

In this essay I will seek to answer the following question

Choose to contemporary PR campaigns or issues and perform a comparative analysis the reference to one or more of the following

• Ethics
• The public sphere
• Discourse and power

The two topics I have chosen to write about are the British gas “ if see Sid tell him” advertising campaign and the UK political leaders debates.

On 4 May 1979, Margaret Thatcher arrived in Downing Street (Charles Moore, 2013) to lead the Conservative party into what was to be an unprecedented 18 years in power, Thatcher herself serving 12 of these as prime minister. In doing so she would change the United Kingdom economically and socially. Whatever your persuasion, there was no doubt immense change which took place during this time.

Privatization was one such change and it was such that will shift the balance of power and would challenge the discourse of neo-liberalism which continues to this day. Examples of privatization can be seen prior to 1979 however, with the Labour government of 74 to 79 led by Harold Wilson and James Callaghan respectively, selling off shares in British Petroleum (BP). but it was this that begun the change in the orthodoxy of economic ideology and would persist with the selling of British GA shares and the change it from a publicly owned institution, owned by the people into a private-sector interest, run by shareholders

I would now like to write about neoliberalism within the context of the Tel said campaign, whilst also outlining the public sphere within.

The campaign conducted by British Gas was a quintessential example of PR and the domination of neo-liberal ideas. To step back for a moment, the concept of liberalization is one of limiting control by government of goods and services and in doing so “ loosen controls to enable more open and competitive markets”.

The concept of public sphere within the context of the campaign can be seen within the way in which it was presented. The privatization exercise itself involved the selling of shares to the public, using the conception of Sid (the man on the street), an invisible but powerful presence for the public to latch upon to. To define public sphere it is the term used to refer to social space to communicate ideas about the state and the economy (Branston: 505). With the opening of vast industries during Mrs Thatcher’s premiership, it was found that using the generic SID would encourage the public to become a part of the capitalist revolution. Indeed over 1.5 million people bought shares in British Gas. The characters with in the advert the milkman the man in the pub, all seek to bring a new public ownership. It sought to put people at the heart of capitalism, a sort of public service capitalism if you will where people would have, at least in the mind, power, in the economic engine of business. At least this was the perception.

Of course political ideology also played a part in this. In the eyes of the electorate, the British Gas said it would appear to go against the system of capitalism, which is that the private ownership (Branston: 505) and would strengthen in the eyes of the people the concept of socialism through the belief and the collective of public ownership.

Indeed share ownership such as this brought about a more democratic form of capitalism, popular capitalism if you will, with the public stake in the business in which they work.

It was this that made the SID campaign so successful.

Before I continue with my next topic, I would like to present a song by Randy Newman, called “The World Isn’t Fair”. The song talks about: and represents Karl Marx and the corresponding Marxism ideology. Within the song it talks of equal of all classes indeed to quote the song “ no one would rise to high, no one would sink to learn, or go under completely like someone you know”. this lyric quintessentially outlines the public service philosophy behind the selling of shares, in that private ownership and public ownership would go hand in hand, it would be on an equal footing with each other.

One can also correlate this campaign to the concept of social mobility, in that if people have ownership, they accept responsibility. In doing so it would link real people to the economy, which in turn would break down the us and them mentality. (Oldham, 2013)

I would now like to write about democracy, power and politics, more specifically the discourses within the UK General Election campaign.

When one talks of democracy, one often constitutes freedom as its guiding light and that in order to have proper democracy, one must be free.

By definition, democracy is a term used to define the way citizens, that is the general public, are involved with their government. If you view this statement from an outsiders perspective, one may become puzzled. Politicians work in the government, the public is nowhere to be found here. This is wrong. Without the public voting for politicians, there would be no politicians IN government, at all. In fact the vote is an example of democracy in action.

In order to fully understand the concept of the public and democracy one has has to go back to the beginning as it were, to a piece of legislation called The Reform Act, or to give it’s official name, The Representation Of The People Act, which was enshrined in 1832. This set in stone for the first time the concept of the modern democracy, in that everybody could have a say in decision-making, rather than other people making decisions for them. It could be debatable, however whether at least perceptually, this is still the case now.

The changes that the act brought about were many. 67 new constituencies were created, integration of landowners, tenant farmers and shopkeepers was was introduced into the political democracy and there was now a uniform ability to vote for people who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more to their lodgers. The last change was somewhat controversial. The working class, could still not vote, due to the property qualifications, that is the £10 yearly rental factor, as many working class people did not earn enough to be part of this demographic and as a result, were not able to vote.

The act, nonetheless showed that change was possible and over many decades, was refined.

The concept of democracy however is felt to be somewhat flawed. Voters are seen to be indifferent to politics.This is seen to change when an issue affects people’s livelihood’s. An example of this was in November 2010, when the coalition government increased student tuition fees from £3,290 to £9,000. The fees, from their introduction in 1998 by the Labour Government, were wildly criticized, but this was amplified more-so with the recent increase. The result was riots on the streets of London. It quickly moved to Tory headquarters, where numbers of students smashed through windows and tried to invade the building. The riots created a story of it’s own, when 18 year old Edward Wollard threw a fire extinguisher off the roof which, according to the Standard newspaper landed “terrifyingly close” to police officers. This is democracy in action, however it also highlights how a peaceful protest, of which was originally it’s purpose, immediately turned into a different story entirely. It shows how a small minority can cause problems for people wanting to fight a cause. In fact, the riots may have hardened policy at Westminster, although this is debatable.

The reason for providing the above is I wanted to present some background into the concepts of democracy so that a better understanding could be formed.

I would now like to write about the concept of democratic discourse. According to Taylor, democratic discourse can be defined as “civilized debate among convictions, in which one party can recognize the other parties as co-combants in the search for authentic truths without sacrificing it’s own claims to validity. To see an example of this in action would be the 2010 leaders debates. As Nicholas Allen outlines in his essay “the content of the leadership debates “Britain had entered the twenty first century without having experienced some sort of televised election debate between prospective heads of government” (Nicholas Allen, 2010), . With the 3 political parties taking part in the debates, they sought to counter the concept of democratic politics, whereby the parties engage with the general public, albeit presenting their views but nevertheless informing the public of their sole intentions and the reasons behind why they should be selected to represent the people. To once again quote Nicholas Allen, they provided “an opportunity for millions of voters to actually see prospective heads of government perform on their feet, engage with each other and discuss substantive issues”. Such issues included the economy, immigration and social care.

Firstly, let us explore the concept behind the debate, that is how debate correspond to democracy. As Michael Clemence outlines in his essay “how did the televised leaders debates influence vote choice in the 2010 UK general election?”, “televisual election debates form part of the rich fabric of election rhetoric”. Furthermore Tsfati describes the debates as a “media event with almost universal public exposure”. Such was broadcast on the BBC, Sky News and ITV News respectively.

Indeed the debates of 2010 also encompass the relationship between politics and discourse, political discourse. The party manifesto play a part within the campaigns encompassing the debates, the Liberal democrats for example holding a press conference in which Nick Clegg sought to outline it’s method of dealing with the deficit “line by line”, which was broadcast on all of the news channels. Outlined within the essay by Ruth Breeze entitled “Variations on a theme: Party manifesto discourses in the UK 2010 election”, she outlines that the association between politics and discourse begins with the manifesto, which Breeze outlines is “an open public statement of the party’s ideas and proposed policies”, a “concrete embodiment of the party’s construction”. A policy from their manifesto included plans for “Immigration Hubs”, to contain the mass influx of immigrants, which was contested and ripped apart during the television debates themselves. Breeze continues by writing of how election manifestos no longer appear to be the key element of political campaigning. Indeed the viewing figures for the debates spiked at around 9.4million viewers. There has also been a criticism by Prime Minister David Cameron that the debates appeared to be the focus, presentation being the leading factor, rather than the policies.

I wish to continue by writing about electoral discourse. Electoral discourse is an interesting topic, as it’s focus is on real power. What I mean by real power is the engagement between the public, the democracy and popular opinion, that is what people feel about issues. I want to go back to the manifesto, but now wish to write about how each political party presented itself to the public prior to the 2010 general election.

The manifesto as a concept can be defined as political propaganda. Chilton and Schaffner further expand upon this concept by relating such to the concept of political discourse, in that the propaganda in question seeks to “relate to a persuade potential supporters” (Chilton and Schaffner, 2002)

When one views Labour’s manifesto, the use of monochrome naif’ images can be seen. The cover depicts a rainbow and countryscape, with a family looking into the distance at the bright sun. Presenting this image presents a stylization of Labour’s vision of the world, that there is light at the end of the tunnel. The picture seeks to idealize the concept of family and how this would look under a Labour administration.

The conservative manifesto however is devoid of such imagery, a sombre cover being the main eye-catching element, Glancey expands upon this, describing the imagery as reminiscent of a old hyhm book (Glancey, 2010). In fact, when one views the manifesto in this realm, the use of the hymn book concept may have been incidental, almost as if the Conservative wanted to position the manifesto as a call to arms, a collection of songs, the songs being the policies, singing to it’s audience from the page. The manifesto cover seeks also to reach out to the reader, inviting them to “join the government of Britain”, emphasizing the Conservative’s Big Society.

The Liberal Democrat manifesto takes on the use of thematics, by which I mean the splitting up of information in coloured sections. When looks through the manifesto, one notices that Nick Clegg appears in all photographs, seeking to convey Clegg as “the face of the party”. Furthermore Harris and Lloyd note the use of leader reflects the tendencies of US parties to position their leaders as the face in order for the reader to identify it’s policies and it’s political stance (Harris, 2001 Lloyd, 2006). The upside to this approach is that people can easily identify with a party but it’s downsides are that if a policy is not delivered or is compromised, for example within a coalition, people know who to blame, such as was the case with the Liberal Democrats and the debacle surrounding tuition fees.

I now wish to talk about the construction of relation to the reader in order to relate to it’s audience, that is the general public. Beginning with Labour, their manifesto begins with a forward by the then prime minister Gordon Brown. It uses words such as “we” which is done in order to speak on behalf of the British people. Blas Arroyo and Fairclough see this as a way that politicians adept to create complicity, friendship as it were, between the party and the pubic (Blas Arroyo, 2000; Fairclough, 2001). Reading on, one notes adversarial relations between conflicting ideologies and parties thereof, in this vein, Labour and their view of the Conservative Party. In seeking to outline the negativities of another however, Hennberg believes that such negativeness show signs of influence of what he describes as the “incumbent effect”, the effect of being a party in power (as Labour during this time) and whom feel that they need to justify why they are running the country and justify the previous deeds as a three term government. The disadvantage on Labour’s part is that as the incumbent party, whom’s power stretches back to 1997, the cumulative years of being power make it hard for the party to present itself as a “new” powerful government, due to natural ravages of time and it’s cumulative weight.

Looking to the Liberal Democrat manifesto, one notices a stark change in the approach towards the reader, which is of directly addressing the reader, using the “you” tactic “change that works for you”, “your money”, “your job”. By emphasizing the “you”, it seeks to personalize towards the reader, making the reader feel as if this party is actually talking to the person and not as a ballot on a voting paper. Clegg also make use of personality towards himself “I was brought up[ to believe the ways things are not the way they have to be”. This quote was used once again visually in the first leaders debates on ITV, which outlines this personal effect as a political tactic.

The Conservative manifesto seeks to establish a theme “working together”, establishing unity between his party and the public and at the same time, emphasizing the “Big Society” policy, further emphasized through the “We’re all in this together” slogan. The discourse within the Conservative manifesto is one of anchoring the party and the public “Join us” being an example of this “one of us” further. The use of the word “us” identifies electoral discourse in that whilst the manifesto strives to bring the public with them, Ormroad and Henneberg identify this to be the discourse of ideology and what it stands for in terms of the party itself, of which Ormrod and Henneberg term “a leader stance”. Indeed it is the leader, in this case David Cameron seeking to unite his party towards it’s ideology, it’s views, it’s “stance”. (Ormroad and Henneberg, 2006; 53)

Within each manifesto is a section on “the economic crisis” referring the 2008 credit crunch and it’s after effects.

In Labour’s manifesto, it’s discourse is to locate it’s responsibility outside of itself, referring to the crisis as “a global crisis”, identify itself only to portray itself as the rescuers of the economy, further emphasizing this through lines such as “emerging from the crisis” and “sustaining the recovery”. The aim is to stabiles rather than implement. Ideological factors come into play once more when the manifesto seeks to “delegitimize” that is to paint negatively the Conservative Party using lines such as “the Tories would threaten recovery with cuts this year”. Outside the manifesto, “Labour investment, Tory Cuts” further emphasizes the polarization between themselves and their opposition. In doing so it seeks to polarize matters ideologically, further emphasized with this final statement to it’s reader “This is not a conservative moment. It is a progressive moment”, progressive signifying that there is change to be had, but only from a Labour government and only through them will it be in a way that is fair and just towards it’s people.

The liberal democrat manifesto contrastically, blame economic failures on the banks through “corruption, greed and power”. No attack are placed upon administrations, possibly as a precaution should the party govern within a coalition, which of course they did with the Conservatives in May 2010. It’s discourse is aimed at the general classes, rather than any one political class, Labour, Conservative.

The Conservative manifesto is ideologies and polarized, laying the blame for the economic crisis squarely on Labour and personally on Gordon Brown. Lloyd observes here that modern politics has sought to using personalities as a way of relying on individual figures for it’s plight (Lloyd 2006). It continues it’s personal attack by outlaying that “the debt crisis is the terrible legacy that Gordon Brown is bequeathing to our country”. Ideology returns when the manifesto talks of “working together” and the use of power words, such as “ensure, build, create, reform encourage”. The use of these words seek to further emphasis the big society concept.

The manifesto above, both in shape, form and context, seek to position the ideologies of each of the parties and each seek to reference the reader as a machine by which prosperity can prevail and that by sticking with us (us being the parties), economic situation will be brighter and a world where progressiveness should it’s goal.

Conclusion

In the topics of which I have written about, a single thread persists through each and that is of the public sphere. Both seek to identify social power through political power. The first topic concerned the selling of shares to the public of British Gas. Such action required the political power of legislation to enable to above act to take place. The second topic concerned democracy power and politics and it uses of discourse. Discourse in this case concerning political discourse in terms of manifestos from the three major parties. The manifestos sought to develop views on issues of political concern, in how each party would work to fix the problems.

This is my thesis of my chosen topics.

References

Charles Moore (2013) Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography; Volume One; Not For Turning. London; Penguin Books

Gill Branston (2007) The Media Students Book.

Oxon; Routledge

City:AM (2013) “How Thatcher Saw Popular Capitalism and turned it into reality” [online] available at <http://www.cityam.com/article/how-thatcher-saw-popular-capitalism-turned-reality> [April 15th 2013]

A. Nicholas (2013) University of Essex “The content of the leadership debates” [online] available from <http://www.essex.ac.uk/government/epop/Papers/Panel13/P13_Allen_EPOP2010.pdf> [September 12th 2010]

M. Clemence (2010) Democracy and Democratization [online] available from <http://www.academia.edu/1528016How_did_televised_leaders_debates_influence_vote_choice_in_the_2010_UK_General_Election> [September 2010]

R. Breeze (2011] CULTURA, LANGUAGE Y REPRESENTATION / CULTURE, LANGUAGE AND REPRESENTATION, VOL 9 [online] available from ,http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/index.php/clr/article/viewArticle/84.

Chilton. P; C. Schaffner (2002) Politics as Text and Talk, Amsterdam, John Benjamins

Glancey, J. (2010): Election Manifestos: a tale of two covers [online] availible from <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/12/labour-conservative-election-manifesto-covers> [12 April 2010]

Harris. P (2001) To spin or not to spin, that is the question, the emergence of modern political marketing> Marketing Review, 2, 35-53

Lloyd, J. (2006) The 2005 General Election and the emergence of the “negative brand” The Marketing of Political Parties. Political Marketing at the 2005 British General Election, Manchester, Manchester University Press

Blas Arroyo, J (2000) Journal of Pragmatics

Fairclough, N (1985) Language and Power

Habermas, J (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Cambridge, Polity Press

Ormroad and Henneberg, 2006; 53) The Marketing of Political Parties. Political Marketing at the 2005 British General Election