PR Matters

It’s Safety New Zealand Week.  This morning I was reading in the Dominion Post of a renewed campaign to alert us to dangers at home. Apparently last year more than 650,000 of us were injured in the home – one every 48 seconds. Staggering!

This afternoon ACC kicked off its campaign with a statement detailing more grim statistics. These include more than 17,000 accidents in bathrooms each year, 87 stair-related accidents every day, and 133 injuries per week to children from running through glass or falling from windows.

Last year we paid out $622 million through our ACC levies for the treatment and rehabilitation of people injured in the home. (I love the way ACC refers to “New Zealanders” and “their” levies, as if they are from another country.)

We’re obviously a careless bunch because in the past 12 months 5,400 people were injured using a ladder at home – that’s 15 people every day. Never mind that this equates to a significantly-sized town of ladder victims alone.

Having Safety Week has to be a good thing, but I would like to know how we fare in relation to other OECD countries. I suspect these figures are not apparent because others don’t have such generous systems as our ACC, and they simply have to fork out for their own carelessness. Or it is just the male can-do attitude that gets us into trouble around the home and up ladders.

I’ve seen lot of ACC television adverts over the years – people tripping over toys and the like – and sometimes I wonder whether we’ve become too self reliant on others doing our thinking for us. Perhaps this is why we are so accident prone.

Now I’ve not been above carelessness myself over the years, with a busted elbow and compound fracture of the arm.  Discreetly I did this outside the home.

Perhaps one answer is to have a home-accident prosecution system akin to the workplace one. 

Other possible solutions are living away from home, having only single storey dwellings without roofs, licensing the use of ladders, or hiring an expert, which would make many of these incidents workplace claims. Just a thought.

Australia's version of the psychic "Paul" the World Cup Octopus

As Australia inches forward to deciding who won last Saturday’s election, for diversion media commentators across the ditch are pouring over the tea leaves trying to analyse why the electorate voted the way it did.

One recurring theme is ‘the electorate is sick and tired of the adversarial politics served up by the two main parties’. The claim is voters either deliberately spoilt their compulsory vote (put at some 6 percent) or voted for anyone but the Labour or Coalition candidate.

Given Australia’s complex voting system (our perception) this results in laborious recounts before a winner is eventually declared.

Another intriguing outcome is that regardless of the outcome in Australia, it will almost certainly mean three of the world’s leading proponents of Westminster style government (Britain, Australia and New Zealand) being governed by coalitions, even though all three countries use different voting systems.

In railing against adversarial politics, what we shouldn’t lose sight of is Westminster style government (and each of our legal systems) is designed to be adversarial.

If you ever want an example of it at its ‘best’, listen to the exchanges between Annette King and Stephen Joyce on Mike Hosking’s breakfast radio show on a Wednesday morning. It’s a brawl from start to finish, with the rules being: never concede, score points, undermine, talk over the top and always have the last word.

Each country has always practiced this form of brutal politics (and law), even if each side keeps quiet while the other has a go. The difference between now and yesteryear is that modern communications – electronic and social media – makes us more aware of what takes place.

At the same time society has become more cosmopolitan, better educated, more opinionated, and we too through social media have the ability to share our views with a wide audience.

Immediately after the elections in Australia and Britain the politicians promised a more inclusive form of government. I seem to remember similar promises being made when National came to power in New Zealand.

Will it happen? For an answer refer to a Tui billboard near you.

I fear that the recession might have accelerated the age of intolerance and ultra conservatism to risk.

Is our new-found enthusiasm for saving versus spending, the resignation of the CEO of HP, and the decision of the Christchurch councillor to quit at the next election over a sandcastle spat symptom of this, or the disease itself?

We seem to be in a time when how things look is more important that how things are, i.e the facts.  This is underscored by journalistic minions trolling through the café receipts of elected representatives and their officials to find an ill-gotten coffee, while the reasons for the burgeoning welfare cost go largely unexplained.

It’s now a world where being given a bun with mould on it in a takeaway store is worthy of editorial coverage by our major newspapers

I recall the comments of Philippa Fee at a liability seminar last year organised by Lumley: “There have been in New Zealand a sudden shift in social behaviour reflected in greater demand for accountability, less tolerance, deeper acrimony and a growing appetite for class actions. These behaviours are evident in businesses, consumers, employees and even agencies of government, and there are implications for all forms of public and professional liability. We are no longer litigation shy.”

This was the backdrop to Philippa’s presentation on Directors & Officers insurance, and she counseled that when it comes to liability paranoia is healthy, particularly in times of economic stress.

I hope she’s right, and as economic stress dissolves (economists-assured), these picky traits we are exhibiting are not so deeply embedded in our national character they remain permanent fixtures.

For communicators, these times give us different opportunities to exhibit our issue management skills, so we shouldn’t complain.  It’s for Kiwis who’ve prided themselves historically on having a “fair go” attitude that I feel sorry.

But perhaps I’m just paranoid.

The World Health Organization (WHO) earlier this week officially declared an end to the pandemic concerning the influenza H1N1 virus, popularly known as swine flu. 

However WHO Director-General Margaret Chan recognised that here in New Zealand we’re still experiencing the effects of a second wave of H1N1.
“In the post-pandemic period, localised outbreaks of different magnitude may show significant levels of H1N1 transmission. This is the situation we are observing right now in New Zealand,” Mrs Chan said.

The outcome of this for some has been particularly tragic.  However, as recently reported in NZ Dr, this year’s weekly rate of flu consults is well down on last year.

Communications before, during and after were to my mind a great example of how to get it right.  Unfortunately not everyone has seen it that way.  As the predicted apocalypse did not occur, many people say the whole thing was a money-making venture by pharmaceutical companies.  While these theories make for great headlines they also significantly diminish the genuine efforts of public health protection teams globally, who potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

We will never know how bad it could have been had the level of alarm not been raised.  After all only 450 people died in the UK compared to the predicted 65,000 which surely proves it all an unnecessary scaremongering exercise?  Shame on the health experts for saving some lives.  When dealing with statistics it is easy to forget that only one number matters to people – the one that affects them. 

Closer to home our own public health protection specialists implemented a textbook case of how to effectively contain a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease.  You can read about it in the BMJ’s May 21st edition. 

Dr Craig Thornley, Medical Officer of Health at Auckland Regional Public Health Service shared with us a brief overview (below) of the basics of the response in New Zealand which highlights the complexity behind some very simple messages.

• The pandemic response in New Zealand had several partly-overlapping strategic phases, all of which had been previously laid out in the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Action Plan.
• The first phase was termed ‘keep it out’, and was about delaying introduction of the virus into New Zealand to give healthcare services time to mobilise their plans. This initially seemed critically important as reports were being received from Mexico that suggested that the illness had a high mortality.
• We were concurrently running a ‘stamp it out’ phase: when people with swine flu were diagnosed in the community we launched a rapid response to “ring-fence” spread by distributing antivirals (mainly Tamiflu) to those they had been in contact with. Again, this strategy was also intended to try to delay spread.
• We moved into the ‘manage it’ phase when it became clear that swine flu was widespread in the community. During this phase a range of groups mobilised to support those who were unwell to ensure that those with mild-to-moderate illness could be managed away from the hospitals; hospitals re-allocated capacity to deal with the increased workload, particularly in intensive care units (who experienced high demand with sick young people requiring very aggressive life support); public health units focused attention on outbreaks in residential institutions; and a variety of strategies were applied in primary care to help cope with the influx of swine flu patients.
• Throughout each of these phases, there were intensive health education campaigns on ways to prevent flu spread, protective equipment was distributed to healthcare workers (the healthcare workforce being one of the most-exposed groups), and systems for testing and making treatment available were streamlined.
• All of this was designed to “flatten the curve” to try to delay the peak of the outbreak, reduce the overall number of cases and spread the caseload across a period of time instead of having a massive early epidemic peak that could have jeopardised provision of healthcare and many other services. As the nature of the illness caused by swine flu became clearer, strategies were tailored around protecting those that were most vulnerable.

Communicating risk so people take action to protect themselves appropriately is a tricky thing, and when people are protected from the risk it can be tempting for people to think the risk wasn’t there in the first place.  Unfortunately even one untimely death is one too many though. Best we not get complacent about the next infectious threat that comes our way.

Are big bold ads now the immediate way to address real or perceived injustices thought to have been perpetrated through the columns of newspaper?  On July 2, the New Zealand Herald ran a story stating that an investigation found a couple of eco-friendly laundry powders had high pH levels which could pose a health risk. One of these was an Ecostore product.  The very next day Ecostore ran a full page ad in the NZ Herald claiming, There’s no Dirt on our Laundry Powder.

Advertising your side of the story in response to editorial coverage is not new, but until now it has normally been used when a publication has refused to run a ‘correction’ or adequately covered your side of the story.

Basically Ecostore ‘s response was: yes we did have some laundry powder that was found in May to register a high pH level, but that “honest mistake” was remedied in four days. It insisted the out-of-spec powder was never unsafe, and for that reason no recall from the market was warranted, although Consumer NZ thought it should have been.

The Newspaper Advertising Bureau thought Ecostore’s response to the Herald article was pretty cool, and awarded it “ad of the month”.  The judges commented: “The ad’s got topicality. That’s how a newspaper should be used to make a statement.”

Putting aside the issue of how Ecostore’s agency managed to secure that much advertising space in the NZ Herald the next day (when those of us who’ve tried unsuccessfully to get recall ads placed within a couple of days), was this full page a sound strategy?

Yes and no.  Ecostore did address the issues raised in the same paper the previous day, but not in the same medium.  And people who read news items do not always read ads, even the full page ones.

From its point of view, Ecostore may have put the record straight. We don’t know what effort Ecostore made to redress the issues raised through the editorial columns and/or whether the NZ Herald lost interest in the issue.

We do know Ecostore did not meet its own expectations – it made a mistake with the product specs – but they did not recall the product because it did not represent the danger alleged by Consumer NZ. When building and protecting a brand, surely product integrity is as important as disputed issues of safety.

I’m not convinced that the ad adequately resolved the issue at hand, i.e. mistakenly high pH levels. 

There’s news and there’s views. The ad was a view.  I’m sure Ecostore recognises that news can and does shape opinion more sustainably than views.  On this basis I would counsel an editorial response, rather than an advertising one.

And there is also the issue of whether a precedent has been set where newspapers might deny a person the right of reply on the basis that they can ‘take out an ad if they want to correct the content or tone of coverage’!

He didn’t get it then, and he doesn’t get it now. “Then” was when he fronted up to the affected communities, the media, and politicians over the Gulf oil spill disaster; and “he” is former BP chief Tony Hayward.

It is almost beyond comprehension that he would say, when exiting the top job, “Life isn’t fair”.

How could a person with the experience and credentials to lead Britain’s biggest industrial company think such a thing, let alone say it!  It’s apparent he’s been insulated all his life from the world where most of us live…because we all know life’s not always fair. That’s a given; it’s how you respond that is a measure of your mettle. 

Yes, he did admit making mistakes, and stated that it (managing the disaster) had not been a great PR success (if he was honest he would’ve have admitted it was a disaster).  But patently he learned nothing from the grueling experience of the past 101 days; and he has absolutely no empathy for those who lost their lives on the rig and their grieving families, for people whose lives and dreams have been shattered by the spill, for the havoc wreaked on the environment.

A primary rule of managing the media is: know what you are going to say. Did he? It’s hard to believe.

No, life is not fair when a person like Tony Hayward can walk away with a £1 million lump sum, and a pension of £600,000 a year!

I expect you agree, life’s just not fair.

It wasn’t the Australian Leaders’ Debate that sparked a major controversy on Monday morning radio. Nor was it the Leaders’ debate timeslot being moved to give preference to the hotly contested final of Australian Masterchef on Sunday night. No, it was Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report inadvertently disclosing the winner of said cooking show.

In an apparent slip of the tongue, host Geoff Robinson told listeners the name of the winner, later defending himself by saying it was all over the papers. Yes, the Australian papers. New Zealand viewers  are just two weeks into Aussie Masterchef, so many listeners of Morning Report were incensed.

However, Robinson makes a good point in today’s global media space. It’s near impossible to keep such ‘news’ a secret and really; shouldn’t the cries of anguish and displeasure be levelled at TVNZ for airing the show so many weeks behind the Aussies?  Why not do what they did for American Idol, playing the finale a mere hours after it aired in America?

We can expect there will be financial reasons for the delay, but as punters, more than ever before, we expect media connectivity, (including entertainment), to be ‘current’

Thank you Morning Report, for highlighting the heavy feet of our state broadcaster.

Major tragedies are usually followed by a host of different reactions and responses. These are frequently played out in public as individuals try to connect with other like-minded people to affirm their own reaction to a situation. Naturally the online world offers many forums in which to do this.

Most recently, British PM David Cameron came under fire for demanding a Facebook tribute page in memory of gunman Raoul Moat, named “RIP Raoul Moat you legend”, be taken down. The creator claimed the page was not to “condone what he did, as what he did was wrong. [I] Feel sorry for the families, but he was still a human being at the end of the day. He had problems and he didn’t get any help.”

Despite this explanation, David Cameron condemned the page, categorically stating that he could not understand any sympathy towards this man. The UK government directly contacted Facebook and its creator, Mark Zuckerberg, asking that the page be taken down. 

Facebook’s initial respone was that it is a “place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way …as such there were times when people discussed topics others sometimes found distasteful. However, this is not a reason in itself to stop a debate from happening.”  So long as Facebook’s terms and conditions were not violated, the social media giant felt there was no case to answer to.

Eventually the creator herself backed down, presumably in light of the outrage across the UK, and taking down the page earlier this week. 

On one level, it seemed to me that David Cameron is possibly naïve in his belief that a government has the right to censor public opinion, and to do so in such a public way potentially has future ramifications. On the other they are representing the interests of their people, and when the brutal actions of one person look as though they are being celebrated, surely they can and should look to shut down that particular discussion.

But Facebook also has a point. There are any number of distasteful and immoral topics being discussed on the internet and through social media even as you read this. Where is the line to be drawn? What if a corporation’s facebook page had negative messages written on it? Does the fact they have a Facebook page mean they are open to comments and criticism, or should they have the option to decide what is posted on their ‘wall’?

How do we protect people’s right to free speech while ensuring it doesn’t result in the unreasonable victimisation or stigamitisation of others – be it an individual, brand, or an organisation?

New data showing that fewer young people are smoking offered some refreshingly good news yesterday.  Thanks to years of hard work by different organisations, each tackling different aspects of the issue, we are seeing some real progress.  

The value of long term investment in social marketing and education, combined with a range of regulatory changes over many years, has surely been proven.  It also highlights the many challenges inherent in motivating behaviour change.
 
A consistent increase in price to the point where smoking has become unaffordable is part of the story but isn’t the only factor. We’ve also seen wider cultural and societal shifts along with a better understanding of health protection and promotion.

Another success factor is the ability to use single-minded messages like smoke-free, quit, stop and cut it out.  Interestingly, some of these messages are negative. This is something often deemed inappropriate but in this case seems to have done the job, showing yet again that we can’t apply a ‘cookie cutter’ approach to these things. The messages also left no room for confusion through use of words like moderation, balance and variety. 

While this single-minded approach has been a common success factor in addressing some issues there are actually very few situations where a ‘silver bullet’ solution can be found.

Unintended consequences can arise from taking a single message too far. Adherence to the skin cancer prevention slip, slop slap message has potentially resulted in substandard Vitamin D status for some, which could lead to poor bone health, diabetes and heart disease.

It is at this point that for me the good news around smoking could take a bad turn. I can once again see this great success story being misrepresented and cited as a blueprint for reducing population obesity levels. Demonising one food or even one food company on the basis of the anti-tobacco lobby’s success would be misleading and show a lack of understanding of consumers as individuals.  

Such an approach fails to take into account the complex social, cultural, psychological and (let’s not forget) life-giving attributes of food.  You can’t put these things in a patch and stick them on your arm.  Single minded messages might sometimes be useful but their interpretation depends on the perspective of each individual. 

If we want to shift our energy balance in the right direction we need to focus on burning the excess fat stored in bodies than vilifying individual food products.  It is never going to be a precise process that ‘fixes’ a problem. It has taken anti-smoking groups decades to reach this point and their work continues. Here’s hoping we take the appropriate lessons from this good news.

The past week has shown that grocery foods are a perplexing topic, as media have prominently featured several items and angles relating to food and supermarket pricing.

Green MP Sue Kedgley led off last week with calls for a government enquiry and a code of practice for fruit and vegetable margins. Not surprisingly she was joined by fruit and vegetable interests giving dire warning of the industry’s demise.

No sooner had we digested that than we were reminded of the Bill to come before Parliament next week proposing to exempt GST from Healthy Foods.  However, by day’s end we learned the National Party is going to nip that proposal in the bud and the Bill is as good as “dead in the water”. Meanwhile Labour is finalising its proposal to exempt GST from fresh fruit & veg. This and the healthy foods exemptions, we are told, are because of the need to encourage healthy eating and make food more affordable. (Curiously in discussions about Kedgley’s supermarket margins and the proposals for GST exemptions, the cheaper prices offered by dedicated produce stores are largely overlooked! The reality is many consumers are willing to pay more for convenience.)

Move on one day, and the Department of Statistics trumpets officially that food prices have dropped year-on-year and it’s the biggest such drop in the life of most of us – over 50 years.

We are funny creatures, on the one hand we (and our media) tut-tut when Kedgley tells us that fruit and veg margins are extortionist, a claim not supported, as far as I have read, by growers who are also produce marketers. On the other, we rejoice at the news of falling grocery prices. I see many papers actually featured decreases in grocery prices as “Good News”.

For the average Kiwi it is difficult to make sense of all this, and I think it is mainly because of glib use of statistics.  For example, compared with May, lettuce prices for June were up 77%. Yet the June to June year lettuces were down 30%.

I followed up on startling grocery prices presented to us by one weekend paper, based on data from the Department of Statistics. One popular grocery item was shown to have increased in price, between July 2008 and May 2010, by 43%. On investigation it seems clear that our official statistician compared the pricing of the item when it was promotional (discounted) with the non-promotional pricing. In fact, this product is most frequently purchased at the promotional price.

While statistics are excellent headline grabbers, they seldom tell a full and honest story and distortion is not uncommon.