Posts Tagged ‘Communication’

1. Government showing deft communication touch

   Published on Friday, February 12th, 2010

   The Government’s handling of the tax changes to be announced in the May budget show a masterly understanding of managing long term communications.

   Delegate the task of putting forward ideas to a third party (a commission) and then immediately reject the most controversial (phew, it’s not going to be as bad as it could be!); talk up some of the remaining unpalatable ideas, and then in the first formal statement of the year reject them too (saved again!).

   Now we have a pretty clear understanding of what will be in the budget some three months in advance, even if we don’t have the detail. By the time the announcements are made in May all the best emotional and rational condemnations from opponents will be out in the public domain, and Government can fine tune its final decisions to ease back on those that will upset us most.

   By the time the changes are finally introduced in October (10 months from raising the issue to their implementation) we will have mentally adjusted, and rather than outrage we will take them in our stride.

   It is good strategy, and the Government’s media managers are demonstrating a deft implementation touch.

   Cast your mind over some of the other contentious issues – mining in conservation reserves; fundamental economic reform to ‘catch up with Australia’ and even the national standards for primary schools have been on the agenda for months.

   When the going started to get tough over national standards, Key & Co showed their ability to up the game aggressively with a ministerial realignment, Key personally entering the confrontation, and outspoken challenges to the teacher’s union and boards of trustees.

   Labour will undoubtedly have the skills to win a few skirmishes as we move into the year, but they are going to need to be at the top of their game to outmanoeuvre National.

   

2. Fair Game – what’s thought in the real world can now be posted online

   Published on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

   Google’s Sidewiki, an application that appears as a browser sidebar where you can read and write entries along the side of a webpage, could become the ultimate platform for those who like to share their views and opinions. Brands and business had better sit up and take notice of this development.

   Sidewiki is a new way of allowing anyone to contribute information, comments, observations and criticisms right there on a webpage. Think about this for a second, with Sidewiki, any web based article can be transformed into a public space of unedited thoughts ranging from super insightful, through helpful and witty, to downright malicious.

   Many of us who are comfortable with the free-for-all of social networking spheres may not see this as a big deal because currently blogs, micro and otherwise, are the open forums in which people discuss all manner of things, including the performance of brands. 

   But Sidewiki will make these conversations mainstream. 

   It will now be impossible for brands to broadcast a message or to communicate in a one-way traffic style and not potentially be called to account.

   This new tool makes two- way communication the only communication option for brands as people now have the ultimate soapbox to express their views, right out there for all to see.

   For corporations, the Sidewiki forum drives home the importance of being able to stand up to scrutiny and being prepared to engage in robust discussion, with the added bonus of being able to defend your position too. Bring it on!

   

3. Will New Zealander’s need to rethink their stance on GE foods and Nuclear Power so we can keep up with the rest of the world?

   Published on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

   First off, I need to state that I am a complete fence sitter when it comes to GMOs and Nuclear power. The way I see it is that in an ideal world, we would enjoy the potential benefits while we fully manage the risks. But reality is always less simple.

   It has occurred to me of late that in the not too distant future, New Zealanders are going to have to think quite seriously about the potential of GMOs, nuclear power and other technologies that will enable us to meet our carbon emission targets, growing power demands and attempts to stay in the game, let alone keeping ahead of it.

   British scientist Dr Robert Winston has said that we need to be more open to new technologies so we can keep pace globally. He’s not wrong. Last week at the annual Food and Grocery Council conference, two of the keynote speakers highlighted changes that may need to take place if we are to feed the world and ensure human intelligence keeps pace with computers. 

   If GMOs are the only means of preventing billions of people starving to death, it will be pretty hard to keep it in the box. Then on the flip side, movies like Food Inc paint the food industry as giant manipulators of the world in order to reap the profits. Are we equipped to reconcile these positions and at the same time solve these very real problems?

   Honest and transparent communication will become even more critical, but often the truth is too boring. We truly need a media who report, not sensationalise the realities of these positions. With shrinking newsrooms under increasing commercial pressures and the more experienced journalists often being let go, this is sadly less likely to happen. Perhaps the emerging social media sphere will evolve into a forum based on true expertise?

   New technologies always raise new questions. Would a science that enabled a paraplegic to walk be halted because it breached our moral ethics? Currently there is already a scientist in Europe who uses himself as a human guinea pig – or should I say android, to test mind driven robotic implants. 

   The reality of new technologies being able to solve some very serious and imminent problems is upon us. And as clean, green nuclear free New Zealand, how well are we informed to be able to manage these dilemmas?

   As the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out, had we invented Viagra we would be sitting very pretty economically. But we didn’t! So what’s next? Which companies will have the intestinal fortitude to take on people power for causes that they believe are for the good of the people? This is an interesting dilemma but who is debating it?