Give A Hoot: Don’t Tweet

When flipping indifferently between channels a number of weeks ago, I came across something I found completely asinine. It was the morning that Hillary Clinton was (finally) scheduled to concede the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.

CNN cameras were stationed outside her residence, waiting to capture her exciting 10-step trek to the waiting vehicle that would whisk her away to the speaking engagement. When I turned back to CNN  a half hour later, the cameras were still trained on her driveway.

What on earth were these cameras hoping to capture?

It then hit me (get ready for this startling revelation…drum roll, please): there’s simply too much information out there.

Speaking strictly as a historian, one of the many things that makes figures like Joseph Stalin or Richard Nixon so damn fascinating is the aura of mystery surrounding them. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to know if they wore boxers or briefs. If I knew every little detail about their lives, down to what toothpaste they preferred, somehow they wouldn’t seem as interesting.

Yet we now live in a society where there’s an irrespressible urge to reveal everything. 95 per cent of the cellphone conversations I overhear (I don’t use one myself) invariably revolve around decidedly trivial matters: “I just had some mustard on my hotdog.” “Maybe I’ll buy some coffee tomorrow.”

Earth-shattering stuff.

Enter the world of micro-blogging. Sites like Twitter now allow us to record these “ideas” in writing. In theory, this service has potential. You can “follow” a key influencer in a field of interest and find out what they’re thinking or planning.

In practice (and this is not a criticism of the tool, but of the user), Twitter is a waste of time…much like those aforementioned annoying cellphone conversations. I have a Twitter account and follow reputable names in the PR industry. My experience has been disappointing. Rather than reading a helpful tip or some keen insight, I’m exposed to mudane updates: “just finished my laundry.”

I’m not going to name names, but these people’s personal lives aren’t much more interesting than mine. Twitter is polluted with frivolity. Too bad; it seemed like a good idea.

Politics/PR 101

In attempting to familiarize myself with the unfamiliar world of public relations, I think it’s useful relating it to something with which I am familiar (that’s the last time I use that word or a variant in this post): politics. Politics, just like public relations, is the art of building and sustaining relationships with targeted audiences; this is how politicians get elected and re-elected (or how PR professionals get paid and promoted).

A Globe and Mail/CTV News poll released this past week represented a mixed bag for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. For myself, it shed light on the essentials of public relations.

On the plus side for Harper, 48 per cent of Canadians believe the country is on the right track, 11 per cent higher than those who think otherwise. To put this in perspective, over three-fourths of Americans look to the future with pessimism.

In accordance with this sentiment, 54 per cent have a very or somewhat favourable impression of Harper. Meanwhile the opposition Liberals have yet to regain their footing and inspire little enthusiasm among voters. Stephane Dion is approved by only four out of 10 Canadians, while 59 per cent express a negative opinion of him.

These are enviable numbers for a government facing the prospect of an election campaign in the fall. The same poll, however, finds the Conservatives leading the Liberals by a statistically insignificant two percentage points (32 to 30).

This has been the dominant refrain of Harper’s tenure in power. A minority government that is generally viewed as competent and has been blessed by a hobbled, lacklustre opposition has made little headway in convincing Canadians that it deserves to be re-elected, let alone granted majority status. Much ink has been spilled on this seemingly odd phenomenon.

It’s helpful thinking of Harper’s government (or any government) as a product. To thrive and prosper, a brand must offer more than a good for sale; it must also connect with an audience on an emotional level. A good brand image attracts a loyal following because a trusting consumer shops with confidence.

At the heart of Harper’s underwhelming standing in the polls is a disconnect between the message of high ethical and moral standards on which he campaigned and the impression voters have formed of him during the past two-and-a-half years. Stories abound of Harper’s aloofness and furtiveness. His ill-concealed contempt for the media, marginalization of cabinet and centralization of power in the PMO have left a lingering perception of a non-transparent leader with a nasty autocratic streak (the Toronto Star ran a damning week-long profile of these tendencies in late May).

These impressions matter. Harper would be flying high in the polls right now if his record in government was all that mattered. Yet in an age driven by the 24-hour news cycle and an overload of frivolous information, when a politician can’t even fart without having the deed posted on YouTube for millions to watch, most people base their vote on a candidate’s perceived values (sensitivity, integrity, personableness) rather than one’s platform or credentials.

As with a brand or product, so too with a prime minister.