Was it worth it?

By standing up to be counted as an Independent Candidate MP, I certainly learnt some home truths, both professionally (which you might not like) and personally (which you might not care about).

So yes, of course it was worth it. Well I am not going to say ‘no’ am I?

From a professional point of view, I know political advertising and marketing is different from specific products or services.

It is very PR-led. Some of the electorate (‘consumers’) are tied by arcane and irrational tribal loyalties. The political parties conduct the same focus groups with the same respondents from the same target constituencies - so they feed back the same stuff that they know you want to hear, thus encouraging campaigns of style over substance.

I also know that, despite the above, at General Election time the ‘market’ is volcanic and unstable. And the parties are scared because they know anything can happen – as it did. They just don’t know what it might be.

So, here are the home truths, many of which have been acknowledged in other media. I wanted to wait to see if I could add anything new.

As a Candidate MP, you get the chance to connect with real people. Not people in focus groups, not target audiences, not demographic profiles. People in the real world.

A surprising number, clutching a lager, spit at you, an inch from your face and demand: ‘what are your policies?’, ‘what are your policies?’, ‘what are your policies?’; ‘what about me?’, ‘what about me?’, ‘what about me?’.

Once, standing opposite the sitting Labour MP on the pavement, I advised our intoxicated constituent: ‘that bloke over there has been our MP – why don’t you talk to him?’. Sorry, Martin. It had to be done.

But other people have a real grievance or concern they want to share. I met a lady whose 11-year-old daughter is petrified by dogs since being attacked aged eight. I would have had a great creative solution for her. Another had her daughter taken into care because she didn’t have a big enough flat, but she couldn’t get a big enough flat without her daughter living with her. Vicious. Neither of these poor ladies knew where to turn.

These weren’t the only ones. I met several people in the real world who are completely ignored and untouched by the media world we live in, especially digital media. How many of them need an iPad this week?

Let’s be honest, although agencies and media-types like to develop more sophisticated definitions and segmentations, how much of our work is aimed at consumers in what would have been ABC1s rather than C2DEs?

In this real world experience, I have been shocked by how many C2DEs there are out there. You walk past them every day but you don’t touch them. In an election, you do. They are all equal. They all have a vote.

But the political parties don’t ‘target’ them. Their game is to trawl the streets for three years, knock on every door and find out who is going to vote their way and who is not. Those who aren’t, they try to convert. The key people are the ‘floating voters’ who haven’t made up their minds.

There is such a huge gap between the ‘poor, scared, forgotten and alone’ and the ‘interested and engaged’ that, frankly, the former are not courted by our politicians who don’t have a clue how to communicate with them. Why do they matter? They are entitled to vote, but are unlikely to bother, so why bother about them? For that matter, the same goes for marketers. They haven’t got any money so why target consumer products at them?

Others are really interested and engaged by politics and current affairs and are keen to know where you stand and challenge your views. These are the happy moments when you are asked about something you have never thought of and, as an Independent rather than party mouthpiece, you don’t have a guidebook to refer to – so you have to think.

But, as we now know, no one had thought of the effect of the TV debates. Despite not being tactically cute enough to leverage the impact of the first debate into presenting a credible Cabinet team at the time of the second and third, the Lib Dems suddenly became the viable default option.

I was one of 46 Independent MPs ‘endorsed’ by the Independent Network. As well as passing tests of character and integrity, we agreed to abide by the Martin Bell Principles: http://tinyurl.com/32ebcqk. The Independent Network has admitted the Election was undeniably disappointing for independent candidates. Even Esther Rantzen lost her deposit – and she probably had more media exposure than the rest of us put together.

We all thought the expenses scandal would be a major issue and expose our politicians as shabby, untrustworthy jobsworths who spent five years being shepherded into the lobbies in return for their underhand perks.

But, at a national PR launch, I realised to my horror, that the expenses scandal would not be an issue at all. I have a positive track record in this area and my particular point was that the MPs couldn’t have worked out individually that they could flip their houses and avoid Capital Gains Tax. The flipping must have been a well-known scam among them – yet not one had the moral compass to raise a hand and say ‘isn’t this wrong?’.

But when I made this point to the political editor of a ‘serious’ national newspaper, he couldn’t see the problem. He just said ‘of course, they all knew about it – the Commons Expenses Office told them to do it’. So that’s alright then. No need for MPs with financial integrity.

A further motivator for Independent candidates was to fight a political system where majority Governments containing specifically-recruited, spineless jobsworth backbenchers can force legislation through without a full and fair debate in the House of Commons. Well, it didn’t happened the way we wanted, but it ain’t like that now. And I am delighted.

So, in terms of my political objective, although no thanks to me, I believe we now have a ‘fairer’ Parliament. Hopefully, we’ll never have to endure a single majority party again. Nick Clegg is playing the long game. After the referendum on AV, the Lib Dems will get a fairer ratio of seats to votes and these flipping career politicians will have to coalesce for evermore.

Anyway, sorry, I digress. Let’s get back to the real world.

Apart from the above, my over-arching motivation in standing had been the divergence, rather than convergence, of society. Why are we becoming further apart from each other, rather than closer together?

This was the fundamental question I was seeking to answer.

So, from a professional (i.e. marketing and media) point of view, here are the home truths as I found them and, I hope, some positive thoughts as to how we might improve things:

1. Better use of marketing, media and creative skills

There are loads of people – probably millions – who we (those of us with Blackberries and iPads) virtually ignore. I know. I’ve met them.

Political parties like to identify social problems but their solutions, which they call ‘policies’, are woeful: at best, badly thought-out and poorly communicated (if at all); at worst, self-serving and party point-scoring.

Laughably, the Conservatives once produced a leaflet called ‘Breakdown Britain – Citizen’s Repair Manual’, in which they tried to liken society to a broken motor car with diagrams of broken engines and nuts and bolts. Who is going to read that?!

The poor, scared, forgotten and alone are more disengaged from the media than our London-centric media ‘specialists’ might think. Their lives are dominated by their own problems and day-to-day survival. And their purchasing motivators are driven by price discounting and affordability rather than cute advertising or fancy media connectivity.

They are not on Facebook and they don’t Twitter. In fact, they are unlikely to have internet access at all. They can’t read, so why would they?

They may have TV, but the £142.50 licence fee (tax) is a lot of money - a national scandal in my view. They are likely to avoid paying this, which will get them into trouble – or nick the money from elsewhere, which will get them into even more trouble.

Sure, politicians will claim a policy for this and a policy for that, but they are box ticking – not touching people. Behavioural economics be damned.

If our political system has been working why, after all these Labour years, and with all this great new media technology, have the poor, scared, forgotten and alone become so disengaged from the rest of us?

Can’t we, as one of the world’s great creative industries, unite to develop genuinely creative solutions to the social problems that these people face?

Can’t we develop a professional approach by talking to them other than on a commercial basis, identifying their problems, setting objectives, defining strategies and developing genuinely creative solutions to HELP them?

We would be much better at this than politicians. Why are our skills limited to commercial, rather than social, objectives (I am talking about more over-arching social issues here than the tactical work of the COI)?

If I had been elected, one of my missions would have been to propose a cross-party committee to act as ‘client’ and lobby Government funding for just such a project.

I do think a Role of Government should be to get the best problem-solvers aimed at the biggest problems in society on a non-party basis.

Politicians claim the high ground in this area (‘I am in politics to serve the community, to improve society’). Well they don’t. As we now know.

Can’t we knock some heads together, whether through the IPA or ISBA or the Marketing Society or the School of Communication Arts, whatever, to set up a non-political working group with an objective to help the lives of people whose demographic profiles fall below the target audiences of our commercial clients?

2. Connecting Government – and people - with charities

For example, for discussion, could we develop a campaign programme to educate the these people on where to turn for the help they need?

A Government ‘policy’ or box-ticking unit is unlikely to be the answer. Why would you go there, when they might ask you questions that threaten your housing or your dole money? When people need help, they should get it from people who want to give it, not whose job it is to do so.

For example, have you ever heard of Guidestar.org.uk? As a Trustee of a UK charity for nearly 10 years, I had never heard of them. And I bet the poor, scared, forgotten and alone haven’t either.

Guidestar was ‘set up in 2003 to provide a single, easily accessible source of detailed information about every charity and voluntary organisation in England and Wales’. All 163,000 of them. That’s a lot of charities.

Guidestar may or may not be the right people, I don’t know. It might be the Citizens Advice Bureau (but I don’t have a clue where they are and I haven’t ever seen any advertising or messaging from them either).
Or maybe there’s room for a grown-up Helpline. I don’t know.

I do know that, when I was brought up in Hong Kong, there was a thing called The Community Chest. EVERYONE knew about it. It was so heavily advertised I can recall the corny jingle decades later (that’s penetration!):

Give, give, give to the Community Chest
Give, give, give and they will do the rest
Give, give, give just as much as you can
Give, give, give to help your fellow man.

If you’re from the East, if you’re from the West,
Help your neighbours with the Community Chest.
Give, give, give to help the sick and the poor
Give, give, give and then just give some more.

If there are 163,000 charities in England and Wales, how on earth are the poor, scared, forgotten and alone going to find the right one for them?

They deserve to be told, rationally, that there is one gateway they can go to for help, and, emotionally, that we all care and want to help them.

What is needed is the media skills to identify who these people are and how to reach them, a strategy on how best to do this and creative skills to touch them and encourage them to act. I reckon that is a GREAT brief.

And that it is the Role of Government to fund it, not execute it.

I suspect there is also a need to cut across Government departments, including the COI, and connect them to other official or voluntary bodies. Again, that would have been one of my projects an Independent MP.

3. ‘Geek snobbery’ in digital media

Before the Election, I approached several ‘digital-savvy’ friends and contacts before developing my own campaign. To a man (for, sorry, they all were), they promised this would be the first online, social networking General Election. One of them said he could do me a great deal for £25k.

I am concerned that, influenced by digital media fashions and with more than a touch of ‘geek snobbery’, we in Brand Republic have developed our own little bubble in our own little world and, in this divergent society, become far more disconnected with reality than we think.

How scared are we to admit that we don’t really understand the place – or the future – of digital media?

How influenced are we by the early adopters – the ‘geek snobs’ - who think, that by knowing how to use a new digital media product, they know how to monetise that technology for meaningful commercial results?

For example, although millions of people use Facebook, do they use it in such a way as to create significant commercial ROI?

Is Twitter an exciting new media opportunity? Or is it a completely new animal? A cross between - occasionally - an extraordinary news channel (Iran massacre, Cumbrian murders) and a game – a trivial pursuit, if you will - that some people like playing more frequently than others?

And where are the commercial opportunities? I tweet as ‘Tweeterbookclub’ and today I have 2,790 followers but I know, when I trawl through them (which is very boring), many of them aren’t reacting to my tweets – and a frightening number haven’t used Twitter at all for months and even years.

They haven’t just opted-out of my tweets, they have opted-out of Twitter altogether. Prove me wrong, but I reckon sites like Facebook and Twitter are the definitive ‘opt-out’ media channels. Commercial messages just get blocked out. And the more the messaging, the more the blocking.

Where’s the scalability for these sites? Without it, they won’t survive. (Actually, I reckon I know how they could, but I ain’t going there now).

4. Client confusion

The explosion in digital media has led to a plethora of digital agencies and a confusion of choice for clients.

More than ever, the agency world has polarised into the multinational groups, with all their advantages of size and international client service, and the local specialists – who are faster-moving, faster-thinking but, for clients, ever-more confusing.

As clients in the last General Election, I am sure all the politicians were being advised to develop digital solutions and that this would be the way.

But it wasn’t.

How many clients in today’s commercial world are being led down the same line and wasting valuable resources just as I could have done?
I suspect more than the geek-snobs might like to think.

So now, apart from an excuse to post the wordiest blog of all time, I have to touch on how standing for Parliament was worth it from a personal point of view (this will be shorter):

1. It is a privilege to stand outside Clapham Junction with an excuse to talk to anybody who passes by – the more sober, the better. This is a real eye-opener, as I hope I have reflected above.

2. And it was fun. We really engaged with people by driving round with the milk float (DON’T FLOAT - VOTE!).

This led to some extraordinary and unforeseen experiences. We drove round Parliament Square and I was interviewed by Spanish, Portuguese and American TV stations on College Green. I even predicted the result to the American station. All very random and completely off-strategy for attracting votes from my Battersea constituency.

Someone asked me for my autograph because they thought I was the actor-singer Michael Ball. Makes a change from Jeremy Clarkson.

One of my thoughts was to change the name of Clapham Junction, where it isn’t, to Battersea Junction, where it is. I was trying to explain this to a potential voter and he said: ‘Yes, but it’s called Clapham Junction because the station is there’. There’s no answer to the wisdom of the electorate.

Out of respect to them, my website www.hughsalmon4battersea.co.uk is much more serious in tone and my Manifesto ran to 27 pages.

3. My major local issue was to help persuade the powers that be to convert an unused, derelict local hospital into a badly needed secondary school. It looks like this is now going to happen.

I have said before that, at a General Election, anything can happen. In a completely different way from commercial marketing, none of the parties know what this might be. They really don’t know if, as a local Independent candidate, you might attract a following and tip the balance between one party and another. My vote in 2010 would have done this in 2005.

But I am convinced that a credible local Independent candidate standing for this issue, and raising its importance, led to Ed Balls (ex-Education Minister) coming to the hospital site and, with a week to go, Michael Gove (future Education Minister) coming too.

By doing this, and helping to make this an all-party issue, it became a non-issue and it looks like the school is going to happen. Brilliant.

4. Finally, most rewarding of all, was the opportunity to discuss, on an equal basis with the ‘main’ parties, real issues with real people. You didn’t know what they might ask you. Unlike the parties, you didn’t have a crib-sheet of answers supplied by Central Office. You had to think.

And I like to think that all of my answers had a more human perspective than the regimented political party dogma.

This website attracted genuine people with genuine concerns. Here is one:

EMAIL FROM BATTERSEA CONSTITUENT

Dear Hugh,

I have read your website with interest and would be interested to know where you stand on the ability of B&B owners to ban gay couples from renting a room together and, please, your views on whether or not the Pope - an apparently committed homophobe and coverer-upper of child abuse - should be allowed a platform in the UK or whether his presence here should be denied as not being conducive to the public good.

Thank you.

MY REPLY

Dear (anonymity respected),Thanks for getting in touch. I have thought long and hard about these issues. My mother and her side of my family are Catholics.

Personally, I am an atheist and think, through history, religious divisions have done enough damage to the world.

Thank you for taking the time to read my Manifesto. As you will have read, I am for convergence rather than divergence and I will answer your two questions in this spirit:

1. I most certainly against a ban on gay couples from renting a room together. As I have made clear in all my communications in this campaign, I relate to people on how they behave - not their race, religion, background, wealth or sexuality.

However, in the instance to which you refer, I would prefer to live in a society where the following exchange had taken place:

Landlord: "I am aware that I am legally bound to admit you to my B&B, but I have to inform you that my religious beliefs are such that I would rather you find alternative accommodation at the following hostelries in this area. However, if you cannot find alternative accommodation, then of course you may stay here and you will be as welcome as any of our other guests".

Gay couple: "Thank you for letting us know your position. We do not share your views but respect your right to hold them. We will try and find somewhere else nearby, failing which we will come back as you have proposed".

This way, a relatively simple conflict of views need not have become a national media scandal.

2. Re the Pope, you have used the word 'apparently'. I'm afraid I cannot agree that we deny the Pope a visit on this basis.

Overall, I am against the religious divisions in our society, and am certainly against the faith schools that feed them.

I do not care if people are Catholic or Muslim, gay or straight, Tory or Labour, or support Arsenal or Chelsea. I have written a book called 'Do As You Would Be Done By' and this does it for me.

I would rather live in a more tolerant world, and this desire is perhaps the defining reason for my standing up to be counted as an Independent Candidate in this way.

I hope this helps.

All the best,

Hugh

CONSTITUENT RESPONSE

Dear Hugh

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me - so thoroughly and promptly too, if I may say so. My partner and I will be voting for you tomorrow and wish you luck…..

Your beliefs, are, in my humble opinion, sound, reasoned and reasonable - more power to you and others with independent spirit!

Again, good luck tomorrow!

Regards

END OF MESSAGE

I believe that the opportunity to relate to complete strangers in this way – and this is one of many – has been an absolute privilege and I’m proud to live in a democratic society where this kind of engagement can take place.

I just wish we could do more to recognise all the good things and the good people in this country and somehow do more to recognise, share and communicate the positive values that bind us rather than, as a society, become increasingly divergent – which is what seems to be happening not least educationally, financially and culturally.

END OF MESSAGE (AGAIN).