Monthly Archives: November 2020

Eat Out to Help Out: A PR triumph or a societal disaster?

Posted on by
Reply

By Isobel Parker

In a lockdown 2.0 Britain, August almost seems hundreds of years ago; almost the golden age of this century like year, life was good but in retrospect was it just the calm before the storm?

Perhaps the most memorable aspect of August was Sunak’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme announced on 8th July: a £500 million subsidy for the UK’s hospitality industry, providing 50% off meals throughout August every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The scheme was expected to bolster the £130 billion hospitality industry by drawing back nervous Britons to the hustle and bustle of normality.[1] Although at the time, the scheme seemed like the lifeline we all needed, now it is being blamed for the recent spike we have seen in Covid-19 cases which is not surprising as two weeks after the scheme ended virus cases had more than tripled from the figure taken on 1st August.

The scheme was an example of two-way asymmetric communication: an imbalanced communication that persuaded people to change their behaviour. Through offering 50% off meals the government were able to persuade customers to change their behaviour and start going back to restaurants after lockdown. Although customers benefited from the scheme as they were saving money, the main benefactors here were, meant to be, the government and economy as people were once again putting money back into the hospitality sector.

From a PR point of view, it seemed like it would be a clear success. In terms of reputation bank this felt like an almost fail safe for the Conservatives, what could possibly go wrong? Through an atypical nudge theory, they were encouraging people to leave their houses, through the promise of discounts and money saving after a bleak economic period. They were saving jobs and businesses by increasing footfall by supposedly tenfold. This was meant to be a saving grace for the industry. But was it enough?

Like a lot of Public Relations campaigns, Eat Out to Help Out employed Dietrich’s PESO model in its marketing. Foremost, as it was a government scheme it had a lot of Paid and Owned media produced by the government, for example there was a lot of information regarding the scheme on the gov.uk website including free promotional materials for every restaurant and café taking part, as well as information about how to use the promotional content within the business. Secondly, the scheme was proposed by Rishi Sunak within the House of Commons which attracted the first swathe of earned media. Earned media was extremely important in the campaign and that’s obvious as it’s what we most remember, for example, the press were invited to events where Conservative MPs were in restaurants serving on providing us with the now recognisable image of Sunak waitressing in

 Wagamama’s. The campaign received a lot of press attention and news coverage, whether good or bad, if you now type into google ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ it delivers 4,310,000,000 hits. Furthermore, shared media provided a lot of promotion for the scheme through restaurants marketing the scheme via their own social media. Many venues still have a highlight on their Instagram for the scheme and some eateries, such as Bill’s and Yo! Sushi, chose to extend a ‘spin off’ of the offer throughout September.

Despite all this, figures now show the scheme only had a marginal impact and 66% of businesses still reported a fall in sales between July and September of this year.[2] New findings are also showing that the crowded restaurants of august are to blame for the spike of COVID-19 cases throughout the country, causing people to now feel betrayed and confused about the scheme.[3] Moreover, the hospitality industry has become the Conservatives scape goat with the 10pm curfew being imposed causing many hospitality businesses to lose half their earnings every day. Almost comically the images used to market the campaign of Sunak serving on in Wagamama’s have now be used throughout social media in response to the shambolic CyberFirst campaign. Unfortunately, the scheme obviously didn’t do enough for the Conservatives reputation bank as they have once again become a national laughing stock, leading many people to now view the scheme not as a PR triumph but instead a societal disaster.

[1] https://www.standard.co.uk/reveller/restaurants/eat-out-to-help-out-rishi-sunak-restaurant-vouchers-a4492431.html

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/01/eat-out-to-help-out-failed-boost-finances-uk-hospitality-industry

[3] https://theconversation.com/eat-out-to-help-out-crowded-restaurants-may-have-driven-uk-coronavirus-spike-new-findings-145945https://theconversation.com/eat-out-to-help-out-crowded-restaurants-may-have-driven-uk-coronavirus-spike-new-findings-145945

“Our names define us” – an insight into Mastercard’s True NameTM initiative

Posted on by
Reply

By Sophie Smith

How many of you think about how your name is written on your bank cards? Probably not many. For the LGBTQ+ community, this thought is there every time they make a purchase. Not having a name that represents your true identity can lead to judgement and questions. This is why Mastercard developed their True NameTM initiative which allows you to put your chosen name on your bank card, without going through the process of legally changing your name.

In week 2 of the MCH8065 PR module, we looked at two-way symmetrical communication and any examples we could find. Initially I didn’t know whether this campaign would come under two-way symmetrical communication, until I looked into it further and found Mastercard’s previous work with the LGBTQ+ community and NYC pride.

A quote from a spokesperson for Inter-LGBT, suggests that this initiative has been developed from requests the LGBTQ+ community themselves, “this initiative reflects the request of trans persons: the recognition of their gender and name by a simple declaration”.

The concept itself was not just an idea Mastercard came up with. The Defenseur des Droits [a concept in France] had been requesting since 2016 that banks should adapt and take into consideration first names. This stemmed from a recommendation made by the Defenseur des Droits, which is an institution in France that focuses on people’s rights.

The supporting quotes and endorsement from the LGBTQ+ community support the view that this initiative has elements of two-way symmetrical communication as it implies that Mastercard have worked with people’s suggestions to develop a mutually beneficial initiative.

Alongside True NameTM, Mastercard have worked on other campaigns such as Acceptance Street in New York, and #AcceptanceMatters. Both of these adding to their ongoing commitment to the community.

More information on the initiative can be found at:

https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/vision/who-we-are/pride.html

https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/vision/who-we-are/pride.html

https://www.contagious.com/news-and-views/mastercard-practices-trans-inclusion-with-true-name-initiative

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/06/19/mastercard-pushes-lgbtq-rights-with-new-campaign-and-activation

Is 2-way symmetrical communication an ideal or a reality?

Posted on by
Reply

We are just a few weeks into teaching on the MA in Media and PR at Newcastle – and times have changed. Students and teachers alike are getting used to online learning and the challenges and opportunities that brings about.

But one thing has not changed – and that’s the early discussions around what public relations is and what it isn’t – and the million dollar question – is Grunig’s excellence model of 2-way symmetrical communication a reality or just an aspiration?

This semester, we have been making good use of weekly consolidation hours with students to debate these issues and the online discussion forum has never been busier. So I thought it useful to share some perspectives from our new students. Generally, the view is that 2 way symmetrical comms, remains an ideal. Here is what some of our students said:

Zinyi suggests 2 way symmetrical communication can be found at a local level, particularly within internal comm where open door discussions allow for balanced conversations to share experiences. “This is a win-win communication model for a strong collaborative organisation. But …. there is no ideal model of risk communication, only more satisfactory realistic choices.”

Lara believes symmetry is achievable but is difficult. Firstly, it would force some companies to switch their culture and values into a totally new arrangement, where the focus should be on customer-orientation rather than the product/service, production or sales orientation. Secondly, whilst Web 2.0 and social media made it easier for PR and organisations to listen to their publics without so many interferences or mediations, there are too many people talking and requesting different things – which makes it much harder for PRs and organisations to accommodate everyone’s demands. And finally, it is much wider if we think not only about customer’s needs but take into consideration all kind of publics of each organisation. 

Lara cited an example of Netflix in Brazil which started to add Harry Potter movies to its catalogue following requests from customers – although this decision could be reversed! She also talks about the need for diversity within senior management and board level in large institutions – and until that is achieved then symmetrical communication with less represented publics remains an ideal.

Tongtong mentioned difficulties with measuring and evaluating PR outcomes in his view that symmetrical communication is an aspiration. If we take quantitative measurement into consideration, it will be easy to judge. This standard depends on the ratio of earned benefits of each side in the 2-way communication. If the ratio is 50 to 50, it absolutely can be a perfect symmetrical communication, otherwise it’s asymmetrical. Take diplomacy as an example, there is usually a more developed and powerful region or country relying on its power, whatever economic or military, etc., forcing the other to compromise and accept the less benefit.

Jiayi offers an optimistic view and says: “2-way symmetrical communication can be a reality. We are now living in an age of advanced information technology, we have lots of online and offline platforms to gather information as well as share our voices. If organizations or companies always try to “manipulate” their clients or customers, people will find out one day. For example, tweets talking about bad services and cunning marketing strategies of a company can be viewed by thousands of people and  even more. In a long term, the reputation of that company will break down and it will be rather difficult for the company to find a place in market. With that regard, if companies want to survive in severe competition, the better choice is to build balanced relationship with their customers and truly listen to them.” That sounds a lovely, but perhaps quite idealistic perspective.

And Jinai’s view: “I used to agree with this model, but it’s almost impossible to achieve because everyone has a different view of the world, there are hundreds or even thousands of interpretations of the same information text. How can we make sure that everyone’s understanding is exactly the same? At the same time, this model also reminds me of the “information cocoon” theory in communication. It may lead to more and more closed information and greater differences.”

Certainly, some food for thought with those closing comments.