Whether it’s in business, politics or somewhere else, successful communication tends to involve crafting a message – usually a positive one – and conveying it with impact!
Occasionally it is, of course, necessary to adopt a negative message.
During this very wet British summer, BBC weather forecasters sometimes need to warn: “If you don’t take an umbrella when you go outside today, you’ll end up very wet!”
But usually in business, politics and beyond, a positive message is one to which the human brain will be more receptive – in a media interview, a presentation or in any other human interaction.
So it was surprising – even shocking – to see one of the most frequently interviewed British Conservative Party ministers delivering a deeply negative message about his party’s dismal chances of winning the forthcoming British General Election.
Instead of doing what candidates typically do in an election campaign – and express unbounded confidence in their prospects of polling success – this minister did something quite different.
Aware that the opposition British Labour Party is way way way out in front in all the public opinion polls, the approach by Defence Secretary Grant Shapps was profoundly unusual.
Grant Shapps adopted a kind of kamikaze approach involving crashing into the Conservative Party’s apparently sinking electoral ship.
Mr Shapps spoke in media interviews about what he considers to be the dangers of the Labour Party winning the 4 July 2024 general election by a massive margin, suggesting that this would be a bad democratic outcome.
He claimed it would lead to “unchecked power” which would be a dangerous place to put the country.
To try to bring this supposedly horrific outcome to life, Grant Shapps warned that the Labour Party majority predicted to be won by Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer might be so large it could be what he labelled a “supermajority”.
This could be, he said, like the thumping majority won by former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in 1997.
Political commentators were generally convinced that this outburst of pessimism about the Conservative Party’s election prospects was planned and deliberate – not a spur-of-the-moment gaffe.
His stance has not been publicly admonished by his boss.
The motive of Grant Shapps has been interpreted as a bid to ensure that disillusioned traditional Conservative Party voters don’t risk voting differently from what they normally do.
You may consider this approach to be “Machiavellian” – defined by Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries as “using intelligent or skilful plans to achieve what you want, without people realising what you are doing.”
This dastardly concept comes from the 1500s Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli – author of the political treatise “The Prince” which encourages an “end justifies the means” kind of behaviour amongst politicians.
You can check out the interview Grant Shapps gave to Times Radio below.
It’s quite long and laced with many negative unsubstantiated claims about what he projects to be Labour’s plans, but the essence of what he says about the alleged dangers of a Starmer supermajority is near the start.
Unusually for radio, it’s all on video at:
In the spirit of political objectivity, I leave it to you to draw your own conclusion about what this bizarre political approach means for anyone who has a vote in the British general election.
In terms of its persuasiveness, my view is that the Grant Shapps approach involves very poor communication because his message is just too negative and too self-serving to be credible for most people.
In the business world, I would never advise a company leader to speak so much – or so negatively – about a competitor.
Would you be impressed by a business representative who told you: “Our major competitor is extremely popular and is likely to sell far more products than the ones we offer. Don’t buy their offerings because it will allow them to dominate the market – and put our company out of business.”???
In communication-boosting sessions I run aimed at helping companies and individuals to communicate their way to success, I show participants how to craft their best possible messages for whatever situations they need to address.
Within the vital bounds of truthfulness, messages typically need to be positive.
If someone were proposing a message based on the Grant Shapps way of thinking, I would challenge them to:
“Put yourself in the minds of those who hear you and ask: Will your message make them think you are…”
• Confident about your plans for future success?
• Lacking in confidence?
• Desperate?
If you’re a UK voter, the choice is yours!
There’s information about sessions to help guide your team to formulate the right positive messages for media interviews at:
https://www.michaeldoddcommunications.com/media-master-classes/
Details about sessions to help you craft and deliver the right message in presentations are at:
https://www.michaeldoddcommunications.com/presenting-with-confidence-impact-and-pizzazz/
In the multitude of elections taking place across the democratic world this year, one of the big issues is how quickly each country needs to move towards a carbon-neutral situation to help protect the world from further climate change.
To do its bit, business everywhere needs to take a tougher line to stamp out “greenwashing.”
Claiming that a product, service or a whole company is good for the environment when the opposite is true only risks making climate change worse.
Nonetheless people must be able to know about products, services and companies that are genuinely good for the environment.
When communicating on matters affecting climate change, the following is true:
Greenwashing is bad; truth-telling on environmental issues is good.
If you have any doubts about this, consider a TV advertisement from the 1970s for what was then – laughably and tragically – called “nice clean petrol”.
This advertisement was from the Amoco oil company.
The campaign used to infuriate me – and fellow members of our environment group for Australian high school students that I was part of when growing up in Sydney.
Alas the “nice clean petrol” ad is still out there on the internet.
Greenwashing these days tends to be more subtle than this TV ad.
But this subtlety potentially makes current greenwashing even more dangerous.
The “nice clean petrol” ad – along with modern day greenwashing examples – are critiqued in my keynote speeches and communication-boosting training sessions called “Greenwashing Is Bad; Environmental Straight-Talk Is Good”.
You can book this presentation through the speaker agency The Right Address at:
I’ve just given a demonstration presentation on “Greenwashing Is Bad; Environmental Straight-Talk Is Good” at an event aimed at all those who book professional speakers for conferences and training workshops.
The event was organised by the Professional Speaking Association in London in a session which wisely banned PowerPoint slides.
You can see a video excerpt of my speech – along with part of the infamous Amoco “nice clean petrol” TV campaign cunningly added in later by a technical maestro – here:
The meticulously produced advertisement – which could be accurately described as “Machiavellian” – will hopefully not persuade anyone in 2024 who knows about the dangers of climate change that “nice clean petrol” really exists.
But if your organisation is involved in doing something that’s genuinely good for the environment, effectively spreading the word about it can be a very positive thing.
And if you need any help in crafting and conveying a powerful truthful message about what you’re doing – without the danger of being accused of any greenwashing – do get in touch.