PreviEUws, or why Ms Ahrenkilde Hansen prefers her dentist.

There is an interesting website that has been brought to my attention. And it has been brought to my attention because I am writing about videos and the EU. This website defines itself  as 'The EU policy broadcaster' and is called ViEUws.

Before you start thinking that I am about to launch into a massive destruction exercise, let me say that I am really happy such a website exists. I will always go on repeating that video is a great tool to use and that it is admirable that there is someone trying to illustrate policies visually, even if mostly through interviews. So, I will not comment on the general quality of what is there because that is not my aim. (Let me just mention in passing the strange mix of private sponsors - with their own videos -and institutional material, but I guess the money needs to come from somewhere).

What I want to focus on is the regular interview with the European Commission's spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen. The interview series is called PreviEUws and focuses on the weekly agenda of the European Commission, ie what the EU is working on this week. Very good idea. But looking at the two people sitting in the studio, you really want to bring them a handkerchief, pat them on the back and tell them 'cheer up a bit... it will be over soon!'

Have a look yourself at the one of this week.


If one excludes some rare moments where Ms Ahrenkilde Hansen looks like she is about to start laughing at the interviewer, for the most part, she gives you the feeling that she would rather be sitting in the dentist chair, having her wisdom tooth removed, without anaesthesia. The very experienced interviewer (I checked it up on the site) is a Finnish native speaker and asks question at a pace and with an enthusiasm that, not surprisingly, makes the spokeswoman want to run to her dentist! Which makes me, in turn, quite angry, because it is a lost opportunity. And I am not talking about reaching a huge pan-European audience, but rather an audience of Europeans interested in what the EU does. The fact that the spokeswoman of the Commission is available to do this and spends quite a bit of time is great. But how do you make it punchier (or should I say punchy)?  Four small suggestions.

1) For starters, it should absolutely be no longer than 5 minutes and I am already being generous.

2) The two people should be sitting closer to each other with cups of coffee or water on the table between them - the one that now is empty and sad.

3) Looking at the agenda for the week, one should select no more than 4 topics, possibly fewer (unless of course it's a week where there is just masses of things going on) but make sure that on those topics, three key questions are answered: what is the Commission doing? What does this mean in practice? And why should we care? There might be some additional questions, depending on the topic or as follow ups but more as the exception than the rule.

4) The answers should then be edited in a way that conveys relevance and momentum. For this, one could use a simple graphic, which could also give a visual break, highlighting the topics and some key words of the answers.

These are little inexpensive changes that could make a big difference and make what is now a good idea into a good product. And a useful one too; for the Commission, which would have a way to explain directly to the public what they do; for ViEUws which would hopefully attract more people - and possible sponsors - to the site, and for the public which would be able to recognise the real impact that the work of the EU has on their daily life.

Enthusiasm is contagious. Let's make PreviEUws a carrier.

Reding, Arsenal and the Future of Europe

The other day I was talking to my husband over dinner and at some point I found myself saying: ' I think that one could say that Viviane Reding is a star!'. He nearly choked. He looked at me and said: 'There are no stars in the Commission, Virginia; it's the nature of their job....'

Let me try at least to explain why I said what I did, to myself as well actually... Viviane Reding a star? What had I been drinking?

I had just watched a 7 min video of the debate on the future of Europe, that had taken place in Dublin
in mid-January. The debate was meant to officially open the European Year of the Citizen.

Here is the video:

 

As you can see, after the Irish Taoiseach and Barroso had made some remarks and left (I assume so, as they disappear in the second part of the debate),  there comes Commissioner Reding... she is practically alone on stage - although at one point you see her with an MEP, in some sort of explosion of red, and with the Irish Minister for Europe. She moves back and forth as if she were a stand up comedian (not as funny though, but that is beside the point). The year of the Citizen is her 'baby' and she wants to make the most of it. She talks with emotion, recounting her personal experience as a Luxembourger being squeezed by two huge neighbours and as a woman fighting for gender equality. I mean, you are not blown away by her performance but at least there is a performance.

I am told she is loved by some (especially in the European Parliament) and hated by others who think she is an arch-federalist and mainly talks about popular - bordering populist - issues, to increase her own popularity and move onto greater things. But I say: so what? And could it be that she actually believes in what she is saying? And why is trying to be popular such a taboo in this city? I can hear it already: 'Oh dear, people actually understand and care about some of the issues we are dealing with....we must be doing something wrong!'

There is no easy answer though: as my dinner conversation progressed, some sort of dilemma emerged.

CASE A: If the EU decides to tackle so-called 'popular' issues such as gender quotas or bankers bonuses, often a wave of criticism by eurosceptics follows who think that Brussels should do less, not more and that these issues should be dealt with at national level.  They say, with some reason, that just because something is desirable (gender quotas), it doesn’t follow that this should be done at the EU level. 

CASE B (in full contradiction with case A, hence the dilemma!): In a situation such as the one we are in now, where the EU is as misunderstood as it is unpopular and where ignorance about Europe is fast turning into mistrust, dislike or even hatred, maybe it is not such a bad idea to deal with 'popular issue' – even if there is no compelling policy need to tackle the issue through the EU.

Just as a reminder, here are the three main meanings of the word 'popular':

1. regarded with great favour, approval, or affection especially by the general public

2. carried on by or for the people (or citizens) at large

3. representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large

Tackling issues that are not strictly on the European agenda might make people feel more passionate about Europe; hence, they should probably be part of what the EU does, if it cares about maintaining popular engagement and support. So, on top of the issues mentioned above, why not have, for example, a European equivalent of the Oscars - as European films are also funded by the EU-  with one prize for the best non-European movie? And how about....-pause for effect -  a true European football team? Not to substitute the national ones of course (then the EU would really be over!). Although, having said that....isn't Arsenal, just to take one, mostly composed of non English players? Think for a minute at the reaction if one said: 'Sorry Arsenal fans, but from now on your team will represent....Europe!' Just kidding. I am simply opening the debate, as Reding asked us to do, right?

In case you were interested in more details, not on the EU football team but on the Future of Europe debate here is a nice animated video (I do have some doubts about the timing of the whole initiative and about the voice in this video but still..):


So, as often happens, EU politicians might be damned if they do but also damned if they don't. Is it better to be criticised for being unpopular or to be criticised for being popular? Tough choice really. Maybe Theodore Roosevelt can help make that choice: 'It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed'.

Italian elections 2: hearts and minds of two different people.

I needed a couple of days to reflect on the results of the Italian elections. What does this vote mean? And is it true that the good communicators (Berlusconi and Grillo) won and the weak ones (Bersani and Monti) lost? One the face of it, it would seem that way. But as usual things are slightly more complicated (if only because the big 'loser' actually still came on top, as the biggest party in the country). And this complexity appears in all its beauty when you look at the difference between the results in Italy and those of Italians living in the rest of the world. Here is a little comparative graph (If you cannot read it properly or you feel slightly sea sick looking at this graph, don't worry, it's my cutting and pasting, sorry!).  

 

 

 

What does it show? That the losers in Italy are actually the winners outside, with Monti's party nearly reaching 20%.  They almost look like two different people. And maybe they are. But has communications something to do with it? If the PD and Monti were such terrible communicators, how come they are the first two parties among voters abroad? And why has Grillo not received more votes outside Italy as some of his key complaints - outlined via his blog which is so accessible to all - could definitely be shared by everyone?

Here are my possible explanations that might also help understand better the result as a whole. 

1) For good and for bad  (but more recently mainly for bad!) Italians abroad have not and will not suffer directly the consequences of their own vote. They have not experienced the crisis in Italy in all its negative ramifications and will not really be affected (anyhow not more than any European citizen) by the political and economical implications of these elections. 

2) Italians living in other countries have been subjected to a variety of information coming out of different media in different languages: they have seen that the crisis is everywhere, that we are all in this together, that other countries are making sacrifices too; they have read different analyses, heard different solutions.
 

3) There is no doubt that the Partito Democratico has conducted a terrible campaign, was too sure of winning, and very bad in communicating with the electorate, hence losing gradually most of the lead it had in the polls.  Throughout it had no clear message: Grillo kept on saying 'Basta', Berlusconi repeated 'Less taxes' and what did Bersani say? 'A fair Italy', ok, in what way exactly? And then? 'Smacchiamo il giaguaro!' which literally means 'let's remove the dots or stains from the jaguar'. Right. What the hell does it mean? Having said all that, voters outside had probably made their minds up some time ago as to whom they wanted to elect and especially who they did NOT want to elect and the disastrous campaign has not shifted the opinion.

4) For the reason just mentioned, and because most of them have not been watching Italian television as much as people in Italy, voters abroad have not followed the Berlusconi performance of the last couple of months, his great comeback; they read about it perhaps, but were not really influenced by it. Plus, the long Berlusconi years have hit Italy's reputation so badly - especially in Europe - , that it would have been really difficult for his party to do well among expatriates. 

In sum, and this can probably also explain why Grillo's movement did not do so well abroad, you could say that the vote of Italians outside Italy was a more rational one, done with the head, while Italians in Italy voted with their heart, more emotionally. Grillo has been able to channel the anger, the disappointment and the frustration of Italians (all very strong emotions) into votes for his movement; this could not quite have the same success outside Italy.

The rational, 'realcommunication' (no huge empathy, no exaggerations, low key) won with 'rational' voters. The emotional, idealistic (or should I say unrealistic) communication won with the 'emotional' voters. The question is: will it ever be possible in Italy to have a good mix of the two? The sooner a party or parties understand that this is the only way to get enough votes to actually be able to govern the better, I say.

Italian Elections: dead men talking?

Ahead of the Italian elections, I hope you will allow me a short journey through the visual landscape of the political campaign in my home country.

To summarise the situation, voters can choose from five main... well what exactly? Actually, some are parties, some are movements, some are coalitions. Let's say there are five main symbols on which you can put a cross. I know that, in reality, there are many more but I will focus on the main ones. (Little disclaimer: I am not making any comments on the actual content of the programmes, only on their visual communications! I would not want to be misunderstood…)

Let me start with the centre-left coalition, currently ahead in the polls. The main party in the coalition, the Partito Democratico, has a Web TV channel, linked to a YouTube channel called YouDem.tv (I know, it does not sound great in English but, then again, these are the Italian elections!). There are many electoral ads, films of public events and speeches. But beware of the PD's YouTube homepage as it is pretty scary. The main featured video, at least when I checked it, is .... - are you ready for this? -  a feed of 4 HOURS and 41 MINUTES of a PD event in Milan's Piazza Duomo. I know there is much more on the channel and there are a couple of nice ads but, but why did they not put those on the homepage? Here is one that would have done just fine:

Let's move on to the media mogul, Silvio Berlusconi. You would expect his coalition to be the one most up to speed with visual technologies. So, I was looking forward – well, maybe that is excessive – let's say I was curious to check out his YouTube channel. Oh dear… Scroll through the videos on offer and you will see:

1) Every single video is an interview - at least for the last year.

2) Up to three month ago, Berlusconi was one of the people being interviewed. For the last three months, since Mario Monti's government fell,  he has become the only one being interviewed.

Which tells me two things:

A) The way in which Berlusconi and his party use communications tools is still incredibly old fashioned.

B) He is obviously convinced - I doubt someone would have advised him on this - that only he personally can bring votes. This is quite amazing if you think of just how much we have seen of him during the last 19 years! If you haven't seen enough, here he is:

Then there is the soon-to-be-ex-Prime Minister, Mario Monti. He has a video on his homepage and his YouTube channel is full of interviews and speeches plus a couple of short videos on his electoral programme. My feeling though is that his communications advisers have tried to make him who he is not and this shows in his video material as well. They must have said he needed to smile more, be more empathic to win the elections. Maybe. But this smiling Super Mario has something artificial about him; I am not sure whether people would like and trust this version better. Have a look yourself:

Next is the big revelation, another communications specialist and former comedian Beppe Grillo with his Movimento 5 Stelle. Since his arrival on the political scene some years ago, he has done most of his communication online or by going around Italian cities in person – but refusing to go on TV. He is a good talker, and he says what a lot of people think or want to hear. He shouts all the time. His videos are all talking heads... talking and talking and talking....Passionate? Yes! Original? No. Effective? We will see.

And despite trying desperately to have a variety of voices, there is no question that the Movimento is about one person and one person only. Here is the only video I could find that is not him talking or others talking about him:




And finally there is Rivoluzione Civile, headed by former (if he is elected) magistrate Antonio Ingroia. Putting aside the incredibly old fashioned logo and the problem, once again, that it is all centred around one man, the videos of this leftwing coalition are quite good. Their Youtube channel it's still full of Ingroia and others talking but there are a number of short clips and ads that are simple and well done and presumably produced with little money. Again, I am not judging the content here. Here is one against tactical voting:




So, key conclusions?

1) Too many videos but too few good ones.
2) Too much talk.
3) Too many men talking (i.e. too few women, with some exceptions)

All in all, very Italian indeed. Let's see what the electorate makes of all this.

Little St. Valentine thought..and video, of course.

A very short post today. But well worth watching around Saint Valentine and ahead of the Oscar ceremony, as this film got an Oscar nomination. A fantastically well made short animated story - produced by the Walt Disney animation studios - that combines computer generated and hand-drawn animation. Don't want to sound like a luddite but it seems to me that finally they have realised that some 'old fashion' techniques can be just as - if not more - beautiful and successful as the all encompassing new technologies. What do you think?


   
Paperman - Full Animated (Short Film) [VO|HD] par addictomovie

'One Billion Rising': stop clicking, start dancing!

'One Billion Rising' is a global campaign inviting men and women alike to rise and demand an end to violence against women across the world. The statistic provided is pretty shocking in today's world: one in three women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime. That is one billion women, hence the title of the campaign. The climax will be on the 14th of February when hopefully thousands of people around the world will 'rise' and stage flash mobs, dancing in the street. But there are many more events planned.

Purely from a communications point of view, there are similarities between this campaign and the Kony 2012 one that I have mentioned in this blog before. One Billion Rising has a very good website, clear and easy to navigate. The site has two main videos  - but there are many more if you think that a number of local/regional/national 'branches' have made their own- both very well done: the first is a moving short film highlighting the issue behind the whole campaign. Here it is:



And the second - below - is the music video of the song that will accompany the actions on the streets.



The messages are powerful and relatively simple.

But the similarities end here: the action (dancing and singing) is straightforward and legal, while the idea of the Kony 2012 organisers was to ask people to go out in the middle of the night and carpet bomb their city with flyers of Kony.  And there are two other main differences: firstly, the serious issue tackled in 'One Billion Rising' - as the name says - affects a much bigger number of people across the whole world; secondly, unlike the creator of Kony 2012 Jason Russell - who was totally unknown before the success of his campaign video - the brain behind 'One Billion Rising' is Eve Ensler and her organisation V-Day. Ensler wrote 'The Vagina Monologues' - a well known play on the subject of violence against women, played in theatres across the world; she has become an iconic figure standing up for women's rights. Thanks to her notoriety, and obviously the issue, the campaign has received the support of well-known female - and male - figures such as politicians, actors, singers and so on.  Here is my personal favourite - ok, I may have been slightly influenced by the fact that I have been a fan since I was 15, but still..



So, in theory, the 'rise' on the 14th of February has all the ingredients to be a huge success, but will it be? Will the issue, the flash mob idea, and the big campaign around it be enough to get people out of their chairs? Will they stop clicking and start dancing? I am quite confident that there will be a big response, definitely bigger than the Kony 2012 one, but the size of this response remains to be seen. I sincerely hope - as I did for Kony 2012 by the way - to be pleasantly surprised.

Here in Brussels, as usual, the only institution that seems to pick up on trends and social issues outside the bubble, is the European Parliament: female - and one male for what I could see - MEP's have been dancing with umbrellas inside the Parliament - slightly ahead of the 14th, I guess to push people to participate on the day itself (or maybe because there was no way of getting everyone there dancing on St. Valentine? Stop the cynicism, Virginia!). The campaign website has inserted the European Commission in the list of organisations that 'are rising'. Great! Where? What? Why does the link in the list send me to the page on the fight against human trafficking - an important issue no doubt - where there is no reference or connection to the campaign? Why - as usual - is it that if you make a search on the site you cannot find anything? Can someone in the Commission please tell me how they are planning to rise? Thank you.

Anyway, fingers crossed for the 14th. FYI, here is the link for the 'rising' in Brussels