Just an 'Au revoir'....

Hello my dear readers, are you still there?

You might have been wondering - or not actually -  why I had not posted in such a long time. Well, there is a very simple explanation.

Do you remember when sometime ago I said that I probably should put my money where my mouth is in terms of communications and the European Union? That is exactly what I am doing, at least trying to.

A couple of months ago I have started working as communication adviser to the Italian Permanent Representation to the EU, and I will be there - hopefully - until the end of its presidency of the Council in December.

There, I said it. I can already see those sardonic smiles, I can hear those 'now it's your turn to be grilled a bit' and I can feel those pats on my shoulder. All fine by me.

But, I am only taking a break, while 'on duty', so this it is just an 'Au revoir'....  

HURRAY! An EU video at the cinema....BUT....

Last week, suddenly, among the ads that preceded the movie I was about to watch at the cinema, this one popped up:



I know that now you can see immediately that it is about Europe's Common Agricultural Policy (it's written on the top! Look carefully!) but when I watched it at the cinema - did you hear me? AT THE CINEMA - I did not know that until the final shot.

Maybe it's news to you, but I have been talking about the need to improve the distribution of the good videos the EU produces since time immemorial - and will continue to do so until the cows come home (no pun intended with cow screenshot above).

Hence you can only imagine my utter surprise and delight when I saw one such videos on a cinema screen  - actually that is not quite true: I am telling you, so you don't need to imagine anything at all, plus I have capitalised the 'in the cinema' bit above, dah.

Now, given that:

A) I do not know whether the video is being screened in all cinemas in Brussels, or across Belgium, never mind across Europe.

B) I ignore how much the European Commission spent to get the video shown in that one
cinema, if they indeeed spent money at all because of some sort of agreement with the cinema.

C) I won't speculate on whether this is part of the European elections campaign budget - hence a one-off that will not be repeated until the next EP elections.

Given all the above, I was incredibly happy to see an EU video at the cinema (if we exclude of course the ones promoting European film-making). Very happy indeed. And, as videos go, stylistically, this is not bad. I have seen better videos coming out of the institutions but still, I like the choice of pictures, the split screen - always a winner - nice soothing shots and music.

BUT..... THE CAP????

Seriously....the CAP? The most unpopular, least understood of all EU policies, perceived by the majority of Europeans as old fashioned and a waste of money? Really, we want to promote the CAP? How is this going to help reduce anti-European sentiments and make people understand all the useful things the EU does? No matter how many lovely pictures of beautiful countryside you decide to use, the CAP will always - at least until a serious, but I mean serious, reform is fully in place - be used as one of the reasons for having 'less' EU not 'more'.

The cynic in me thinks that as the amount of money going to agriculture is so huge, probably it was the only part of the Commission able to afford the cinema screening. Naaah.  

I am a Ukrainian. The contradictions of marketing a real guerrilla.

There is something perversely contradictory about feeling manipulated for a good cause. 

Did I watch this video when so many posted it? Yes I did. Did I share it? Of course I did. The situation in Ukraine is just horrible and unacceptable. But is this the only reason I shared it? Perhaps not. I was, just like thousands of others, taken by the video for all the same reasons videos go viral. What do I mean?

Try, if you are able - and I know it's not easy - to put aside what is actually and tragically happening in Ukraine. Now look at the video again. You will see a very pretty girl, real sounds of 'battle', with a low drone music. You will see shots of violent clashes and you will hear her talking - with a broken voice - about wanting to be free. All the ingredients are there. 'Guerrilla marketing'. Literally.

And now bring back in what is going on in Kiev. I challenge anyone, after having read and seen the news in the last couple of days and weeks and having seen this video on any social network, to then decide not to share it.

But I am wondering: notwithstanding the fact that what is going on in Ukraine is far, far more important than any attempts at using known techniques to get our attention, why do I have a deep sense of unease at the thought that had it been a normal looking, 50 year-old, unemployed man telling me those same things, I might not have shared it? Isn't it a good thing to use all available means to get people interested in what is happening on the EU's doorstep? On the other hand, am I really so sure that the video of the 50 year-old Ukrainian would not have gone as viral?

Difficult questions, that will require a lot more thought before getting a decent answer. And hopefully, by then, the pretty young girl - and the 50 year-old unemployed man - will have returned home as Timoshenko has been released and a new government and early elections appear on the horizon.

Getting the voter to the polls. The mystery face game "Guess Who?"

Do you remember when I said - only a week ago actually - that the person in the European Parliament, in charge of relations with the citizens had said that we needed to wait anxiously for the next video produced for the upcoming European elections?


Well, it turns out the wait is over. Here is one of the outstanding visual productions that will push the disgruntled potential voter to the polling booth in a jiffy.



You did not want to bother voting? I am sure you want to now! Your vote counts. Your opinion counts. And, if you click on the mystery face game 'Guess Who?' screenshot above, you can hear all sorts of insightful opinions from people that supposedly are just like you, but actually they are not, in a language that is not yours - but the subtitles are!- on issues you may know little about but should definitely have a view on. One in favour, one against.  A bit like the video on the nuclear energy debate. The difference is that the latter is visually beautiful and made me think, whereas this one made me want to cry. I guess it's all about sparking emotions.  

Deep down, I am still hoping this video was not the one Mr Clark was referring to - as it came out 3 weeks ago and was produced for the Commission's audiovisual department and not the Parliament. Because, as someone said, "we must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope". That, in a nutshell, is me and European communications. Thank you, MLK.

Creative clashes: crowdsourcing or writing by Committee?

I attended a debate last week, organised by IABC Belgium called 'Communicating the EP Elections: the SeXy factor' (The capital X is theirs, not mine). The panel consisted of a moderator and 4 people: one was Stephen Clark, the Director for relations with citizens at the European Parliament (again, his definition, not mine) who has been responsible for the video which launched the EP elections campaign last September: the one with the slogan 'Act, React, Impact'. The other three panellists were from the communications agency 'Old-Continent' which has produced an alternative video on the elections, called 'We are not sexy and we know it'.

I have written about both videos when they came out (here and here) so no need to dwell on them again. But I am writing about it now because, some months on, on the eve of the real campaigning phase of the elections, the official video has had more than 8 million views and drawn a wide variety of comments. Mr Clark was there to talk about it and defend it in front of a critical audience of communicators. And he was sitting next to the producers of a video that, with little money and no time, was created precisely as a... how shall I say it, better alternative to the official one. Maybe it's just my love for controversy but I was hoping for some strong truths about EU communications. And I was very curious to hear what the minds behind the two videos had to say about...each other!

To be fair, Mr Clark did say he wished he could have produced a more fun video; "I would have never been allowed to use the word 'sexy', never mind the word 'shitty'" - he said, pointing out all the constraints of working for a huge multinational institution (from bureaucratic procedures to endless rounds of comments and approvals). I can totally understand how nightmarish it must be to make everyone happy. But my understanding ends here.

It ends because he continued to defend the video as a great new product while at the same time saying  we should wait for the next ones as they will be even better, shorter and snappier; because he mentioned as a major achievement the fact that Greek national television is broadcasting it often - could it be that it has no money to fill the airtime? - and that the comments outside the Brussels bubble were much more sympathetic - especially in the South - than the ones here in town. Really? My impression, admittedly gathered in an unscientific way, was that outside Brussels very few people understood what that video was about, while those who did found it depressing and vague. But then again, I might have spoken to different people.

Talking of different... what really surprised me was Mr Clark's enthusiasm for the main slogan of the campaign, 'This time it's different' - which, by the way, I thought had been replaced by the Act, React, Impact alliteration, but I stand to be corrected. It's a very personal thing but I find the sentence really bad. This time it's different? Is it because we are in a crisis? Is it because we are going to have a EP full of populists? Yes, it's different: it might be the last election, if we are not careful! Ok, probably not, but you get my drift. Plus, the slogan implies an involuntary admission of irrelevance, as if previous elections have been totally unimportant; as if it was understandable that before - before what actually? - nobody bothered to vote, but this time...it's different. Sorry, but it just does not work for me. A simple Google search of the sentence would be enough to see how effective it has been so far...

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the debate a lot. Actually, it was more like a Q & A session with Mr Clark than a proper debate, as the Old-Continent group talked much less, but was also asked fewer questions. Still, I had a great time: it's always fun to hear experts talking about two of my favourite subjects - the EU and communications - and to get an insiders' view on all the shenanigans surrounding the production of communications material for the institutions.

Plus, there was one piece of good news: the Old-Continent team announced that it's going to produce a new video, and is looking for inspiration and ideas from all of us for the first collaborative election campaign ad ever created. Hurray, but no American accent this time please!

Waiting with anticipation to see how this new video will compare with the new official ones.

A ridiculous Bill Gates: viral or just counter-productive?

If you are a Twitter user I am pretty sure you will have seen at least one of the many Bill Gates-sponsored tweets on his third annual letter 'Gatesletter.com' - I have seen the digital version but there is a printed one too.  Anyway, I have seen one of such tweets at least 3 times in one day (and I did not spend that whole day on Twitter).

Why am I writing about this? Because it's a marvellous example of a number of things:

1) I don't even want to know how much money it cost to have a Tweet so widely and frequently distributed for a whole day, and surely money is not really an issue for Bill Gates. But it's a fact that I saw it, opened it and read it which I might not have done had it not appeared on Twitter. So, how shall I put it in a very original way? Money talks and....pays.

2) The letter - the digital one at least - is very well done. You can disagree with the content (Gates and his wife Melinda are trying to take apart three myths they claim block progress for the poor) but the way in which the arguments are presented is incredibly clear and attractive. There are beautiful graphics, video interviews and great photos - I particularly like the ones comparing big cities decades ago with how they look today. It's super easy to share it, in part or as a whole, to move from one section to another and you can read it in six different languages. True, it's quite a long letter, partly because it  has all these other elements that make it longer, but partly because it does take some time to debunk myths. So, it looks good and it reads well. Quality.... pays.

3) Towards the end of each 'torn apart' myth, there is an ingenious idea. You are asked to vote on whether you agree or disagree with the arguments you have just read/heard/seen. In sum, interactivity and feedback all in one. A smart way of checking whether the messages work and to allow the Foundation to listen and adapt. Understanding ....pays.

3) On top of spamming everyone on Twitter, Bill Gates has gone on TV to promote the letter. Nothing bizarre about that. I saw him on NBC's 'Late Night with Jimmy Fallon' and I do admire the fact that he is giving to charity so much of what he earns. He came across as a nice and clever man, a good talker and surely a true believer in the power of aid. But towards the end of the interview, there was a bit that left me perplexed, to say the least. Here is it:



Now, I can see how it went: since his comms people are avid readers of my blog, they realised the importance and power of visual communications, hence they decided to make a video that could go viral. Seriously, I know that it's meant to be a joke, that the idea that such a powerful man could make fun of himself can be seen as a good one but, at least in my case, watching that video, at the end of a good interview to promote a 'great message' was a bit of an anti-climax.

And the curious thing is that, if I were to judge the effectiveness of it, I would really struggle Why? Because in the end, having said what I just did, I still watched it, started writing about it and shared it; hence I contributed to its viral potential. I was about to write bad, ridiculous videos DO NOT pay, but is that true? Help me out here.

My Christmas present? Lots of videos, what else?

As the holiday season (gosh, how politically correct of me!) is fast approaching, I have a very nice Christmas present for you all. It's a collection of videos, some more recent than others, that have been produced to raise awareness on issues and campaigns and that, for one reason or another, have struck a chord with me. They are all very different in style, format and objective. But what they do have in common, is that that they all show how beautiful, powerful, controversial, effective and courageous the visual medium can be.

Which one do you like best?

One of the most successful campaigns of 2013:




Celebrities always work:




As do moving coloured maps:




This is an ad but the message is powerful nonetheless. And why do the good ones come so often from South-East Asia? Remember this one?:




A nice idea, well executed:




Will Greenpeace ever cease to provoke? Does this work?



And before Santa gives up and retires, let me wish you a lovely Christmas.

Time for some answers and to reflect. And a video, of course.

My lovely reader(s) and friend(s) (one and the same?) have been asking me questions related to my near obsession with virality and effective visual communications.

Question number 1: is there a magic way to ensure that a video goes viral? No, there is not. You can try to follow some basic rules that might increase the chances, but 'virality' is never guaranteed. I am pretty sure that if you look at the top 20 most viral videos of all times, only few were made with the calculated intention of becoming 'viral'; they just did. There is however a way to make sure your video is good and effective which brings us to..

Question number 2: does having a lot of money increase the probability of success? Not really. It helps in the production and hence increases the chance that the video will be well-executed. But success is another thing.

Question number 3: is it all about emotions? Do I need to make people laugh or cry? Emotions play a big part in the success of a video. You are much more likely to share something that has hit you in some way. Whether you couldn't stop laughing, or started crying like a baby.

Let me be very clear. There are videos made with no specific objective in mind. For example, you filmed something funny or sad by chance; you wanted to try something out; you have cute kids or pets and love filming them, and so on. These are the majority of videos that go viral. But when there is a specific objective, emotions will only work if the video has, how shall I put it, A POINT. I know it sounds almost tautological but believe me, it is not.

What I mean is that if you decide to produce a video, have some money, and someone willing to help you do it, the first question you need to ask yourself is: "What do I want to communicate with this video? Why am I doing it?". If the answer is not convincing - for you first and foremost - then, you can have plenty money and emotions, but your video will not be effective. Let me put it this way: a video can be nicely produced but if it's unclear why it has been produced than it's a waste of money and time for the viewer, never mind the producer. And, you know me, I always have a little example:



On YouTube, below this video it says: How many rights have you spotted in this video? Excuse me? Is this a way to get people to watch it again and increase the views? Way too complicated. There are no emotions, it's true, but it is quite well done. Who doesn't like a nice domino - although I have seen better ones - and the Brooke Shields look-alike, but sorry..what is the point? To explain to EU citizens they have rights, or to spend the remaining communications budget before the end of the year?

Question number 4: can a video be fun and effective without being superficial? This is the typical question of non-communications experts, now working in the communications department of a company or an institution, but engineers or some such by training. For these people, the problem with videos, but also with communications more broadly, is that it does not allow you to say enough, which means that you inevitably end up being superficial. While understandable, the question is flawed. A video needs to be clear. But simple and superficial are not the same. You cannot say everything you want, but you will be able to say what matters.

And here is my favourite - I swear I have been asked. Question number 5: how important are the images for a good video? If this question makes total sense to you, then you better stick to MS Word as your communications tool. How important? They are key. The images should speak for themselves and that is also why the video above does not work very well. The main reason why video can be so powerful is the amazing force of images and text, often with music, all working together. Images and Music = a slideshow. Music and text = a song. Text = a book.

As we are approaching Christmas, I owe it to you to mention also an uncomfortable, personal question. (Don't get your hopes up, nothing too exciting).

Question number 6: 'your blog is nearly two years old; you have watched countless videos and criticised just as many. But how many have you produced? Shouldn't you put your money where your mouth is?'  I have to confess that sometimes I do fear I might have lost the touch...

But does one lose touch for these things? I guess, that is maybe true for all that is practical, especially with technology changing so fast. I remember when the older producers and reporters were talking to me about shooting on film and not on video....I found it all quite tedious, but the relentless change of technology is slightly disconcerting. And hence I do understand now why they felt the need to point it out. So yes, technology changes and you need to adapt if you don't want to stay behind.

Insight and judgement on the other hand, no, you can ever lose. And on top of that, I believe most of have a gut feeling that makes us share and like what works, and ignore what doesn't. Of course all this is a personal thing. But so too is the huge bundle of human emotions that will make something powerful, beautiful, visual, funny or shocking. But still, perhaps I should put myself to the test....another one to add to the list of New Year resolutions?

Commissioner Vassiliou directed by Pedro Almodovar: that's 'Creative Europe'!

You see, I want to be positive and constructive. Above all I would like to be helpful in some very, very small way. I am longing for improved EU communications - OK, maybe longing is a bit exaggerated, I am not that sad. But I can assure you that it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to continuously criticise the audiovisual material coming out of the institutions. OK, if I am totally honest, it does give me a little bit of pleasure, but I am certainly not happy to be persona non grata in a couple of production companies here in Brussels!

What the hell. Don't you think that if I name a programme 'Creative Europe' I should at least make sure that the video that introduces such programme, shows an understanding for the meaning of the word 'creative'?

We are talking about very good news: an increase in the funding for European culture, i.e. cinema, TV, theatre, music, literature, performing arts and so on. For the next seven years, the programme has at its disposal 1.8 billion euros to boost the cultural and creative sector in the continent. So, great news.  Now, here is the video:



Forget the screen shot (a shot of a truncated graphic! It's not that difficult to change, you know?), the video shows a series of numbers - money and people - on a backdrop of ... well, a bit of everything, really: musicians, dancers, cinemas, libraries. Ah, I nearly forgot: there are also two clips of the commissioner in charge of culture, Androulla Vassiliou.  

Creative? Not really. I did not expect Almodovar-style quality (although, imagining Commissioner Vassiliou directed by the Spaniard, à la Penelope Cruz, would be very entertaining..). And to start with the positive, I am really happy that the Commissioner was filmed in the Strip Museum rather than behind her desk (comic strips, I mean. Don't even go there!).

But the problem is that, despite the good news, and despite the fact that we are talking about something potentially very visual, the video is boring. And it is boring for a simple reason: it's too literal. So, when it talks about funds to translate books you see...books! And when it mentions an increased budget for cinemas you see.....cinemas! You get my drift.

I would like to suggest two alternatives that could have been chosen instead of the literal approach (I am trying to be constructive here!):

The first was to use only one of the cultural expressions mentioned and shown in the video, for example the dancer being filmed for a performance. This would have easily sustained the two and a half minute length. A short edit of different kind of shots, interesting movements, close-ups or top-shots; as a result the whole performance would have looked quite abstract -  to symbolise culture in general and not just dance, for instance - and would have allowed the viewer to focus on what really matters, i.e. the graphics. But all the while watching a consistent set of nice pictures, AND a bunch of numbers.

Or, and this is alternative number two, if the focus were indeed the numbers and the increased funding in the different sectors, then maybe it would have been simpler and clearer to do a good animated video such as the one just produced on EU trade policy. But there is a reason why they chose an animation for trade and not for culture. Trade is not very visual. Culture is. More importantly, European culture is possibly THE one thing that gives us some sort of continental identity. So we should not waste any opportunity to show how amazing it really is.

The Viral Veteran: opera in four ingredients.

This week I have selected a non European viral video: the makeover of homeless veteran Jim Wolf. The video has been seen by 13 million people in just a couple of days. Here it is:



Why has it gone viral? A couple of possible suggestions that might be worth keeping in mind when producing a video.

1) Time-lapses are fun. Always. If they are not too long. It is physically gratifying to watch something that normally takes a long time, happen in a couple of minutes; it makes you feel powerful because it helps you escape from the slowness of your daily grind.

2) The Cinderella syndrome. Make-overs are fantastic stories. The sad becoming happy, the poor becoming rich, the homeless finally buying a house; the lonely finding love and so on.

3) The f-word. The producer Rob Bliss (I mean, what a great name!) says that the virality of a video - and he does this for living - is linked to the f-eeling it produces in the person watching it: the stronger the f-eeling the more likely to become viral. Almost obvious I would say. In this case the Cinderella feeling obviously worked, but would it work with any strong feeling, even negative?

4) Maybe not, but could another reason of its success be that the protagonist looks like Chuck Norris' brother or Brad Pitt's older cousin?

I am all for virality when it raises awareness - and a lot of money as it seems - for important issues, homelessness in this case. But, is it me or does the man not look really happy when he watches himself in the mirror?  I know that the video says that he has taken control of his own life and he is going to AA meetings. I don't dispute that he is better now. I am just saying that he did not seem to like himself after all the hard work to make him look just like.... everyone else his age. And it leaves a bit of a bitter taste at the end. It's must be just me.

Anyway, well done to Bliss and Wolf.  

Digital is natural, aka Digital makes me feel old. (Little Red Riding Hood revisited)

On the whole, I consider myself rather digital-savvy. I use the computer, have an I-Pad, and am familiar with most social media and some of the coolest apps. I love and use new technologies even if I don't necessarily understand how they work. Of course I am a total Luddite compared to some friends who have made being digitally knowledgeable a priority, even a profession. And I am talking about people my age, or just a couple of years younger.




But if, in a moment of self-flagellation, I were to compare myself to the next generation (to be clear: this means only slightly older than my children) I feel a moron. And please tell me I am not the only one.

I know what I am saying is not earth-shattering. New generations are exponentially better at using and understanding new technologies. Right.

So how does one explain....Neelie Kroes? Is she for real?

Don't want to go into the speculations about her wanting to stay on as commissioner (although at 72???). Nor am I  interested in whether she is really into innovation and digital things as much as she is obliged to say. The fact is that you hear the phrase the 'digital agenda' more often than before. This is at least in part thanks to her, her team and their open and fresh communications strategy. It's true that the digital economy and all that is technology fascinates a wider section of the population than, say, agriculture. But there is more.

The video in this post is quite fun and people can relate to it. It is slightly worrying though: I do confess, I have tried increasing the font of a book with the thumb and index finger, or at least I wished it worked. - It's called a Kindle, Virginia!-

Commissioner Kroes has a huge following on Twitter; she is open to discussion and possible criticism; her spokesperson tweets in a fun and friendly fashion - as does the head of the spokesperson service of the Commission and a few others to be fair. (Interesting side-quiz: how many spokespersons actually have their Twitter names in their press contact details on the Commission's website? And is there a relation with the number of followers?)

Anyway, back to the digital agenda and the next generation. This week the Commission announced the winners of the 'Digital Woman and Digital Girl of the year' and when I read the press release (yes, despite my general aversion, I do read press releases sometimes; this is a post full of confessions!) I wanted to cry. Not because I was moved by the poetry of it, nor by the originality of its layout. No, I wanted to cry because I read that one of the two 'digital girls of the year', now 13, has started CODING. Did you read that? CODING...three years ago! Did you even know what coding was three years ago?? Ok, she wouldn't be digital girl of the year if she only knew how to find a comma on the keyboard, but still, coding at 10? Scary but fantastic.

And so here goes the new version of the 'Little Red Riding Hood' tale: once upon a time there was a grandmother with more than 86.000 followers and a 10 year old girl.. coding...and they all lived happily ever after...Amazing. Sorry, need to go and get my handkerchief!
   

Flickr, steadicams and the European Council

Rock, paper scissors?  No, Angela, you can only use one hand! 

When there is a European Council in Brussels, you cannot miss it. Traffic is worse than usual; normally it rains (a divine warning?); the city is full of police and motorcades. If you live near the Council building, pedestrian access is denied, so you need to make an incredible detour to go from A to B. People see it and talk about it, even if just to complain about all the nuisance.

But what about other EU countries? What can people in Member States see of this important event? What do they make of it all?

As I am a woman full of surprises you will be pleased to hear I have done a small,  very unscientific piece of research. I looked at the online visual coverage of this last European Council in some random European countries: I checked the websites of their main national broadsheets and of their national television. I then compared what I found with what was on offer from the institutions (in terms of photo and video material). Didn't you have something better to do Virginia on a grey autumn day, you will ask? Maybe, but bear with me.

I will tell you why I did this: I came across, the European Council photo-stream on Flickr. For those who are not familiar with Flickr, I am talking about an application that allows you to share good quality photos online. Anyway, I started looking at the photos and I was actually quite impressed. Here you have an event that has always been incredibly visually challenging: mostly men, in suits, arriving in front of a boring looking building, shaking hands, talking to each other in boring looking rooms, giving a press conference in another boring looking room and taking a family photo in a bigger boring looking room. Plus a car arrival and a car exit. That's it. When I was working for BBC Newsnight, covering the summits, it was always incredibly difficult to come up with an original and interesting visual treatment for the piece. But now, I know what I would do: I would use a sequence of the pictures on Flickr. It seems that, if we are talking about photos, there has been a conscious effort to increase the visual interest of the event.

You can see behind-the-scenes preparations pictures,

leaders taken from unusual angles or assembled for colour combination,

This one is called "Fifty shades of red"; can you believe it? 

motorcades but from a different perspective

or simply strange and weirdly interesting pictures

No life changing photos - it's a summit after all - but still.

Two thoughts: first, the conscious effort done for pictures, has not yet been done for videos. Unfortunately all you see on the video stream are the press briefing and conferences, arrivals and doorsteps. There is some footage of preparations but these are old stock shots.  So, nothing new, slightly more original and visually attractive (despite the amazingly-looking camera in the photo above).

Second thought, to come back to the results of the research I mentioned before: the material you see on the national media has nothing to do with what the EU offers. Here too, photos are more interesting than moving images, but most of them are taken by press agency photographers.

Video material is scarcely used and I can understand why. I know what you are thinking: on these occasions, what leaders have to say is far more important than nice footage. That is why you see only press briefings and doorstep interviews. Maybe so. But I fear this is more a sign of the decreasing interest for EU Council summits by national media, certainly by television news. Take this last one for example: how much coverage did immigration, youth unemployment and the digital agenda get, compared to the NSA spying on EU leaders scandal that is of course a big news story but not originally connected to the EU as such? Understandable, but also intensely frustrating.

I don't want to say that using fancy steadicams to get more inspiring shots than the smiling super tall chap in the photo above would do the trick (am I failing to recognise a famous Prime Minister here?). But it might be well worth a try.

EuroPCom2013 aka "Communicating Europe is a bitch"

Last week I spent two days at a conference in Brussels called EuroPCom2013. The conference brought together public communicators, i.e. communications specialists that work in the public sector (European institutions, national and local governments). But the 700 participants actually came also from different sectors - that is why I could attend after all...

Anyway, we were all there to share experiences and hear advice on how to communicate better. Mostly on how to communicate Europe better, but not just. So I was hoping to get some major insight on what Europe and comms people need to do to get the message across.

Here is what I got out of it.

A necessary explanatory digression beforehand though: I will make very bold statements below, not because I normally write in bold statements, although I do sometimes, but because this seems to be the thing to do. Simon Anholt - an independent policy advisor - was one of the speakers closing the conference. He missed the first day, but still had very strong opinions on how good and useful the conference was or was not; he decided to make some provocative remarks, summing up it all up in seven bold statements; and then left abruptly because he had a plane to catch. Now, if I thought that communications is all propaganda (statement number 2) and that the EU is behaving as a corporation (statement number 7) the least I would do at an EU communications conference is to allow the ones I am accusing of being redundant or even fascist (statement number 1: branding is fascism) to defend themselves and rebut my rather simplistic statements. The most amazing thing for me was that the participants, in some sort of self-flagellation, seem to be enthusiastic about what Anholt was saying and cheerfully tweeted these statements like there was no tomorrow. And perhaps, just perhaps, Anholt used short and bold statements exactly because they were so easily twittable. Which in turn slightly contradicts his own anti-branding, anti PR, anti-gimmicks preaching. But hey, it seemed to work for him so will try it out myself. End of explanatory digression...Here we go:

Bold statement 1: communicating Europe is a bitch.

Bold - well actually....more like, obvious - statement 2: when you are surrounded by comms people, there is no need to keep on stressing the importance of communications.

Bold (eh-mm..) statement 3: the great thing about this type of conferences is that you meet an incredible variety of people that work in your field; you feel energised after it and you have lots of things to think about.

Bold (eh-mm again...) statement 4: the terrible thing about this type of conferences is that you meet an incredible variety of people that work in your field; you feel slightly depressed after it and you think that probably you should consider another profession.

Bold statement 5: there should be more risk taking in public communications, as there is in corporate communications.

Bold statement 6: Evaluation in communications is great and important but not easy. What are the metrics and who is going to evaluate the evaluators?

Bold statement 7: communicating Europe is a bitch but somebody's got to do it because we have the European elections in less than 9 months.

PS: I apologise if I have not stuck to the stylistic requirements as specified in the fascinating Interinstitutional Style Guide on display at the conference (276 pages: how is that for Twitter-friendly communications?)

The Alternative (do you mean cheaper, better, lighter?) European Elections campaign.

Have a look at this video, a cooperation between the web series "Eurobubble" writer Yacine Kouhen and "Old Continent" communications agency: spot on messages, and more to the point than some videos on next year's elections, coming out of the institutions. Why do I like it? Because it's trying to be fun and light while remaining accurate. Because it does not try to please everyone. Because it's visually interesting but short. And all this, I bet, with a relatively small budget.

Well done!

Love the disclaimer "This is not a message from the European Parliament" Really? Don't say.

Just a small question though: why an American sounding voice-over?

Has anyone seen Tom Cruise on the roof of the UN yet?

At times, when you want to promote something, if you use the wrong tone, wording, music or images you might end up with people thinking the exact opposite of what you were trying to communicate. Here is a classic example.

This was the opening week of the UNGA, the United Nations General Assembly. Held every year in September - and a recurring nightmare for resident New Yorkers - the opening of the UN General Assembly becomes the stage for world leaders:

- to see and be seen;

- to say what's on their minds at that time;

- to meet each other formally or informally, and by informally I mean 'we just bumped into each other in the corridor' - yeah, right; or

- to make a point of not meeting someone. Are you still following me?

As we saw this time, there is a lot of media attention. It is an important foreign policy event because everyone is in town but no major decisions - certainly not binding- are taken - it's the General Assembly after all, not the Security Council.  A frenetic week, where most of the participants go - more like run - from one event to another across town whether it is a UN event or not. At the end of these hectic days, everyone returns home and the world - maybe I should say, the media - forgets about the General Assembly until the following year. Before you think I am as usual too cynical; I think this is an amazing occasion, I guess quite a unique one, where "the world" gets together to discuss various issues, and it is one of the few places - if not the only -  where some leaders can speak, be heard and meet. And in the grand scheme of things the fact that the speeches and the discussions lead to very little is neither very surprising nor the point.

Still, it is widely acknowledged that while UNGA week is an important arena, it has never changed, and probably never will, the course of history. Feel free to disagree, by the way.

Now, have a look at this video - found on the homepage of the UN website:



'HISTORY IS HAPPENING NOW'? Please.

Never mind the technical mistake of the two quotes (you first hear  Ban-Ki moon and then Ellen Johnson Sirleaf spelling out a list of issues, but while the latter is talking about problems to eradicate, the former is referring to principles and values to uphold. Not great editing). The style, the music (some sort of Mission Impossible soundtrack) the graphics (i.e. the script) give you the impression that this week is 'make or break' week, that the world, after this week, will be something else altogether - of course, thanks to some Tom Cruise look-alike that will come and save us all, climbing the building and entering from the roof, as doors are not cool.

The natural reaction after watching such a video is to start thinking about what this week is NOT and that the world will not change an iota after it. Ultimately, these thoughts will bring you to the realisation that actually, despite the great hopes and the emotional rhetoric of the UN symbol, this clunky and rusty organisation has not delivered what it had promised at its inception, mostly because its member states did not want it to. So, you see? The exact opposite of what the makers of the video wanted to communicate. Not ideal. Promote the UN by all means, but make sure that what you are saying - and the way you say it - reflect accurately what this week is really about.  

Interesting - Eurocentric - side note: it was pointed out to me that the video does not show a single EU representative - please correct me if I am wrong - A clear message trying to imply a perceived or real decrease of relevance of the old continent when it comes to the United Nations and more broadly to foreign policy. I fear this was the actual message that the video wanted to communicate, not its opposite. Food for thought.

MyVote2014: facts, lies and videotape (minus...videotape!)

I am obviously not alone in worrying about next year's European elections. Here in Brussels we are witnessing a flurry of initiatives that are trying to tackle key concerns. You will say, how useful is it to do things in Brussels? You are right, but some - actually a lot - of these initiatives may have started here but are meant for the wider European audience that will vote - or not - in next year's elections.

One such initiative is MyVote2014, a website created by the VoteWatch Europe team - the one that tells you which European parliamentarian is voting what on which topic. MyVote2014 is a special tool that starts by asking your opinion on 15 key issues and then compares this with the views of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) that have actually voted on those issues. The aim is:

- to give you a sense of what is happening in the European Parliament; 

- to show you that your vote counts; and 

- to tell you who - in terms of national or European party or single MEP - might be closest to your opinion, to help decide who to vote for.     

More broadly the site is trying to engage people. The main 'target' are young voters across the continent. So, I had to try it! OK, OK...am no longer in that age bracket, but anyone is invited to have a go - just like in next year's elections! 

The tool is very well done. Cool, clear, simple and based on solid data: each issue has an explanation, a short list of arguments for and against, and a section that tells you which MEP has voted in favour of that particular issue and which against. Once you have made your choice, the 'results' appear, i.e. a list of MEPs (which you can divide per country or political affiliation) sharing your ideas, broken down by percentage of agreement. You can also compare your choices with the choices of national political parties, if you are more familiar with them. It is true that - as pointed out at the launch - it does not have yet the list of new candidates which means that the votes you see are only those of sitting MEPs who might not run in next year's elections. But, they say, once these new candidates are known, they too will be asked to cast their vote, so you will have an idea of what they think as well.  

The tool is very well done. You have said it already, Virginia! Yes, I have. I am repeating it because I want to make a point.

So, as I was repeating, the tool is very well done. But you have TO GO to the site to see that it is very well done. Only 29% of young voters bothered to vote at the last EP elections. How are we going to reach the other 71%? Will they go to the MyVote2014 site? How will we convince them to do so? And even if they do go to the site, and let's say take the test, will they go and vote afterwards? I fear not. The sense of mistrust, anger even, towards national political parties has never been stronger; and, when it comes to European rather than national elections, one has to add distance, lack of knowledge and lack of interest; an truly explosive set of ingredients that would and will keep many away from the polling booths.

I will do my best to tell people about the site and will continue to hope for increased interest in these elections. Not just from those who want to express a protest vote but also from those, such as myself, who believe that a better Europe, a stronger Europe, a more influential Europe is one where citizens have a say and express their opinion freely. An opinion based on facts and data rather than emotional lies used for political expediency. 

A digression? Well, actually....

Brief digressive question: how come there are so many beautiful and effective Thai commercials? I mean, why not Chinese, Indonesian or Indian just to remain in Asia?

Well, anyway, talking about the power of visual communications...not really digressing that much I guess....enjoy.

28 countries, 24 languages and everyone is happy: the inevitability of mediocrity.

Here it is. The communication campaign for the 2014 European elections has started officially. One video, 28 countries, 24 languages. The whole campaign, as it is keenly pointed out, is costing 16 million Euros, exactly 0,031 euro per citizen. So, money well spent?

Have a look at the video:



I like the tagline. It works better in English than in other languages - as is often the case. But I like it. The three words are right and effective.

The music, the pictures and the script are less convincing though. No need to dwell on the music that is simply uninspiring. The pictures, some of which quite strong, have no logical connection with each other if it weren't for the script. They seemed to have been chosen a bit randomly, but this could not be the case, right? Perhaps the reason is that the script itself starts with a long list of opposite generic verbs (love-hate, begin-end etc.. couldn't they chose verbs related to issues the EU actually deals with?): in the attempt to make it quite obvious and easy to understand, the producers have decided to be slightly too broad and too literal and, when selecting the images,  made them simply fit with the words. In a powerful video, the images speak for themselves. It is not quite the case here.

But this brings me to the main issue: I can only imagine the amount of negotiations that must have taken place during the production as it had to make everyone happy in every language! So, I shouldn't be too critical. No, I won't be critical. I am just mad. Not mad with the Parliament, mind you.

Mad with the inevitability of mediocrity - gosh, I sound like Salieri in the film 'Amadeus'! By mediocrity I don't mean inferior, I mean ordinary, not outstanding.

Mad because national euro-sceptic parties will not have the constraint of trying to please everyone.

Mad because they will be allowed and will use provocative messages, possibly even outrageous ones, that will reflect their simple narrative, a black and white vision of the EU.

Mad because next year's elections will probably have a higher turnout, not thanks to this video, but thanks to those messages; messages, that will strike a chord with a substantial number of disaffected European citizens.

Mad because, as a result, we might end up with a European Parliament that will be representative only of a specific - to use a neutral term - section of the European demos.    

So, the question is not whether the money invested in this campaign is money well spent, but rather what kind of messages we - as pro-Europeans - will need to communicate to tackle effectively what will no doubt be the toughest European election campaign we have had so far.

I know that this is an information campaign: the Parliament cannot be openly pro-European. But for someone such as myself who deeply cares about the results of next year's elections, it is discouraging to come to the conclusion that a "love-hate, begin-end, win-lose" script is not quite the much needed knock-out blow to euro-phobia. But come on Virginia, it's early days....  

Europe: a beautiful brand

I am very proud of being a European. I had countless arguments with British friends that could not imagine considering themselves European before British (or actually English, Scottish, Welsh but that is a different story). I do (certainly before British, way, way before!).

There must be something of a European identity since I feel it, and I am sure I am not alone. It's not easy to explain; I guess it's not the same for everyone and I think one feels it more on some occasions than others. But it's there. This video could just be one possible way to look at it, but certainly it shows that brand "Europe" can be very attractive indeed.

Whenever you are ready: more than one meaning in this title.

Enjoy.

Lower roaming charges? Don't thank the Commission!

Will go back to country branding soon, but now I need to talk about something that really pissed me off.

As well reported by the EU media - and by some European broadsheets - roaming charges (and especially the ones for data download) have gone down, again, the 1st of July; this is because the European Commission has reviewed once again the rules about European mobile charges and has achieved further price reductions. Data roaming is now 91% (yes 91%!) cheaper than it was five years ago.

You should be happy, not pissed off, you will say! Yes, I am super happy about the reduction. I always found roaming charges in Europe quite ludicrous. What I am really NOT happy about is the fact that the way most people heard about this news across Europe is through commercials of their mobile company announcing some incredibly generous new tariffs that would allow everyone to roam cheaply in the old continent. AAAAHH! Most companies have been opposing and lobbying against changes in roaming tariffs for years! They have lost their battle and now.....what do they do? They take all the credit!  Mind you, of course they would do that! They are smart!

Here are just a couple of ads - not really edifying - to show you what I mean:





But where is the big across-Europe campaign that says that it was actually the EU that forced them to do so? One of the few understandable and incredibly appreciated new pieces of legislation; a rare piece of good news; one that should have been used as an example of what the EU does for its citizens; certainly one which was worth investing or re-directing some money to communicate, maybe producing an ad that could set the record straight; but no, instead... it's down to mobile companies!! Give me a break! Even excluding the big spender idea of making a TV ad, how about the online presence? There are some news reports, documents, a press release and yes, a couple of videos.

 A weird video of a cartoon strip and a grandmother (453 views):



And the unmissable commissioner (I guess the slight resemblance to the grandmother of the previous video is purely coincidental!) in one of her many talk to camera interviews – in fact the video is one year old, after the first reductions - (1959 views):

 

 The impact? You be the judge.

 What a missed opportunity. Better go back to country branding!