Today’s CITYA.M. carries an op-ed by communications consultant James Frayne. He argues that “It’s time for business to abandon lobbying and target voters directly”.

The problem I’ve got with his argument is that actually that’s exactly what a lot of effective lobbying already does. When Oxfam was successfully campaigning for the global Arms Trade Treaty it did so both publicly by creating a coalition of supporters and discretely by conversations with the key global players.

Frayne claims:

“Lobbying works as it does not because it suits businesses, but because it suits the way Westminster and Whitehall operate. Most senior executives are happy to discuss problems with proposed new taxes and regulations with practically everyone they meet. Pressure for discretion comes from politicians and their advisers, who make it clear they do not want to face public pressure from businesses that may turn into negative media coverage.”

In my experience that’s more true of Whitehall than it is of Westminster.

Sometimes lobbying might need to be done ‘discretely’ for the benefit of both those lobbying and those being lobbied. But discrete doesn’t mean secret. It means that everything should still be appropriately registered and recorded, you just don’t go out of your way to publicise it further.

However, the reality is that in most cases none of the parties involved benefit from this or need this and usually a more transparent approach is far more effective.

Even Frayne admits this discrete approach is less effective when he goes on to say:

“Ahead of every Budget, there always seems to be a group of businesspeople that believe their discreet, “constructive” approach to public affairs will have secured them a good deal from government. Every year this group of people ends up disappointed.”

There was nothing discrete about the way Greggs successfully lobbied against George Osbourne’s ill-thought out pasty tax.

Frayne is also wrong to say that:

“most politicians only respond to pressure”

In fact, contrary to popular belief, most politicians are actually trying to do the right thing that they believe will be in the best interests of the country. One of the many factors that they will take into account is public and stakeholder pressure.

Where I do start to agree with Frayne is when he says:

“First, and most importantly, businesses that want to influence decision-making within government or party policy formulation should replace lobbyists with campaigners to generate major public conversations around the issues that matter to them. They should make their case aggressively to secure public support that will, in turn, pressure elected politicians to make the right choices.”

However, his mistake is in believing that this is a ‘new’ approach. Rather he describes exactly what many lobbyists have been doing for many years. I ran a successful lobbying campaign in the late 90s which consisted mainly of persuading the owners of local businesses to write to their local MPs and visit them at their surgeries. All of the approaches were carefully targeted. From memory I think we had one telephone conversation with a civil servant and one brief conversation with a minister (which was actually accidentally bumping into him at a reception, rather than a meeting). The changes we wanted in the legislation happened.

Where Frayne actually nails it is when he says:

“The growth of the web makes this prospect seriously viable for virtually any organisation for the first time. For example, they can use opinion research to work out exactly which audiences are most enthusiastic about their cause, use micro-targeted social media advertising to grow their campaign base, and then create an online platform that helps people to air their views. And the success they achieve can then be marketed back into the mainstream media. Campaigns along these lines are developing widely in the US and should come to prominence in the UK.”

This was the topic of one of my chapters in last year’s best-selling Share This: The Social Media Handbook for PR Professionals. All of these, and more, are techniques I explain in the chapter on Modernising Public Affairs for the Digital Age.

However, it’s a mistake to think that digital public affairs and online campaigning and advocacy are the whole solution. The best way many public affairs professionals can use digital and social media is to do many of their traditional tactics more effectively. It’s another way of doing research. It’s another way of interacting with opinion formers, politicians, researchers, staffers, journalists and other stakeholders. It’s another way of doing media relations. And in each case the “another way” is becoming increasingly important as the pendulum swings from the traditional to the new.

And it leaves out perhaps the most important way public affairs professionals can use the internet and that is content and search.

It’s impossible to be a truly effective lobbyist today without understanding how to integrate digital and social media into both the strategy and the day-to-day activity.

One of my most popular online PR training courses is on digital public affairs and social media which I’ve delivered to several in-house public affairs professionals and to public affairs consultancies in the UK, Europe, Middle East and Central Asia.

There’s an interesting debate in the comments of a guest post on CIPR president elect Stephen ‘Wadds’ Waddington’s blog. Alister Foye claims Wadds “is one cog in the engine of an oil tanker that has been on the wrong course for over a decade.”

This is very much at odds with my experience as most people I know who are active in the CIPR are not only saying very similar things to Wadds said, but actually doing something about it. I’m one, but only one of many. In recent years we’ve had many outstanding CIPR president’s, but two who’ve particularly stood out for me are Anne Gregory who finally helped us to achieve chartered status and Jay O’Connor who kick-started much of the recent programme of modernisation.

I’ve been a Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) member since I joined as a student member of the then IPR in the late 80s. For some, maybe much, of this time, I wasn’t particularly impressed by the institute and at sometimes was most definitely at odds with it. In 2006 I was one of many PR professionals to write blog posts criticising the stance taken by then CIPR director general Colin Farrington: CIPR’s elected officers must clarify policy and The tetchy chamberlain, part II. But I’ve also written supportive posts before: The value of CIPR membership.

If all of the people questioning the CIPR’s stance had simply walked away then we wouldn’t have achieved change. And surely that’s one of the most powerful and exciting things about public relations – we are change-makers.

I’ve always remained a member for the fairly fundamental reason that the CIPR is the professional institute of my profession. And it is now governed by a Royal charter. If I’m not happy with what the institute is doing in the name of my profession then it’s my job to do something about. Otherwise I’m not fit to call myself a public relations professional.

“It’s better to be inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in” and “together we are stronger than we are alone” might be clichés, but nevertheless they are true. It is by collective action that we have the most chance of improving the reputation of the public relations profession and defending it from encroachment by other professions such as management consultants and industries such as advertising and marketing.

My third reason for being a member of the CIPR is I feel it is my duty and obligation. The public relations business has been good to me. I’ve made a career out of it. Built a business. And thoroughly enjoy it. I should pay something back and serving the wider profession through the CIPR is one way I can do that.

I was encouraged to stand for the national CIPR council last year and have just stated my three year term so I know that Stephen Waddington is not a lone voice. I know that he has both breadth and depth of support throughout the country and throughout different disciplines and specialisms within the public relations profession.

I know that by working together we will make a difference. I also know, to use another cliché, that many hands, make light work so I’d urge Alister to reconsider his stance and come into our big tent and start p*****g out.

Yesterday I tweeted that legislation made in haste, is rarely good legislation. It was only after that I discovered that indeed it appears the government is careering headlong down a path of disastrous legislation to regulate lobbyists.

Unfortunately much of the media coverage and comments from ‘experts’ are simply spinning their own agenda or arguing for their own vested interests.

The latest move by the Tories and Liberal Democrats to dilute the lobbying legislation by confusing it with trade union funding and membership will only delay and reduce the likelihood of good legislation being passed.

However, some responses I’ve seen are equally misguided. It is right, indeed essential, that trade unions are included in any proposed statutory register of lobbyists. Just as it is essential that businesses, consultants, charities, pressure groups, trade bodies and NGOs are included. However, that is an entirely separate issue to the ones of trade union funding and membership.

The TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady issued what started as a great statement when she said:

“The government is cynically trying to exploit a political sleaze scandal to crack down on unions – which are democratic and accountable organisations. We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in all of Europe and this move smacks of naked opportunism.

“Making it harder for working people to take strike action and for unions to support local candidates is not the way to clean up politics.”

However, she then went on to muddy the waters by adding:

“Ordinary people want action to curb the lobbying power of rich men and mighty corporations. It would be better if the government focused on this rather than taking a politically motivated swipe at unions.”

Actually a lot of ‘ordinary’ people I talk to – who aren’t involved or even very interested in politics at all – are concerned about anyone or anything that has ‘special’ access to politicians. That includes rich men, mighty corporations and trade unions. Let’s not forget that despite the recent welcome rise in trade union membership most people aren’t members and don’t work in unionised workplaces.

A big reason for the rise of UKIP, and other even more extreme parties, is disillusionment with politics and the democratic process. There are many reasons for this, ironically most of them not to do with politicians as most are actually doing a very good and honourable job. But that is not the popular perception which is driven by distorted mainstream media coverage. I also believe that people’s expectations of politicians are also becoming more selfish. We elected you so you should do what we want. When actually in a representative democracy we elect politicians to do what they believe to be best for everyone. That doesn’t mean just the people who shout the loudest in community campaigns, national demonstrations and social media. It’s just as important, if not more so, to support the silent majority.

Therefore trade unions must be included in a register of lobbyists as it would be ludicrous to regulate some lobbyists and not others. However, the issue of trade union funding and membership are entirely separate debates and nothing to do with legitimate lobbying. It is a direct attack on democracy to say that some people or organisations have more right to representation than others.

In my personal opinion the only exception to registering should be individuals directly lobbying their own MP. My proposal would therefore also require community ‘action groups’ and associations to register. I don’t think that’s actually a bad thing as to exclude them would leave open a potential loophole where companies and organisations could use or exploit such groups as a ‘front’.

However, this means the register needs to be simple and transparent so that it is very easy for everyone to keep it up to date in ‘almost’ real-time. This also means the register must be publicly funded and free for all lobbyists to register.

It is better to have too much registration than too little.

Last week I chaired a ‘Thought Leaders’ event at the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) in London where I interviewed Tom Foremski who became the first major journalist to quit mainstream media to make a living from blogging when he left the Financial Times to found Silicon Valley Watcher.

The event did leave me with some optimism that corporate media – that is companies paying real journalists to do real reporting – might be one future for quality journalism. Where I wasn’t so optimistic was where the next generation of quality journalists will come from. The traditional training ground was local newspapers and their decline mean opportunities for that crucial early learning are becoming rare. Some see the plethora of blogs and websites covering every conceivable subject area as being the alternative. I’m not convinced as they don’t have the seasoned old hacks who can teach the tricks of the trade. And I don’t mean fiddling expenses or hacking phones, but the old journalistic craft of knowing how to sniff out the truth in a story. How to check and double check the sources and facts. How to write well (and it’s not being pedantic to say that means good grammar, doesn’t need perfect grammar).

We explored a wide range of topics including content, corporate media, ethics, reputation, SEO, ‘Every Company is a Media Company’ and ‘brand journalism’ (we both hate the term).

As I was chairing the event and interviewing Tom I didn’t take any notes or record the conversation. However, I’ve captured some of the best tweets in Storify. If the embed doesn’t work for you then you can see it on the Storify site here.

Today is Europe Day. The anniversary of the 1950 ‘Schuman Declaration’ that started the process that created what is now the European Union. The declaration was made by the then French foreign minister Robert Schuman in the aftermath of World War 2.

This year it is more important than ever for patriotic Britons to celebrate Europe Day. The future of the United Kingdom is under threat from those who seek to destroy all the benefits that membership of the European Union has given the people of Britain. We have a prime minister that risks forcing us out of the European Union. Not for practical reasons that it will benefit the UK. Not because he believes it is ideologically right. But because he is weak and hopes to make short-term political gain by jeopardising our nation’s future.

The UK’s membership of the European Union has benefited businesses and workers alike. Men, women and children enjoy greater freedoms and are safer than they have ever been before.

I am proud to be a citizen of Europe. I am proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I have grown up in a Europe that is peaceful and prosperous (read Smile if you’re European by Simon Kuper in the Financial Times magazine). I want our five-year daughter to enjoy the same European peace and prosperity that her parents have.

That’s why the best way to display your British patriotism is to celebrate Europe Day today.

EU and Union Jack flag picture courtesy of LSE British Influence blog.

European Commission building in Brussels taken by me on May 7, 2013.

The election for the 2014 president of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) has sparked several fascinating debates on both public relations and the future and relevance of the CIPR. What is without question is that this time, in Dr Jon White and Stephen Waddington, we have two absolutely outstanding candidates for president. I would be delighted with either.

That said this is an election and that means a decision. I am voting for Stephen Waddington.

One criticism that some have levelled at Stephen (or Wadds as he is more commonly known) is that he is too focused on the social media and digital aspects of public relations. I do not believe this to be the case. I spent the first half to date (indeed most of my career) so far doing ‘traditional’ public relations. As has Wadds. What we have in common is an understanding of the deeper social, political and economic impact of the internet and social media, as well as the ability to translate this into successful public relations practice.

His statements on public affairs, corporate communications and internal communications all demonstrate that he is capable of leading the CIPR across the full range of public relations disciplines and practice. What’s more he understands that these old silos and specialism are not the future of the profession.

Stephen Waddington or ‘Wadds’ in his own words:

This video from UNICEF Sweden is a powerful reminder that Facebook Likes don’t really mean much, despite the obsession by some in the advertising and marketing business. In UNICEF’s case it quite literally tells us that Facebook Likes don’t save lives.

Picture from UNICEF Sverige Flickr.

Even in 2013 you find sceptics who don’t appreciate how the internet and the social web is disrupting traditional media consumption. Experian Hitwise has just published research that shows in 2012 the UK spent 37 billion hours online, but as that is far too big a number to comprehend it has helpfully distilled it into how it would look in a single hour:

Social is the biggest single element taking up 13 minutes of our time. News takes up just three minutes, which is depressingly below the time spent on shopping and alarmingly is the same as ‘adult’!

Since the launch a lot of the initial hype about Twitter’s six second Vine videos has thankfully died down. The latest to use Vine is the White House which has used it for the first time to promote the annual White House Science Fair.

I was a sceptic at launch and remain so, but am reserving final judgment until I’ve had an opportunity to use it properly myself. Which won’t happen until an Android version is available.

The issue that I’ve got is that compared to a tweet six seconds is just too long, I could read lots of tweets in that time. As I use HootSuite and rarely visit the Twitter website I’d never see it as embedded media. Therefore I’d only click on the link if I knew it was worth clicking first. The flip side of it being too long is that six seconds is also too short to do much worthwhile.

After three months there are still a lack of good examples, although there are a lot of examples of people talking about good examples which turn out not to be! If you think you’ve seen good examples that I’ve missed then please let me know in the comments.

Bill Nye @thescienceguy & @levarburton welcome you to the #WHScienceFair! vine.co/v/bP7JIZtYxrK

— The White House (@whitehouse) April 22, 2013