Working with animals – unpredictable, but exciting!

What do a 5am start, freezing conditions, camera-loving owls and a BBC crew mistakenly locked into a farm estate add up to?  A successful BBC Breakfast broadcast, that’s what!

We’re really pleased the Beeb picked up the story about how Conservation Grade farmers are boosting wildlife alongside their commercial crops.

BBC Breakfast presenter Louise Hubball and her camera crew visited Pensthorpe Estate Farm in Norfolk on 12 and 13 January to meet the farm manager and conservation expert, and see Nature Friendly Farming in action.

Two captive-bred owls – Tulu and Rosie – were recruited for an up-close-and-personal look at Barn Owl characteristics and habitat needs.  Rosie, who came with her handler Mark Christian from Norfolk Falconry, then gave us a surprise, doing what owls do and regurgitating her last meal live on camera!

An unexpected highlight has to be when a wild Barn Owl swooped in to feed in the afternoon – chased by a kestrel – which was all caught on camera.

So, in spite of the frosty start and panics over owls too heavy to fly (who’d have known they can put on Christmas weight on too?!), the broadcast was a great success and has generated plenty of interest.  BBC Look East also covered the story as did the Telegraph and the NFU.

Oh, and the late-working presenter and camera man were quickly unlocked from the farm on Thursday night.

For information about the Barn Owl project, visit: www.naturefriendlyowls.org.

The use and abuse of ‘animal welfare’

Buried in a slightly odd announcement today from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee(FAWC) is a call to incorporate welfare outcome measures into production systems and reward farmers for the costs incurred.

This is to be welcomed – not only that investment in welfare should be supported by the supply chain, but critically, that welfare should be assessed on ‘outcomes’.  This means proper measures that animals are healthy and happy.  Not ‘these chickens are healthier because they have been roaming in woodland’, or ‘these cows are happier because they’ve ripped grass out of the ground rather than foraged it in a feed bunker’, but that they are all well nourished, well managed, free from disease and can behave naturally.

However, FAWC’s announcement goes on to, rather confusingly, suggest farmers should make use of ‘niche welfare opportunities’.

Now I might be missing something, but isn’t an animal either healthy and happy, or not?  And surely poor welfare, where an animal is unhappy or unhealthy, isn’t acceptable in any capacity?  So what does this mean?  That farmers should look for opportunities to publicise when ‘these chickens have been roaming in woodlands’, or ‘these cows are have been ripping grass out of the ground’?

If this is the case, then this isn’t about welfare, it’s about marketing and consumer preference, and FAWC shouldn’t be confusing the two on an already misinformed and ill-debated subject. Surely this is about allowing consumers to choose a preferred production method, safe in the knowledge that whatever they choose, there is assured good welfare behind it?

We need to ditch this misinformed idea that one system necessarily means good welfare and another means bad.  It’s as damning and inaccurate as saying those living in high rise flats will have poorer health or a shorter life.  Good and bad welfare are possible in all systems, and we need more open minds about how we can keep the UK’s fantastic diversity of choice, encourage farming ingenuity and produce the food we will need in the future – all with the right animal welfare outcomes.

Unpacking that ‘local’ label

Did you know there are strict rules for labelling foods as ‘fresh’, ‘natural’ or ‘pure’? And of course there are certification bodies to ensure ‘organic’ is… well… organic.  But did you know that ‘local’ is completely unregulated?

This might come as a bit of a blow to those busy stocking up on local foods, but aside from farmers’ markets which might impose their own rules, the claim seems woefully open to abuse.

Tesco’s well-documented foray into local milk which drew controversial headlines a couple of years ago first highlighted the issue, but despite this, Kantar says sales of local food grew by around 45% in the last year, kicking organic into touch with a decline of 7%.

Now one theory why local, and in fact Fairtrade as well, are rising, while organic is languishing, is the lack of clarity around what organic actually delivers. After all, it claims a plethora of benefits from better welfare to ethics to additive-free. By comparison, single issue labels probably seem refreshingly simple. But that can only continue as long as they really do deliver their perceived advantage.

It’s great to have more brands, more labels and more points of difference in food. It promotes consumer choice and allows farmers to add value. But for the sake of ensuring ‘local’ retains its strong and attractive position, shouldn’t it be afforded the same regulatory protection as ‘farmhouse’, ‘original’, ‘natural’ and ‘handmade’?

Beware the cheap, online, headline-grabbing survey

According to a recent survey, more than half of farmers are now turning to social media to ‘communicate with customers and to flag-up farming-related issues’.

Now if anyone out there is raising a cynical eyebrow at this point, join the club.  Most of those in the industry knows this is utter nonsense - other surveys show that it’s only recently that half of farmers have been able to start using the internet regularly.

With the average age of farmers in this country well into the 60s, many forced to live isolated lives thanks to reducing farm incomes and the continuing failure of broadband to reach remote areas, this figure simply doesn’t wash.

So it was clear where the problem lay when it became evident the survey was conducted online.

Now the press release – issued by JCB’s workwear division -  is more carefully worded than its coverage would suggest, but nevertheless this is just misrepresentative.  I don’t really care about yet another badly worded survey trying to sell plastic widgets, but this portrays the wrong picture of the farming industry and the challenges it faces.

Yes it’s great to promote the fact that Twitter use has undoubtedly risen in agricultural circles and there is a new generation of connected producer out there making the most of technology.  It’s also good to have a positive story about farmers, who can all too often be portrayed as whingeing, subsidy-grabbing curmudgeons in the media.  But do we really want consumers to think that all is so rosy and, quite frankly, ‘connected’ in the garden?  Only recently we’ve heard again how promises to expand broadband in rural areas are failing to deliver.

I have long had big reservations about online surveys. They are cheap, quick and useful for some purposes, but they question a self-selecting group in which the elderly, isolated and those in manual work or with lower incomes are woefully under-represented.  Ring a bell?

So using an online survey to ask a group that has, relatively, a very low uptake of the internet, about their use of internet-based technology, is just ridiculous.

So please, PR people, a plea – don’t sell out for the sake of a few headlines.  Accuracy and long term credibility are surely more important than selling a few boilersuits?

Half of science and industry organisations avoiding social media – new report

A brand new report we’ve just released suggests that over half of businesses operating in industrial or scientific sectors are unlikely to have a strategy for using social media in their PR and communications – despite three quarters recognising that their target audiences are already active users.

This is just one of the findings in our new report, which looks at whether – and how – social media can be used effectively outside of consumer PR campaigns.

We found that while social media has proved its worth in consumer-facing marketing and PR, many are still reluctant to use it for business and staff communications, or to support a positive reputation.

As part of the report, we ran a small qualitative survey of businesses operating in our specialist areas – agribusiness, environment and industry. We found a real reluctance to engage through new forms of media; for example, while almost half these organisations were sending out information through Twitter, only a fifth were using it for two-way discussion.

The reasons given included difficulty measuring the impact on profits and business objectives, lack of knowledge or confidence, and poor support from the senior management team. However, another important factor was a feeling of losing control over what was being said about an organisation on the web.

The irony is these conversations will be taking place anyway, if not on the web then through other forums. Our advice is that you’re better being involved in them and showing how keen you are to solve them than simply pretending they’re not happening. And let’s not lose sight of how critical social media is in crisis situations – it’s where news now breaks and where first opinions are formed.

It’s true that not all social media is right for all businesses, but there are some fantastic opportunities outlined in the report. We’ve suggested a quick way to gauge how useful social media could be to you, what platforms to use and some practical tips for getting going. Click here to download the report for free.

WI calls time on myths and propaganda

Hoorah for the Womens’ Institute! Yesterday afternoon, for the first time ever, they refused to vote on a resolution at their AGM - because they recognised the ramifications of pronouncing a verdict on a statement they felt was poorly worded, on an issue about which they felt they did not have sufficient information.

Good for them! In this age of click-tivism, it’s all too easy to read a one-liner, hear a few emotive terms, and take in the results of a carefully-worded survey to form a fixed view on an issue. Few of us have the time to investigate in more depth.

Issues are frequently more complicated than first assumed. That is the problem facing the farming industry as it tries to communicate other tricky agendas such as TB and the introduction of new technology like cloning. How can the industry remain accurate and ethical in its communcations while conveying persuasive points on an extremely complex issue? And if it does try to retain the higher moral ground, how can it counter those who are less discriminating?

The good news is that underneath all the arguing and debate on any issue, opposite sides often have similar goals. After all, in the ‘large farms’ issue, everyone wants healthy, happy animals, a thriving environment, good British food and a viable future for all farmers.  Where they differ is in how these goals can be delivered and in the other pressures they are dealing with such as the need to keep members or donors happy; these are the critical factors that end up creating divergent views.

That is why the WI has delivered a precious opportunity to us all. They have shown us that people don’t have to feel pressurised to make either/or decisions on the spot, and that time can be taken to consider an issue in more depth.

We should all take note of this.  After all, campaigns built on houses of cards may create many ‘likes’ and followers, but are not built to withstand the tests of time – or the WI.

Why you must watch “The Life and Loss of Karen Woo”…

Watching Dr Karen Woo’s family being interviwed is like watching a claustrophobe locked in a stranded lift for five hours – but maybe that’s because I know how they feel about the media…  Being thrust into the spotlight is completely alien to Karen’s mother, father and brother - but they did it for their extrovert, daring, darling Karen. And that is why “The Life and Loss of Karen Woo” is a film you must watch tonight, if you watch nothing else all week. 

Not many of us make a difference, or even really try to.  And I mean truly put ourselves, our life, livelihood, possessions and family’s peace of mind at risk just to try and make someone else’s life better.  

We have our pet causes; a passing blog or tweet catches our attention and our sense of moral outrage is inflamed – “how awful”, we say, clicking on a button for immediate cathartic satisfaction before moving swiftly to the next cause.  After all, we have our own lives to worry about and a plethora of worthwhile causes over which to get heated. 

Which is why the life of Karen Woo, an otherwise fairly ordinary - if extremely attractive – girl, racked with the normal insecurities about career, life and love, is actually extraordinary.  

I had the honour (and the bewilderment) of trying to help the Woo family with the media onslaught following their daughter’s murder last August. For someone used to dealing with industrial incidents and and agricultural developments, it was just a little bit of a rude awakening.  I’m no Max Clifford, but most of the media were brilliant in working to help me ensure the family’s privacy was respected.

And a very private family it is.  In fact I don’t think I’ve ever met a closer, more self-contained unit, which makes it all the more incredible they elected to put themselves through selected media attention at the time – solely to get the Karen Woo Foundation off the starting blocks – and have now participated in this film tonight which follows the efforts of Karen’s fiance, Paddy, to try and establish the chain of events in early August last year which culminated in Karen’s untimely death. 

But it’s not that aspect that captured my attention and my heart.  It was the two-year-old with mine-shattered limbs dragging himself across the floor.  It was the father who walked for days to find a remedy for the debilitating illness his daughter was suffering.  It was the children’s home with the room for mothers to lie and rest after carrying children tens of miles for treatment.  In short, it was the human tragedies that Karen cared about and put herself in grave danger to try and address.

This was Karen’s passion. She was videoing her experiences in the hope she could interest a production company in making a film about these devastating issues. She didn’t seem even remotely put off that the chances of her sealing a deal were slight to nothing.  The irony is she now has her wish, but for the worst of reasons.

So tonight, or if not tonight then at some point over the next week, find time to watch The Life and Loss of Karen Woo on ITV 1 or ITV player, and see some incredible footage of Karen talking, as if from the grave, about the dreams, ambitions and courage of a very ordinary girl who really put herself out there for what she cared about.  

Then go to the Karen Woo Foundation website, run entirely by volunteers from Karen’s circle of family and friends, and show that having watched how this unique person sacrificed her life and future happiness for something she believed so strongly in, you can now click to support something you really believe in.

Super learnings over dairy

Farmers Weekly’s analysis of the sustained campaign against proposals to build the country’s largest dairy farm by animal welfare groups is a sobering warning to all in the farming industry who may be toying with an investment proposal at the moment.

While the plans ultimately fell prey to the Environment Agency, it was only after a prolonged attack from pressure groups who used simple (if not always entirely accurate) messages to win public hearts and minds and fill a yawning void the farming industry had left wide open.  WSPA in particular explains how Nocton Dairies just happened to come along as it was looking for a UK cause to hang its hat on. 

While most dairy farmers, vets and industry experts recognise that the cows at Nocton would have been superbly cared for in fantastic facilites, the pressure groups spotted a picture of dairy farming that would be unfamiliar to most middle England, and duly prised it wide open.

Despite the thousands of objections that were generated by the campaigns, public opinion still plays little part in the planning process which focuses instead on technical issues.  However, the farm needed to co-operate with neighbours, have buyers and supply customers, and that’s what the pressure groups banked on.

It’s not easy for dairy farmers to know where to go from here.  They face significant hardships on a daily basis in a market dominated by supermarket power; DairyCo reports that half work over 80 hours a week and three quarters pay themselves a salary of less than £20,000 a year.  Despite this, we are short of milk.  We currently import over 1.5bn litres worth of dairy products to the UK (that’s milk from over 214,000 average yielding dairy cows) and this is growing.

Many say the issue of supermarket power needs to be solved to allow a reasonable return to smaller farmers.  This would indeed be a solution but not one that’s coming to town very soon.  If the response, until these bigger market issues are resolved, is to gain economies of scale in not only dairy but also pig and potentially even beef production, then what are other farmers who try to tread this path facing? 

I would suggest more of the same.  Farming has been dealt a tough challenge by the government – produce more using less resources and do it more sustainably - but those attempting to pick up on the ‘sustainable intensification’ agenda clearly face considerable opposition.

So what can they do?  Farmers need to communicate effectively with their communities, but cannot hope to fight misconception and single issue agendas on their own so the only way forward is a concerted industry response to give as good as it gets.

I’m talking about the industry getting to grips with where it really is on welfare and starting to deliver facts; I’m talking educating the public about what does actually signify a happy healthy animal; I’m talking dedicated press offices and proactive campaigns to show off the great ways we produce food in this country in a variety of manners; I’m talking imaginative use of social media and engaging ways to interest consumers in the challenges farming faces; and I’m talking about farmers en masse opening their doors to the public and sharing their good news stories.

Ironically, all these things are already happening to some degree and some excellent work is being done by individual organisations, but there still seems to be a lack of overarching strategy and, possibly, urgency.

Until such time as the whole farming industry recognises the full scale of the challenge it faces in closing the gap between perception and reality, and steps up its activities – as one -to get ahead of the game, I doubt whether there will be many innovative projects in which farmers will now have the confidence to invest.

Three media training essentials to keep watchers tuned in

I’m getting a little worried that too much media training does make Jack a dull boy.  Or is it poor media training?  Either way, I’ve just heard another dreadful interview on the radio where the interviewee most certainly never stood a chance of saying the wrong thing, because he just sat there and reiterated the same set of key messages over and over again.  Oh dear.

Why has media training turned into this formulaic repetitive monologue?  Where is the spontaneity and colour?  Do media trainers not realise that the interview has to be interesting and compelling, not safe and dull?  Or does the spokesperson who emits a huge sigh of relief and says: ‘I don’t think I made any mistakes’ realise he doesn’t have to do a Gordon and worry that the mic’s switched off first, because everyone who was listening has shuffled off to make a cup of tea?

Spokespeople: please have a think about the following points. They are not your comprehensive list of media training dos and don’ts – they are the things I believe are being left unsaid.  So if they aren’t being hammered home by your media training agency, please please consider getting a new agency…

1. People need to feel they know you, like you, would enjoy chatting to you in the pub over a beer … so give them a bit of you – what you’re about, your beliefs, you experiences.  Make it personal and ditch the corporate!  You can still toe the line without boring everyone to death  in the process.

2. Yes, please use key messages, three if you must (although I personally think one or two max is all you should have for broadcast interviews) but they are meant to represent the understanding someone will have after hearing what you have to say, and are NOT for repeating parrot fashion when faced with any question that strays off the script.  So prepare some great stories and facts that will illustrate your point.  It’s about being a bit more subtle!

3. Entertain us!  People want something new, interesting, a fact for the pub, a fascinating titbit for the dinner table.  And interviewers want a great personality who is passionate about their subject.  I remember an amazing lady who was a moth specialist being interviewed on the Radio 2 drivetime show a few years ago.  She was so interesting and enthusiastic, she came back the next night and I believe the night after that as well to continue her stories!   

So my challenge to media trainers and spokespeople alike is this - let’s get out of this mentality that a good interview is a safe interview.  The rapid rise of social media should tell us that the day of corporate facelessness is over.  People want authenticity, they want content, they want entertaining….

When *is* it OK to ‘manage’ online reputation?

Fascinating to read that reputation de-toxing is now available for hapless celebs – or even ordinary mortals – whose online reputation has got a little out of control.  But it does beg the question why corporate entities such as BP get slammed for similar proactive reputation management, for example its buying up of Google adwords ‘oil spill’, ‘volunteer’ and ‘claims’ which was reported in early June.  

Could it be that celebrities only hurt themselves or those immediately around them when they do wrong, as opposed to a gaffe by multi billion pound business which usually impacts income, health or quality of life for tens, hundreds or thousands.  Or is it that we simply feel corporate business is faceless or, in BP’s case, headed by people out of touch with the man earning a living fishing for seafood in the Gulf of Mexico?

But big business can do it right.  Look at Richard Branson’s response to the 2007 Virgin rail crash – cutting short his holiday, appearing on the scene in his anorak within hours, praising the driver and rescue services, his press office becoming fully active within 90 minutes to offer information and spokespeople.  He’s held up as the consummate professional in dealing with crises, and one can’t help but feel that if Virgin bought up Google search terms in an effort to manage its online reputation, this would be greeted in a different light.

Which all goes to suggest that in matters of online corporate reputation management, it’s not the action itself - it’s what goes before and after and around the action.  Online reputation management is just a smaller subset of every action, word and nuance coming from an organisation or individual, which can then dramatically alter the context in which information is received.  So in the words of Ella Fitzgerald and Fun Boy Three (depending on your era), managing reputation online ain’t so much what you do – it’s the way that you do it…