What's fair, and what's not
Years and years of argument about 'fairness' by our liberal elite have failed to persuade people of their case. Does this mean PR is worthless, asks Dougal Paver.
There was a fascinating article here over the weekend which took as its raison d'etre some research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in to people's attitudes towards fairness.
Take two minutes out to read it now, then return to this blog: it really is dynamite.
Right, you've read that, then. Setting aside its own conclusions, the thing that jumped off the page for me was the following: years and years of propoganda from a powerful elite with access to media and political channels has singularly failed to persuade people to agree with its agenda.
That means PR is useless, right? Dead. A waste of time, effort and money.
If bodies that powerful, with all the resources at their disposal, can't persuade the great British public of the merits of their argument, then why would anyone else succeed?
"Land Rovers are better than Jeeps because of..." Stop right there, Mr Land Rover: you're wasting your time.
Except that he's not. The reason the public wasn't persuaded of the elite's arguments about fairness was because they were baseless.
They failed one of the core tests of good communication, which is that what you say has to be grounded in your audience's reality. It has to have a fundamental truth at its heart, which is your permission to then move on to broader persuasion and debate about your case.
And, as far as your average Joe is concerned, the fundamental truth about fairness is a million miles removed from the government's version. And as we live in a democracy, who do you think will win that argument?
COMMENTS
No comments added for this entry.
POST A COMMENT
