Just as in politics, consistent messaging in campaigns is essential to success. Though this basic lesson is too often ignored.
But it is not just about the messages but also the approach adopted as well. Without the campaign being well timetabled and mapped out then it risks being seen as dis-jointed and haphazard.
Just look at what is currently happening to Ed Miliband.  In recent days, the head of the Party’s policy review process, Jon Cruddas accused the ‘dead hand of the centre’ of blocking radical ideas. He also accused the Party’s plans ‘cynical’.
This had a number of effects. Not only did it suggest personality clashes but critically it suggested that Miliband does not have the support of key senior people within the Party. However, whilst the comments attributed to Cruddas were taken as being a direct criticism of Miliband he was not mentioned by name him so could equally apply to the party structure, advisers, other senior figures etc.
In terms of the Party’s campaign, it detracted from announcements being made about the devolution of funding. This was reinforced by Maurice Glasman’s piece in the FT bemoaning the Party’s lack of a narrative. He did later retract his criticism during media interviews. Furthermore, a disagreement over the validity of statistics in the launch of Lord Adonis’s paper aimed at boosting innovation and empowering cities took a large chunk of the headlines.
This is not to overplay what has been a bad few days for Labour but to instead highlight the importance of consistency.
The Labour Party in particular is quite paranoid about such things especially after its experiences of the late 1970s through until the late 1980s. Whilst Peter Mandelson has become an increasingly pantomime Prince of Darkness character in recent years, his original thinking and impact in terms of presentation and delivery were revolutionary. Unfortunately, this is now often overlooked.
There are some steps that can be taken to ensure consistency.
No shooting from the hip – this can be in person or even over social media. Whilst it may help to provide evidence of a ‘human face’, or a less corporate approach, it can all too often lead to reputation-threatening consequences.
No such thing as ‘off-the-record’ – when talking to anyone, not least the media. Always be aware of what is being said and how it could be used both for and against a campaign. Clever briefings may suit the inner Machiavelli but have a horrible habit of missing their target.
Beware the Chatham House rule for events – it does not mean that the information cannot be used but only that the speaker cannot be identified. This is difficult to enforce especially on social media. Add to that the likelihood of a talk being filmed on a phone or placed on YouTube and your words can come back time and again.
Training – there is no substitute for providing key people with training. This is now accepted practice with the media but should also apply to presentations, public speaking and all other forms of outward communications.
Checks and balances – whilst not always possible, efforts should be made to ensure that senior leaders cannot simply make decisions or announcements without considering the full reputational impact. It is all too easy for decisions to be made or comments issued without reference to others, not least the communications team. This sort of action can ultimately impact on reputations and campaigns.
Measures can be taken but there will always be an uncontrollable factor of human error! It is though about minimising risk and the potential for moving away from the critical path which has been established for a campaign.
Consistency needs to be consistently applied!