PCM as done by Virgin Trains - an example for the military?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ice station kilo
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right…
now we get to the Nub of the problem. Mr B has a pretty clear-cut cause and effect. That coupled to a very good PR machine, shows him as the man with his finger on the pulse.
The MOD press team have a far more complex problem in an active war zone, for a whole host of reasons; on going operations, perceived security problems, distance, communications etc.
All of the MOD PR/CM people I’ve met strike me as good people doing a very hard job trying to bridge the gap between two camps that understand little of the others needs or motivation. Could we do it better? Of course we could, can we in the short term with limited resources?
As to the events of last September, we will have to wait till the BOI’s findings are published. But I'm sure that EVERYONE did the best with the information to hand.
now we get to the Nub of the problem. Mr B has a pretty clear-cut cause and effect. That coupled to a very good PR machine, shows him as the man with his finger on the pulse.
The MOD press team have a far more complex problem in an active war zone, for a whole host of reasons; on going operations, perceived security problems, distance, communications etc.
All of the MOD PR/CM people I’ve met strike me as good people doing a very hard job trying to bridge the gap between two camps that understand little of the others needs or motivation. Could we do it better? Of course we could, can we in the short term with limited resources?
As to the events of last September, we will have to wait till the BOI’s findings are published. But I'm sure that EVERYONE did the best with the information to hand.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How "easy" a PR job would Mr B have had if 100 people had died in this crash? Ignoring PR skills for a moment, the fact that miraculously only one person died in this crash has been something of a relief, (still a tragedy nevertheless). The thing that really triumphed here is the safety capability of a very modern train. Give your people the best. Far too many Inquests in recent weeks have involved people being killed unnecessarily and families even being lied to by MoD personnel. Confidence in the MoD as a moral arbiter or an organisation that truly cares about its people has probably never been lower. It will take a lot more than good PR skills to improve the image of this organisation.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you should view how people from my side of the train tracks view his remarks and deeds!
http://www.railchat.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9093
http://www.railchat.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9093
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I maybe straying off topic here, but the Senior Bobby on scene on Sat am said in a prepared statement, on Sky News, that the train departed Euston at 5.15 and came off the rails at 7.30. I reversed the video to check what he said and he definitely said 7.30pm. Is he right? I've checked the timetable and the train was due into Glasgow at 9.54. Either the train was going exceedingly fast or the Bobby got his times wrong.
I read in a 'snooze' paper that the crash was at 2016, about 40 minutes after the train left Preston. This would seem more likely than 1930, and would tie in with the SARBoys being scrambled at around 2045.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to be suggesting that the MOD spokesman in the PCM/PR situation should be someone very senior.
In certain circumstances it may well be appropriate for an Air Officer to front the media. OTOH the best person is often the station commander of the relevant unit. The station commander will know the background and therefore not need a background brief. They will be able to face the cameras and field fast balls questions more easily than an imported PR person.
After a Harrier crash, about 10 years ago, the Wittering Station Commander gave an early press brief that was an exemplar of its kind.
Where the MOD often seems spectacularly inept is when the PR person is one of the professional PR heads. Excellent PRO may be, but often too generalist and therefore not as credible as the man at the front.
Examples of good, on the ground, PROs are the ones at Kinloss or in East Anglia although the latter is off somewhere hot, sandy and hilly very soon.
In certain circumstances it may well be appropriate for an Air Officer to front the media. OTOH the best person is often the station commander of the relevant unit. The station commander will know the background and therefore not need a background brief. They will be able to face the cameras and field fast balls questions more easily than an imported PR person.
After a Harrier crash, about 10 years ago, the Wittering Station Commander gave an early press brief that was an exemplar of its kind.
Where the MOD often seems spectacularly inept is when the PR person is one of the professional PR heads. Excellent PRO may be, but often too generalist and therefore not as credible as the man at the front.
Examples of good, on the ground, PROs are the ones at Kinloss or in East Anglia although the latter is off somewhere hot, sandy and hilly very soon.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green Flash,
Michael was one of the 2 I cited above. He is on the ground. He works well with the ARRC, he works well with the media and he knows exactly how much to say and as importantly how not to say something.
Michael was one of the 2 I cited above. He is on the ground. He works well with the ARRC, he works well with the media and he knows exactly how much to say and as importantly how not to say something.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously some people have a better media persona than others, and one would hope that any organisation, including the MOD, would give some thought to this when selecting people for appointments that may involve media contact.
I don't think anyone has any real gripes with the motivation and intent of any of our personnel - it is the policy that is flawed.
For example, what Branson recognised was that the stakeholders in the aftermath of this incident extended well beyond those immediately involved, and included all potential passengers, not just on his services but on any operator's trains. He may have had commercial interests in recognising this, but I believe it is a model of what ought to be done, rather than what presently is done in our line of work.
In a modern, network-enabled military (where we all read PPrune, for starters), the stakeholders in the aftermath of an incident would include, amongst others, all operators of the particular aircraft type, operators of other types in the same theatre, the families and friends of anyone who might have been flying (or a passenger) in that aircraft - I mean, just look at the number of hits any thread on this topic gets on PPrune. The point is, it is not just the nominated next of kin of the people who were first on the scene who need to be 'looked after' by the chain of command. These interested parties are accustomed to being informed of the background to the issues that interest them within minutes, not days, weeks or even months. And the comparison with other organisations makes us look secretive, inefficient and erodes confidence - all bad things.
Open, honest reporting of accidents demands that information is accessible in a timely manner, to all who are interested in it, including the media, and not just the President of the BOI. Our present system uses the cloak of OPSEC to mask a systemic inefficiency in this area that is frankly, inexcusable.
I don't think anyone has any real gripes with the motivation and intent of any of our personnel - it is the policy that is flawed.
For example, what Branson recognised was that the stakeholders in the aftermath of this incident extended well beyond those immediately involved, and included all potential passengers, not just on his services but on any operator's trains. He may have had commercial interests in recognising this, but I believe it is a model of what ought to be done, rather than what presently is done in our line of work.
In a modern, network-enabled military (where we all read PPrune, for starters), the stakeholders in the aftermath of an incident would include, amongst others, all operators of the particular aircraft type, operators of other types in the same theatre, the families and friends of anyone who might have been flying (or a passenger) in that aircraft - I mean, just look at the number of hits any thread on this topic gets on PPrune. The point is, it is not just the nominated next of kin of the people who were first on the scene who need to be 'looked after' by the chain of command. These interested parties are accustomed to being informed of the background to the issues that interest them within minutes, not days, weeks or even months. And the comparison with other organisations makes us look secretive, inefficient and erodes confidence - all bad things.
Open, honest reporting of accidents demands that information is accessible in a timely manner, to all who are interested in it, including the media, and not just the President of the BOI. Our present system uses the cloak of OPSEC to mask a systemic inefficiency in this area that is frankly, inexcusable.
"All of the MOD PR/CM people I’ve met strike me as good people doing a very hard job trying to bridge the gap between two camps that understand little of the others needs or motivation. Could we do it better?"
You're having a laugh, surely?
All of the MOD PR people I’ve met are, as you suggest, undoubtedly good people (Do the forces have anything else?). However, PR is, or is often seen as, a bit of a career dead end - so they're not always the very best people especially in the most senior positions. And the job is, admittedly, not always an easy one. But it could be done very much better, very much more easily, as so many aircrew who do not have a formal PR remit demonstrate so effortlessly. When allowed to do so, most squadron and station commanders, to say nothing of the one stars and above, prove to be excellent positive communicators, and the PR folk inevitable serve only to get in the way and to hinder mutual understanding.
What the media need is not that hard to understand, and with the most cursory training, it ought to be possible for the dimmest PR officer to get their head around it! Nor is it that hard for a journo to understand the needs and motivation of our servicemen.
So why is service PR so badly broken?
The culture of MoD PR is wrong, for a start.
The purpose of the organisation should be to promote positive coverage and to enhance understanding of the military, and not to function as another arm of the political (New Labour now, but it was almost as bad before) spin machine.
It would be easy to blame the shift from uniformed leadership of the PR empire to Civil Servant, but with a few notable exceptions, the service DPRs/DCCs weren't much better.
No-one has any real problem with information being witheld in order to safeguard military security, but too often, the driver is the avoidance of political embarrassment, and in a democracy, that's not on.
When asked a question, the reaction should be to ask oneself "How can I help this person? How can I give him the most comprehensive and helpful answer to his question, as quickly as possible." and not: "How can I avoid answering this question? How can I avoid, evade and obstruct, and how long do I need to do that to make the question go away."
When asked a question, perhaps the sensible PRO would assess whether the questioner is broadly sympathetic (and thus more likely to be sympathetic, or even helpful) or hostile. The MoD has always seemed to prefer a couple of worthless column inches in a red top to a couple of paragraphs in (say) Flight. It has never seemed able to grasp who are its friends in the media, and who are its enemies.
Treating all media enquiries in an adversarial fashion only guarantees that relationships will become more adversarial.
As a result, most journos would agree that approaching DCC (RAF) or PR STC for help is the very last option, because it's so unlikely to yield a helpful result (or indeed any result at all in a meaningful timescale), and that circumventing the proper procedure (or even filing an FoI request) is far more effective.
"Could we do it better?"
It's hard to imagine how you could do it much worse. Certainly in my more than 20 years as a 'customer', it has never been worse than it is now.
You're having a laugh, surely?
All of the MOD PR people I’ve met are, as you suggest, undoubtedly good people (Do the forces have anything else?). However, PR is, or is often seen as, a bit of a career dead end - so they're not always the very best people especially in the most senior positions. And the job is, admittedly, not always an easy one. But it could be done very much better, very much more easily, as so many aircrew who do not have a formal PR remit demonstrate so effortlessly. When allowed to do so, most squadron and station commanders, to say nothing of the one stars and above, prove to be excellent positive communicators, and the PR folk inevitable serve only to get in the way and to hinder mutual understanding.
What the media need is not that hard to understand, and with the most cursory training, it ought to be possible for the dimmest PR officer to get their head around it! Nor is it that hard for a journo to understand the needs and motivation of our servicemen.
So why is service PR so badly broken?
The culture of MoD PR is wrong, for a start.
The purpose of the organisation should be to promote positive coverage and to enhance understanding of the military, and not to function as another arm of the political (New Labour now, but it was almost as bad before) spin machine.
It would be easy to blame the shift from uniformed leadership of the PR empire to Civil Servant, but with a few notable exceptions, the service DPRs/DCCs weren't much better.
No-one has any real problem with information being witheld in order to safeguard military security, but too often, the driver is the avoidance of political embarrassment, and in a democracy, that's not on.
When asked a question, the reaction should be to ask oneself "How can I help this person? How can I give him the most comprehensive and helpful answer to his question, as quickly as possible." and not: "How can I avoid answering this question? How can I avoid, evade and obstruct, and how long do I need to do that to make the question go away."
When asked a question, perhaps the sensible PRO would assess whether the questioner is broadly sympathetic (and thus more likely to be sympathetic, or even helpful) or hostile. The MoD has always seemed to prefer a couple of worthless column inches in a red top to a couple of paragraphs in (say) Flight. It has never seemed able to grasp who are its friends in the media, and who are its enemies.
Treating all media enquiries in an adversarial fashion only guarantees that relationships will become more adversarial.
As a result, most journos would agree that approaching DCC (RAF) or PR STC for help is the very last option, because it's so unlikely to yield a helpful result (or indeed any result at all in a meaningful timescale), and that circumventing the proper procedure (or even filing an FoI request) is far more effective.
"Could we do it better?"
It's hard to imagine how you could do it much worse. Certainly in my more than 20 years as a 'customer', it has never been worse than it is now.
Getting back on thread, it strikes me that Branson's core message was EXACTLY the same as what a military response to a serious accident would have been - that it was tragic and regrettable, that they would be doing everything in their power, and that it would be wrong to pre-empt the findings of any official enquiry.
What was different was the way in which he came forward and delivered the message pro-actively, and delivered a series of messages that promoted the idea that his organisation was committed to safety, and took all possible measures to enhance it.
Stepping up willingly and quickly to deliver difficult, bad news with apparent regret and apparent honesty immediately results in a bit of sympathy from the viewing public. He didn't look as though he was doing it under duress, as though he really didn't want to be there, and was giving as little information as he could get away withm and doing so grudgingly.
What was different was the way in which he came forward and delivered the message pro-actively, and delivered a series of messages that promoted the idea that his organisation was committed to safety, and took all possible measures to enhance it.
Stepping up willingly and quickly to deliver difficult, bad news with apparent regret and apparent honesty immediately results in a bit of sympathy from the viewing public. He didn't look as though he was doing it under duress, as though he really didn't want to be there, and was giving as little information as he could get away withm and doing so grudgingly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
W2
Agreed. I thought you might be refering to the RAF Kinloss media persons (again, don't know them but I'm sure they are on the ball; sadly, they have had alot of experience of the media recently) compared to MM at the ARRC. Hell of a job in the present circumstances, best wishes to them all.
Agreed. I thought you might be refering to the RAF Kinloss media persons (again, don't know them but I'm sure they are on the ball; sadly, they have had alot of experience of the media recently) compared to MM at the ARRC. Hell of a job in the present circumstances, best wishes to them all.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As pointed out by others, comparison between mil and civ incidents of this nature are facile. Civair and rail disasters are usually investigated by independent authorities with the power to impose their solutions on the situation, largely (fully?) irrespective of the commercial implications whereas mil incidents are obfuscated by security considerations and a lack of independence in the post-incident chain where "get the job done" is holy writ.
We can only hope (wouldn't wish such a disaster on someone once let alone twice) that we don't have an opportunity to compare SRB's modus operandi in a situation where his operations were at fault, such as if the A346 fuel incident had not ended up without damage to either persons or property. Instead I choose to assume that SRB would have been as forthcoming on that occasion.
SRB is also fortunate to have beem operating comparatively new railcars - not all current railstock in the UK might have survived this incident so well. Safety standards do evolve but normally for new vehicles, or sometimes for older vehicles given a mid-life update/rebuild, but unrefurbished older vehicles are usually grandfathered. One would hope that Nimrod MR4 for instance is being built to modern safety standards rather than those that prevailed for their predecessors.
We can only hope (wouldn't wish such a disaster on someone once let alone twice) that we don't have an opportunity to compare SRB's modus operandi in a situation where his operations were at fault, such as if the A346 fuel incident had not ended up without damage to either persons or property. Instead I choose to assume that SRB would have been as forthcoming on that occasion.
SRB is also fortunate to have beem operating comparatively new railcars - not all current railstock in the UK might have survived this incident so well. Safety standards do evolve but normally for new vehicles, or sometimes for older vehicles given a mid-life update/rebuild, but unrefurbished older vehicles are usually grandfathered. One would hope that Nimrod MR4 for instance is being built to modern safety standards rather than those that prevailed for their predecessors.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rural Somerset
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I must ask, are you so critical of the MOD PR machine because they are reticent to "reveal" all to yourself and your colleagues?
I do wonder as the Armed Forces, generally, are very often not treated fairly by the Press. The promotion of positive coverage and the enhancement of an understanding of the military, I agree, should be paramount. However, far too often, the Press home in on the most sensational aspects of a non-story and in effect undermine the mlitary. Conversely, there are may occasions when this is not the case.
I re-iterate the PCM organisation that exists within the MOD is sound. As I stated originally and others have commented upon, Virgin cannot be compared directly to the MOD in this instance.
Regards,
SJ
I must ask, are you so critical of the MOD PR machine because they are reticent to "reveal" all to yourself and your colleagues?
I do wonder as the Armed Forces, generally, are very often not treated fairly by the Press. The promotion of positive coverage and the enhancement of an understanding of the military, I agree, should be paramount. However, far too often, the Press home in on the most sensational aspects of a non-story and in effect undermine the mlitary. Conversely, there are may occasions when this is not the case.
I re-iterate the PCM organisation that exists within the MOD is sound. As I stated originally and others have commented upon, Virgin cannot be compared directly to the MOD in this instance.
Regards,
SJ
