There was an interesting exchange on TV, on Question Time.
Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party was on the panel.
The BNP is an extremist fringe-fascist party.
The most contentious of their policies are openly racist.
The sort of thing that gives the right wing a bad name,
But whatever most people thought of their views, they had a legal right to be heard.
The interesting part for me was the opening exchange.
Apparently the BNP had hijacked Winston Churchill as a figurehead.
The questioner asked if everyone thought this was fair.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, answered first.
He made a big play of the fact that he’d been to France to see the war graves.
He lauded the patriotism of the fighting men.
There were around 500 graves from members of his constituency.
Half of those were white, and half Asian.
Non-whites had died fighting for this country’s freedom.
Therefore they should have the same rights here as whites.
Very fair point.
Jack Straw paid tribute to the patriotism and sacrifice of our soldiers.
And his constituents who’d been willing to lay down their lives fighting for democracy.
Fighting the Nazis.
Who were not unlike the party represented by Nick Griffin.
Jack Straw spent ten minutes extolling the virtues of the people who fought and died for Britain.
So far so good.
Then it was Nick Griffin’s turn.
He said, “Hang on your father was in gaol, for refusing to fight the Nazis, while my father was in the RAF, fighting the Nazis.
By your logic, honouring the descendants of the people who fought against them, I have a lot more right to claim to be anti-Nazi than you do.”
Now I don’t think anyone reading this is going to remotely sympathise with the BNP.
But the issue is, how dumb was Jack Straw to walk into that?
He appeared at best a dope, and at worst a hypocrite.
Why didn’t he have an answer prepared about the fact that his father was a conscientious objector?
Something like, “My father was prepared to go to gaol for his principals.
I don’t agree with what my father did, but I admire his courage.
Anyway, the issue isn’t my family, it’s whether the descendants of the people who died fighting for Britain deserve an equal place in it.”
Why didn’t he say something like that?
He’s a professional politician.
These sort of debates are what his job’s about.
Let’s give Jack Straw the benefit of the doubt for a moment.
Let’s assume he’s not a dope or a hypocrite.
What he did was underestimate the competition.
You see this all the time in sports.
Big, rich, powerful teams get complacent.
This becomes laziness.
They turn out against a really motivated underdog.
And they get beat.
It happens to ad agencies all the time.
You look at the pitch list and, alongside your agency, you see a great agency, plus an agency you never heard of.
So you concentrate on beating the great agency, and ignore the one you don’t think has a chance.
And guess who wins.
The lesson is that anything you’re not paying attention to, makes you vulnerable.
This is true in our daily advertising lives.
Lots of creatives grumble about the briefs, but don’t do anything about it.
They’ve accepted that they can’t change the brief.
So they get complacent.
They sit in their office and accept what they’re given.
I’ve never understood that attitude.
Why would you want to trust your career to someone else?
What if the account man, or planner, or media buyer is as bored and unprepared as Jack Straw?
That’s your ad you’re trusting him with, your career.
How will you know if he’s doing a good job or not?
You won’t, unless you take the time to find out about their job.
And you know what?
Like everyone else, they’ll try a lot harder if they know someone is paying attention.
Finding out about the market we’re in, finding out about strategy, how to write a brief, finding out about media.
That’s all the equivalent of preparation.
Straw didn’t prepare so he was vulnerable.
He was vulnerable so he lost.
It’s the same with us.
The same in any area we don’t know about, anything we’re not prepared for, anything we ignore.
That’s where we’re vulnerable.
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
Agree entirely Dave, and I said this to my wife at the time. Griffin had also left himself exposed here - Straw could have easily come back with a “you’re only interested in people’s past or family history whereas my party is interested in equality of opportunity/people’s futures/looking to the future” sort of line and it would have upped the ante on Griffin and moved the debate away from race per se onto the economic impacts of the BNP’s policies. A real chance missed.
Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies (competition) even closer.
If you are vulnerable to something and you know it, or think the prospect may be concerned about it - lead with it.
In the Jack Straw example - imagine if he used his vulnerability to his advantage, rather than waiting for it to blow up in his face or hoping that no one bring it up.
Jack Straw could have said “I’d like to mention that my father was a conscientious objector in the 2nd World War and although that has saddened me at times and people feel it reflects badly on me, in fact I am proud that he was courageous enough to stick to his beliefs even if I disagree with him, in the same way that although I disagree with Nick Griffin and the BNP I do believe in freedom of speech and his right to air his views, however unsavory to me and others they are.”
If you are worried about something when talking with a client or prospect get it on the table quick, show your vulnerability. People will tend to help you out and it will actually buy you some credibility.
To be fair to Jack Straw, the chairman, David Dimbleby, did step in and say “What has that got to do with it?”, when Griffin attempted to discredit Straw’s impassioned eulogy to the fallen.
Noam Chomsky says ‘If we don’t believe in freedom of speech for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all’. I’d also point out that with two Euro MP’s from the BNP, I think it’s time to ask why people (albeit a small group) are being swayed by retarded hate speech. Why the lurch to the fringe right?
Time to say the UK is a little bit rotten?
Re: Simon’s point:
Straw could have easily come back with a “you’re only interested in people’s past or family history ”
How could Straw have said that, just after he went on about ‘people’s past or family history’ fighting in France?
That’s what frustrated me the most about the whole show.
People weren’t refuting the idea that nationalism is a form of exceptionalism that is incompatible with the philosophy that all men/women are created equal.
All they were doing was arguing that Nick Griffin’s idea of ‘Britishness’ is incorrect, while their’s (fighting in a war/working your ass off here for 3 decades) was better and more tolerant.
Does anyone else see the blatant hypocrisy?
Vipassana style:
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2009/10/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-88.html
My favorite example from advertising is Carl Ally’s
response to the Avis campaign. The Avis campaign
rested on the line “Avis is Number 2, so, we try harder.”
When Hertz awarded the account to Carl Ally, one of the
great writers, Jim Durfee began the Hertz campaign with
the headline:
“For years, Avis has been telling you that they’re only number two.
Now we’re going to tell you why.”
Helmut Krone, of DDB and Avis fame said, “They went for the jugular
and found it.”
Jim Powell,
Certainly that’s what he should have done.
Instead he played right into the BNP’s hands.
My favourite answer there though was the woman who pointed out that under the BNP’s illegal membership policy Winston Churchill wouldn’t have been allowed to become a member in the first place!
The ‘my dad fought in the RAF while yours was in gaol’ bit was definitely Nick Griffin’s best moment. At that point I was worried he was going to have a great night. But the longer it went on, the worse he got. If I was a BNP supporter, I’d be mortified by his performance.
While we’re on the subject, out of all the billions of words written about Nick Griffin last week, I think (the writer/comedian) Peter Serafinowicz summed him up brilliantly in two words: ADOLF BRENT.
Check this out. It’s brilliant…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk
I think we tend to lump people into categories defined by where they were born, or went to school, or what job they do, or what their sexual preference is, etc, etc.
All of these “categories” have associated values and we often allow these to dominate or understanding of the individual person.
my grandad fought the germans…
yet he was the most bigoted old git you could ever meet.
similarly - being a person of colour doesn’t instantly make you racially tolerant.
and being a designer doesn’t necessarily make you creative, or give you good taste.
Except in my case.
During the recent US Presidential, one of W’s gangs made what seemed like a very smart rebuttal to Obama.
Think it was McCain who said something like “Obama seems more keen to debate with Bush than me”.
And he had a point.
But even so, people were sick of W, his nu-cular policies and other atrocities.
So even though McCanin had a point, few listened.
Racism begins with our families, parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, people we admire, respect and love.
However, as we grow and mature we come to the realization that what we were told by our family when we were children were slanted lies base on their prejudices. We realize that most people are like ourselves and not so different and want the same things, like a home, steady work, a Medicare plan and schools for our children (if you travel you will see this). We realize that most people are of good hearts and goodwill.
This reminds me of a parable from the good book where a Levite and Priest come upon a man who fell among thieves and they both individually passed by and didn’t stop to help him.
Finally a man of another race came by, he got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy and got down with the injured man, administered first aid, and helped the man in need.
Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the “I” into the “thou,” and to be concerned about his fellow man.
You see, the Levite and the Priest were afraid, they asked themselves, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?”
But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”
That’s the question before us. The question is not, “If I stop to help our fellow man (immigrant) in need, what will happen to me?” The question is, “If I do not stop to help our fellow man, what will happen to him or her?” That’s the question.
This current climate of blaming others for our woes is not new. We have had this before and we have conquered it.
Remember “Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing”. Raise your voices with those of us who believe we are equal and we can win this battle again.
saw this over on the old sell sell! blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk&feature=player_embedded
I think Jack Straw’s inability to respond to Sayeeda Warsi’s questions about immigration policy did the Labour party a lot of harm.
His lack of preparation was as dumb as Peter Mandelson wearing a £24,000 Patek Phillipe watch to speak at the Labour Party conference.
Not sure if it is dumb.
Or sheer arrogance, Dave.
Some politicians, especially those in 3rd world countries, are <> used to getting things their way, they don’t care.
And even if you floor them with questions what expose their stupidity, they don’t care.
Because they’ll either put you in jail or take legal action.
If the BNP didn’t exist then someone would have to invent them. There’s a lot of dissaffection in the communities they target and the simplistic, backward-looking story they sell appeals. In that sense they are representing peoples’ (ignorant, racist) views and therefore have an important place in our democracy.
There was a clear gap in the market and they’ve filled it.
We could always club together and send \Old Nick\ on a research mission with a one way ticket to Stalingrad with free entry to the gay nightclub of his choice.
this made me laugh. http://www.slapnickgriffin.co.uk/
That’s very funny Vinny
I was trying to work out how they did the edit after the slap.
Nice one Vinny.
The best horror movie I’ve seen in years.
Quote from ‘Old Nick’: \Your ideas are our ideas\
Now that IS a VERY scary thought for vulnerable minds.
Here’s another one.
The Rt Hon. Mr Mann MP appeared this morning on BBC breakfast TV,
and announced to the nation why there is such a problem with MP’s expenses as quote:
\…because we are incapable of sorting things out\.
My question: ‘So why are they running the country?’
A Conservative MP retorted that he was furious that Sir Christopher Kelly had publicised his report and leaked it to the BBC recommending ‘no family members and no second homes’ before any MP’s were debriefed.
Ahhhh: Sir Christopher Kelly runs the country.
Mr Mann’s comment explains three things:-
1. Sir Christopher was right to do what he did.
2. Why ‘Old Nick’ has decided to go on the campaign trail now.
3. Some MP’s frustrations at the incompetence of other MP’s to do their job.
According to the furious Conservative MP: \It’s a vocation\
Priests and monks have vocations. Salary NIL.
Personally I’m okay with MP’s having partners as pa’s because I believe there will be the possibility of many more embarrasing security leaks by unrelated third parties. Families don’t have a habit of shooting their own. Regarding freehold property, it’s a scam, and they’ve been found-out in a time when businesses are struggling to survive, and banks are pulling in the reins. However, if we take the \Your ideas are our ideas\ approach, \Old Nick\ is probably sitting there thinking ‘I like it’.
I like Mr Mann’s honesty.
That gains my respect more than anything else.
Hopefully other MP’s will follow his lead.
When I moved to NZ from London 15 years ago, I was struck by the sense here that NZ is a country with most of our history ahead of it whereas the UK has most of it’s history behind it. Arguments here tend to be framed in terms of now and future, very rarely in terms of the past. Why should the ethnicity of soliders who ‘died for their country’ over 50 years ago have any bearing on people’s right to be free from ethnic prejudice in 2009? What is the relevance of what Griffin’s or Straw’s fathers did in the war? It doesn’t give either of them greater moral authority.
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO READ THIS IF YOU DIDN’T READ ON ANOTHER POST:
I recently had the privilege of working with an organisation which assists people of varying disability. In preparing my recommendations, I researched best-practices for online ‘accessibility’.
I discovered that a unique font has been created by Fontsmith specifically for the visually impaired and people with other reading disabilities (primardyslexia etc.).
It is called FS Me. Visit http://www.fontsmith.com
This is how they describe the font on their website:
FS Me is designed to aid legibility for those with learning disability. FS Me was researched and developed in conjunction with - and endorsed by - Mencap, the UK’s leading charity and voice for those with learning disability. Mencap receive a donation for each font licence purchased.
That’s a great initiative. However, currently the font is only usable in print and can only be used online as an image-based element. In other words, it can’t be used as online text.
Isn’t that a great shame? So I am wondering this:
Is the font FS Me that much more helpful to those who need it most? If so, should the digital communications industry be lobbying to have it encrypted/encoded for internet text use?
I would love to know what has been done (if anything) and what can be done to make it happen.
It doesn’t make sense that the many government and charity based websites that need to be most accessible can’t use the text that is reputed to be the most legible.
Maybe it has already been debated and a conclusion arrived at. If that’s the case, my friends in the disabled access community are not aware of it.
I know that as long ago as 2003, Wired ran a story (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/10/60834) about a Dutch designer, Natascha Frensch who was close to releasing a similar font, called Regular Reader.
This is an extract from the article:
Without these enhancements, the traditional fonts used on the Web and in newspapers, books and magazines can contribute to letter-reversal errors and other problems commonly associated with visual dyslexia.
According to the U.K.-based Dyslexia Research Trust, as many as 10 percent of English readers have some form of dyslexia, a learning disorder thought to be caused by a combination of genetic, immune and nutritional factors.
Although most children have trouble with letter reversal when first learning to read, dyslexics often continue to have problems as they grow older.
“All beginning readers make letter reversals,” primarily before age 6, said John Stein, founder of the Dyslexia Research Trust. “However, 50 percent of child dyslexics at age 8 complain of visual problems including letter reversals.”
Stein believes specialized typefaces can help combat the symptoms of dyslexia, especially if the fonts are used in large print and do not have serifs, the tiny lines that project from the bodies of letters in many common type styles.
Currently, many dyslexia-friendly websites use the sans-serif Arial typeface. But like other potentially problematic typefaces, Arial uses similar forms for the letters b and d, p and q, and u and n.
Some organizations, like the University of Edinburgh Disability Office, have tried using the Comic Sans typeface instead. But the thick and asymmetrical characters that make up Comic Sans often are considered to be too whimsical for professional use.
However, if you go to Natascha Frensch’s own website for the font, she uses Microsofts Verdana, because her ‘more legible’ font cn only be used as a visual element. http://www.readregular.com/english/intro.html
There’s a lot of activity going on but no satisfactory results. dyslexic.com reports on efforts by Microsoft which fall short of best practice in terms of editable text online. Read about from this link.
http://www.dyslexic.com/articlecontent.asp?CAT=Dyslexia%20Information&slug=67&title=Typefaces%20for%20Dyslexia
They say:
Britain has two million severely dyslexic individuals, including some 375,000 schoolchildren. 10% of people using ‘Romance’ languages are coping with a reading difficulty. Dyslexia is a combination of abilities and difficulties that affect the learning process, displaying a wide range of difficulties. Dyslexia can occur despite normal intellectual ability and teaching, and it is independent of socio-economic or language background. The British Dyslexia Association
There has been growing innovation to combat dyslexia, especially for children, in the form of computer software. However, relatively little design research has been done in the area of typography and type design that might support dyslexics. Read Regular is a typeface designed specifically to help people with dyslexia read and write more effectively.
Read Regular aims at preventing a neglect of dyslexia, creating a more confident feeling regarding the problems that occur with dyslexia.
As I see it, the big online issue is as follows: most public sector and charity websites have a requirement for self content management. The WAI ratings are self-assessed as long as you follow the guideline. So achieving best practices is not only a variable, it falls short of the opportunity, given that there are fonts available that are more user-friendly than those available to the communications industry. I feel sure that it wouldn’t cost Microsoft that much to make one of these font available.
All you agency colleagues out there in WPP-land, have a word with your global client.