Like the collapse of the twin towers and the deaths of JFK or Princess Diana before, the presidential election of Barack Obama will likely forever be preceded by the question, ‘Where were you when you heard…’.

This cataclysmic shift in American politics has dominated televisions, newspapers, radio and dinner table conversations for almost a week, and is not expected to ease for some time yet. While I could easily write a books worth of commentary about the election (and no doubt hundreds have already begun) for the sake of this post I wanted to stick to two points I found particularly interesting.

Firstly, while I do not wish to take away from the magnitude of the event, I find it somewhat ironic that Australians were (and are) so much more invested (some might say obsessed) in politics on the other side of the world than those in our own backyard.

And I don’t comment on this as an outsider, for I too made firm friends with my refresh button as I waited for the votes to be tallied (thankyou, Crikey). But had you asked me to stay home and watch Aunty cover Kevin 07’s ascent to power just last year, I may very well have laughed in your face and/or run screaming in the other direction.

While the importance of our leader on the world scale is undoubtable smaller, it would not seem too much to hope that Australians would be more interested in politics on our shores than off. And yet so many of us aren’t. Voter engagement clearly remains a serious stumbling block, particularly (and forgive the blatant generalisation) for the largely apathetic youth.

Secondly, the standard of rhetoric from both men on Election Day was nothing short of impressive, even for a hardened cynic like myself. Obama in particular displayed an eloquence and emotion largely absent in Australian politics. Whatever your leanings, I suspect most will agree that both KRudd and little Johnny Howard fall well short in the oratory stakes.

Whether you choose to give credit to the man himself for the delivery or his speech writers for such inspirational words, you’d be hard pressed not to be moved by the obvious passion and dedication.

For everybody’s sake, let’s just hope Obama’s policies can meet the expectations set by his prose.

- Jacqui Flint

November 12th, 2008  |  by Jacqueline Flint Published in Events, In the News, Publicity

I went to a book reading/ Q & A session with author James Frey recently, which threw up some pretty interesting ideas on the media. Labelled by Time Magazine as ‘America’s Most Notorious Author’, Frey garnered international attention when it was revealed that his published memoir ‘A Million Little Pieces’ contained a number of factual inaccuracies.

An audience member asked Frey what he thought of the very public slamming he got in the US media. The interest was understandable given the nasty backlash he received - it’s not often someone can lay claim to the fact that they got trashed by Oprah. Then again, it’s not often you get someone like Frey, who simply commented that he ‘couldn’t give a f#$k’.

Frey went on to argue that he set out to write ‘a piece of art, a work of literature’ and as such shouldn’t be held to the same standards of factual accuracy as journalists or historians. A fascinating add-on was his comment (and I paraphrase) that the New York Times, which is so revered and regarded as the great purveyor of truth, printed many more lies about him than he ever did about himself.

The underlying premise was that the audience should (and does) expect journalists to stick to the facts, but authors should be afforded a more generous scope for creativity. Whether or not you agree with the latter statement, it was the former that most piqued my interest.

The fact is that most people inherently trust their chosen media sources and assume that what is written is correct. Don’t get me wrong, we may be sceptical when reading about Britney’s latest scandal or Brangelina’s septuplets in the trashy magazines, but I suspect we are somewhat less critical when reviewing the latest banking news in the Fin. While I am certainly not suggesting that the media has morphed into a bunch of bald-faced liars, I do believe that having ‘blind faith’ in the media can be dangerous.

In this day and age where information is so prevalent and accessible, I believe the onus has shifted from the publication to the public - it is our own responsibility to seek different viewpoints and make an informed decision. We can no longer stand up and defend the validity of our viewpoints by saying ‘but I read it in the paper, it must be true!’ Not that a pesky little thing like the truth has ever been known to get in the way of the dedicated soapbox crusader…

- Jacqui Flint

September 26th, 2008  |  by Jacqueline Flint Published in Events, In the News, Public Relations

Came away very impressed with Sandy Olsen, the Director of Corporate Communications at Carnival Australia who spoke at a recent IABC lunch in Sydney.

Sandy took up this newly created position at the world’s number one cruise operator in March 2007 with three weeks of the Dianne Brimble inquest to run.

She also had to contend with the unfortunate death of a 31 year-old Sydneysider who died during a cruise he had won as part of a Radio 2GB competition. Then came some of NZ’s worst storms that led to 1,200 cruise passengers on the Pacific Star being off-loaded in Vanuatu and flown home.

Hardly what you would call ‘smooth sailing’ for the start of a new job, hey?

Yet surprisingly, Sandy claims she “has the best job, in the best company.”

As she said, adversity creates opportunities for change and Carnival had little alternative but to learn its lessons if it was to re-build its business.

Such was the damage to the reputation of P&O as a result of the tragic death of Mrs Brimble, it had no choice but to look at every aspect of its business.  It was, according to Sandy, a very painful, uncomfortable and challenging process but led to many fundamental positive changes.

The real problem was the business had failed to keep pace with acceptable community standards.

Since changes have been made, Carnival has doubled the passenger capacity of its fleet, achieved double-digit growth, maintained its 50 per cent repeat passenger record and provided cruises to more than half a million passengers.

Interestingly, 70 per cent of those passengers are now couples or families, with the average passenger aged in their mid-40s.

And the lessons have been learned – Carnival no longer conducts ‘schoolies cruises’, any passenger under the age of 21 must be accompanied by an adult and the number of under 18 year olds are limited.

There is greater emphasis on child minding facilities as more and more multi-generational family groups now sail together.  And while the barman remains, there is also a barista on board, and with its new comprehensive wine list (39), passengers are encouraged to drink according to quality, not quantity.

P&O now leads the world in passenger safety and security.  It has introduced 500 CCTVs on board the Pacific Dawn, with each passenger now receiving a video along with their ticket to remind them of their responsibilities as a passenger at sea.

It is amazing what a committed board, CEO and corporate communications team can do to transform a business that must have come close to sinking after a proud history of 75 years.

It is just another example how when a crisis strikes, it’s about how a company responds which determines if that business will die, survive or, in some cases, thrive.

- Gordon Coulter

August 26th, 2008  |  by Gordon Coulter Published in Crisis Communications, Events