Stephen Temple

Rupert Murdoch has a reputation. It has been a key asset for him to raise money for his various ventures, secure great loyalty of his staff and get politicians to do his bidding. It has been earnt spotting and successfully putting to work technology opportunities. He rode the new computer driven print technology opportunity to revolutionise the printing of newspapers in this country. He had to face down  the fury of the print unions. The confrontation chimed perfectly with the values and agenda of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980’s. On the back of that political “kindred spirit” relationship he was allowed to ride a coach and horses through UK broadcasting regulations and use (mis-use?) a telecoms satellite to open a UK satellite broadcasting service.  Whilst other UK broadcasters had to compete for their broadcasting licences, often  had to pay the Treasury a lot of money and  pay again to meet various public service obligations – Murdoch wrote his own rules, granted himself his own national broadcasting franchise courtesy of the Duchy of Luxembourg (who had legal responsibility for the Astra satellite he used) and secured monopoly sports and film rights that many subsequently accused him of abusing. It was audacious. It transformed the UK newspaper industry and broadcasting industry. It added to his reputation…he was a force for change…modernisation…the wider public good. Brand “Murdoch” was elevated to such a level that, when combined with what many regarded as an over generous media concentration.. had UK politicians rushing to do him favours…often not even having to ask for them.

In the space of a mere 3 days following the 4^th July the huge Murdoch reputational power in the UK lay in tatters.

Many commentators have latched onto the “tipping point” model to explain this rapid turn of events. A slow build-up of public concern…then a few more public revelations…then a tipping point. My hypothesis is that the mechanism had more the character of an explosion than a tipping point. The explosion came about through a combination of combustible material piling-up, a fortuitous wind blowing public consciousness in a particular direction and… a single spark.  Any one of these elements alone would not have led to the News International reputation calamity but the combination was as lethal as it was unpredictable in its timing. Let us take each of these elements in turn.

For several decades there has been a large swath of middle England uneasy about the undue influence of the Murdoch press over the UK democratic process…but fragmented with no point of focus. More recently has been the build up a long list of celebrities, political and other public figures agitating for action on the suspected wider reach of the phone hacking practice…but not leading to any police action  The Liberal Democrats, sore with how News International always seemed intent on swaying public opinion away from their party were itching for redress….but the Vince Cable indiscretion muffed their best chance for this. The Labour Party saw an opportunity with the Andy Coulson link to keep taking a pop shot at the Prime Minister’s judgement….but none of it was sticking. Finally Jeremy Hunt’s decision process on whether to approve the News International bid for 100% ownership of BSkyB had united the entire non-Murdoch media in common cause to try and scupper the bid….but they were being out manouvred. Even the heroic efforts by the Guardian Newspaper to expose the cover-up going on were made to look like fringe rants… doomed to eventually run out of steam…and probably would have.

Why does a largely indifferent general public to all these concerns, blitzed over several years  with the various wrong-doings of the News of the World, suddenly become receptive to a mere half a dozen words more?  On the 23^rd June the trial of Levi Bellfield finished. There followed a storm of public outrage at the way the defence lawyer had treated the Dowler family. There was not a fair minded person in the UK that did not share the distress of the Dowler family. The winds were now blowing public consciousness in a very particular direction.

Eleven days later the Guardian Newspaper reported that Millie Dowler’s voice mail had been hacked and the hacker had deleted voice mails to make space for new messages.  Just one button pressed too many. Collective public memories can be short…but not that short.  Within hours the absolutely identical thought flashed across the mind of every single person in the country…this was wrong…it was despicable…it was criminal!

That was the single spark.

News International probably had 8 hours to analyse what was going on, build a counter-strategy and get moving on it before the evening‘s TV news bulletins. It took News International three days to deliver their counter-response. By then it was already too late… quite aside from the obvious flaws in the strategy. David Cameron and the Government had probably 2 days to sort out their options and come out fighting on the front foot. It took them 4 days. Ed Milliband came out of the blocks within 2 days…as a result… reaped a political dividend…in spite of having his own News International baggage. Here lays the lesson for all large organisations. It is not just doing the right thing but doing it fast.

Today’s’ communications technologies have the power and scope to amplify and propagate public outrage or passion with incredible speed and gathering momentum. Within hours of the Guardian Newspaper leading on the Milli Dowler phone hack…every broadcasting media outlet became saturated with thought leaders pointing the finger at the News of the World. Behind the scenes the Internet provided the fast back and side links…exponentially channelling the outrage of millions of people through FaceBook, Twitter and on-line campaigns. Mumsnet was particularly effective in channelling this outrage in the direction of large corporations who regularly advertised in News of the World. The Ford Motor car company led the stampede of advertisers declaring that they would not advertise in the News of the World until the issues contaminating the News of the World brand were cleared up.  The brand damage was savage and within a few days was irreparable.

It is impossible to overstate the long term consequences for the UK (most of them good) of these mis-calculations by News International and David Cameron. The Murdoch reputation fear factor…has shattered. It has gone. It will not come back. The impact on News International in the UK will largely be all bad…which is sad for those parts of the organisation that have been doing a very fair job and making a huge positive national contribution.

It is to be hoped that most large corporations do not have any skeletons rattling around in the cupboard of the sort News International has had. But reputational assaults can come from all sorts of surprise directions. The consequences can be to knock billions off the value of company shares in a matter of hours and do brand damage that could take years to repair. What can companies do to insure against this sort of reputational car wreck? A good start is to ask themselves some pertinent questions.

How many companies keep track of the various combustible material that might be stacking up around their particular neck of the woods? How many regularly follow public chat room comments about their companies or know how to tap into face-book and twitter campaigns at short notice? Do they have a social media strategy? How many companies have bright strategy thinkers on tap that can do an analysis and knock up radical costed optional responses…in less than 90 minutes?  How many have a contingent plan that can connect the handful of key company decision takers together in under an hour…where ever  they may be in the world?  Do companies even know if one of them moves out of mobile coverage?

Welcome to the new world of modern communications technology.