Posts Tagged MEPs
What did Pottering really say?
Pottering’s calm voice may be able to hide his emotions, but we found a nifty digital tool to unmask his true sentiments.
Wordle creates “beautiful word clouds” (their words, not ours) based on a text or website that one inputs. It identifies the most often-used words and makes them larger to show their repetition.
What did Pottering talk to the European Parliament about?

Parliamentarian's favourite conversation topic.
Public Affairs 2.0 should also face up to it’s own obsession. We clearly like the European Parliament as much as Mr Pottering, but the words ‘European’, ‘digital’, ‘public affairs’ are about the same size as Fleishman-Hillard.

FH talks about MEPs, European, Parliament and FH
European Parliament, digital and public affairs will get another tick in the word count next week when we publish a report on the use of digital tools by MEPs.
Add comment May 7, 2009
EP survey fever hits us (and may be you)
For those who have missed it, we’re conducting a survey of MEPs and their digital behaviour. We shall be launching the results on a dedicated micro-site in mid-May. Lots of interesting data (we are currently swimming in pivot tables) from the responses we’ve collated in recent weeks for both MEPs and their staff and the PA community in Brussels and elsewhere.
In case you are feeling that you just can’t wait another couple of weeks and you need a EU survey fix today check out EU Profiler
The survey seeks to tell you where you fit on the political group spectrum -for this former MEP staffer it underlined some of the voting tensions I have experienced in all the elections I have voted in. For my colleagues, there was something of shock that I was still where I started out on the political spectrum.
James
Add comment April 29, 2009
Which MEPs are Twittering? I know a few…
Following on from our digital audit of MEPS last year, we now want to know which MEPs have caught the Twitter bug…
These are just a few we’ve found so far:
- Graham Watson
- Matthias Groote
- Katrin Saks
- Benoit Hamon
- Eoin Ryan
- Neena Gill
- Arlene McCarthy
- Peter Skinner
- Jim Nicholson
- Mary Honeyball
- Andrew Duff
- Daniel Caspary
- Jules Maaten
- Jeanine Hennis
- Sophie in ‘t Veld
- Daniel Cohn-Bendit
- Åsa Westlund
- Anna Hedh
- Kathalijne Buitenweg
- Helga Truepel
- Colm Burke
- Joost Lagendijk
- Gunnar Hökmark
- Dagmar Roth-Behrendt
- Alexander Alvaro
- Jorgo Chatzimarkakis
- Richard Corbett
- Ed McMillan-Scott
- Rodi Kratsa
- Vincent Peillon
- Urszula Gacek
- Jean luc Bennahmias
- Catherine Trautmann
- Bernadette Vergnaud
If you have come across any, please let us know. We shall update this list as we get new names.
Rosie
P.S. As we mentioned in a previous post, the utility of Twitter is still not clear to us. We do find Daily Show host John Stewart’s opinion about Twitter quite humorous: “They’re struggling because they confused new with good.”
11 comments March 19, 2009
Ask silly questions in Brussels, get silly answers
An interesting article in this week’s Economist Charlemagne column on moves to increase the use of the public opinion polling comes to the opposite conclusion of our own thoughts on the same matter last year (when the move was mentioned in a Wallstrom communication). Perhaps journalists are more cynical than the bright eyed bushy tailed consultants round these parts? Or maybe we got misty eyed about the public affairs opportunities it could present , rather than distracted by the potentially opaque impact it may have on the EU’s often overplayed democratic deficit? (granted we were in DC at the time)
In any case, we too can suffer from a healthy dose of scepticism sometimes. We often get approached by organisations with regard to polling Brussels public affairs audiences for their views. Some want us to undertake a “perception audit” on their behalf, others want to sell us their own ability to poll MEPs through digital means no less. Some not too misty eyed thoughts follow.
Taking the first case, “perception audits” of Brussels public affairs can of course be extremely useful as a benchmarking exercise in measuring how effective your communication activities have been. Unfortunately, in many cases the “perception audit” is sought for all the wrong reasons. The objective is often unclear. Sometimes it is merely something to do for a lack of a clear direction. On other occasions because someone needs management “buy-in” for a course of action they already know to be correct.
If objectives are unclear so are the questions. When the perception of your organisation begins with how you conduct your perception audit this can be disastrous. Polling irrelevant MEPs on subjects that don’t interest them is only likely to lead to your reputation diving to new depths rather than ascending to dizzy new heights. Of course, unclear objectives and opaque questions lead only to confusing answers that move you along not one jot. We would advise against.
In the second case, polling MEPs sounds like a great idea. Especially if one had a panel of 100 MEPs all ready and willing to answer any questions asked, as one vendor has promised us recently. However, here our scepticism kicks in. Perhaps it’s just the issues we work on but in most cases our client’s issues are likely to be top of mind for anywhere between 5-15 MEPs. For the other 770-odd, it’s largely a matter of following the voting list. As Parliament is reliant on MEPs that specialise, do we need to know what a representative sample of MEPs think? The same holds true for corporate reputation raising. Do we care if we raise the reputation of our clients with decision-makers who are unlikely to ever take decisions affecting them? Probably not.
Interestingly for a company that does consumer PR as well as public affairs, MEPs do of course provide an interesting pan-European if somewhat unrepresentative sample of “opinion formers” or “elite consumers”. Perhaps our colleagues would like to survey them over their preference of washing powder? We can recommend a vendor who does it digitally at a reasonable price.
Add comment February 26, 2008
Should we all be going local? Focusing on public affairs’ triple bottom line as elections approach
Whether you are an MEP or a public affairs practitioner, after a while in the Brussels Bubble, there is a tendency to go native. Arcane, albeit clearly interesting, discussions about the boiling point of paint, the details of inter-institutional agreements or the latest spat between Commission services can take over from what real people (i.e. not us) care about.
Thankfully, elections are the pin-prick that our bubble occasionally requires. And while there are those who lament a lack of turnover in certain national delegations, we think it’s worthwhile considering what the upcoming elections in 2009 could mean for public affairs tactics in Brussels and how digital may help us be better advocates in the next year or two.
Firstly, there is of course the need to take into account in your current outreach that there may be members of the European Parliament or Commission that don’t intend to return come late 2009. If your issue is not likely to see its conclusion until post-elections, do you wish to spend your limited resources on people that won’t be around when the decision is taken?
Secondly, the elections are likely to see MEPs thinking more and more of their home base, as they worry about their own jobs as much as those of their constituents. This will not only shape their behavior here in Brussels (especially vis-a-vis their national confrères) but increase the likelihood that they spend their weekends gallivanting around god-forsaken parts of their home region.
As such, PA practitioners would be advised to think about recalibrating their own activities to take this into account. We’ve come up with what we may call PA’s triple bottom line for making your arguments have an impact:
- Principles - you should act in this way because it supports your stated political principles
- Policy - you should act in this way because it will get you to your stated policy objective
- People - you should act in this way because it will benefit the people that matter to you (your party, the people who select you or of course the people who elect you)
All successful arguments in Brussels tend to hit a sweet point somewhere between the three. But perhaps in an election year, the X on the map moves a little more toward the third?
So where does digital fit into all this? Well, how about Google Maps. Ok, it’s been around a while. But it could be a useful little tool to help us visualise the local connections of Brussels based actors with MEPs. We’ve started to use it to give a visualisation (pictures always speak louder than Excel sheets) of those members, on the right committees with the right interests, who could be supportive not only because they happen to come from the right country but also the right region or town for a particular industry or company. Sometimes one forgets that industry has a local impact on local communities as well. Even MEPs come from somewhere and it’s surprising how often they come from somewhere near you.
It’s amazing what a simple tool such as this can do. Once you get down to this level of granularity, you can start thinking about targeted communications at a local level in support of your Brussels advocacy. How about getting that MEP to meet your workers (read voters), helping to get him some local media coverage in the run up to the elections, motivating local influencers to express an opinion or indeed getting a few hundred people from where he lives to write him letters.
As MEPs’ attentions return home, so should ours. Digital can help us think about it.
2 comments February 18, 2008
EU Top of the Pops
A week or so ago we did a round up of the institutions, parties and MEPs we had found surfing the EUtube. We also mentioned a site we had come across called TubeMogul, which allows you to compile and contrast traffic to videos on YouTube and 8 other video sharing platforms. Well a week on we thought we’d share some of the graphs that the tool can create for you. It’s free of charge at present, after a simple registration process. You have to wait a day for your data but then you are off.
We have sought to keep it simple, so we’ve contrasted the traffic for the main three political European groups (sorry UKIP) since the last entry on the subject. Despite the prevalence of Socialist MEP bloggers it seems their group is a little bit behind in the video stakes.
You can also look at the cumulative numbers, which in the case above would show the ALDE with a commanding lead. Interestingly, once you have inputted the channels you can then drill down to see the breakout of traffic over time for individual videos on the channel. As we have done here for EUTube, which is the only one of the featured YouTube channels getting serious visitor figures.
Note that on Thursday last week the UEFA/Commission video on featuring armchair football, which incidentally is worth watching, managed to overcome our favourite “Come Together” Commission offering. A case of a vid going viral for a day – or simply lots of people at UEFA having a look? Finally, here is one for the MEPs, where iJules leads the field this week.
Add comment September 24, 2007












![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=eb89c252-d73b-4803-a64a-c89da42282f1)


Stubb invites open season on toys
Alex Stubb MEP’s post of yesterday invites blog readers to comment on his initial thoughts on the newly proposed revision of the toys safety directive. Will any industry actors take the challenge on this most engaging of issues?
Three challenges for industry actors spring to mind:
1) Who will take responsibility for posting the comments?
2)What will industry actors choose to say?
3) Will industry be too scared to engage in an open debate on an MEP blog?
Will anyone take the challenge and see this as a way of getting its views to the top of Mr. Stubb’s intray? We shall of course watch what happens with interest.
In any case, what the post does show is that Brussels public affairs practitioners should be monitoring MEP blogs for their views on issues that affect their organisations. They may see new threats emerge or indeed identify allies that they did not know existed. Another example? New blogger on the block Bill Newton-Dunn MEP posted about aviation issues just last week. Not his natural stomping ground at all.
1 comment February 29, 2008