So, 16 years after we first opened our studio doors, whilst we've embraced TV, online and social media in our full broadcast offering, it's always encouraging to see research that confirms what we said all those years ago when we started banging the drum for radio PR.

Since those early days of our business, despite the launch of 24 hour news channels, and the growth of the online news distribution, more people still trust radio news (66% or radio listeners) compared to news websites (58 per cent of internet users) and TV news output (54 per cent of TV viewers). These latest findings are from Ofcom’s latest Media Literacy reports, which reveal the UK’s media consumption habits and attitudes.

More details can be found at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consumer/2010/05/uk-internet-users-becoming-more-security-conscious/

So, after a weekend of yet more conjecture having woken up on Friday to the news that no single party had won the election and that the exit poles appeared to have got it right, communication experts have begun to dissect the campaigns to look at where it went right or, more worryingly for some, where it went wrong and what lessons there are to be learned.

But what can we in the communications industry learn or, more to the point, be reminded of from this campaign?

As with many brands and organisations, the UK's political parties have tried to engage with an audience, build a community and deliver a call to action to ‘buy’ their brand i.e. to vote for them. One could argue that, collectively, they have done a very good job. Turnout was up and there were queues outside the ‘shops’ / polling stations of people keen to 'buy' one of them.

We’ve seen traditional marketing tactics deployed including above-the-line advertising. There has been print media editorial with some newspapers switching allegiances, point-of-sale with local sampling teams and broadcast, but what happened to Social Media?

It was only a few months ago that we were being told that this was the election where Social Media would take its place in influencing the political shape of the country in the same way perhaps Barack Obama’s campaign did in the US. However for me, with a vested and subjective interest, I will have to stand in the corner and raise my hand for the power of broadcast and how this media has, once again, shown its strength to influence.

For the first time we have had the Leader Debates, if we can describe them as such. I would argue they were more influential in mobilising an audience than the traditional TV ad of the party political broadcast. We can also analyse the debates themselves and the personal performances of the ‘brand spokespersons’ and draw conclusions and analogies to what we deal with day to day. There is no doubt they were effective in engaging an audience with a call to action to register and vote, but how much influence did each spokesperson have on us the electorate to 'buy' their brand? Nick Clegg most certainly used the opportunity to raise awareness for the Lib Dems and looks set to have a big say in the final outcome if the activity of the last few days is anything to go by.

As we all know, when you are dealing with a powerful media, its great when it goes in your favour but tread careful and be respectful to it, otherwise it can also work against you. One only has to observe Gordon Brown’s ‘gaffgate’ episode to see this in practice.

Rule one as anyone will tell you in broadcast is to assume the mic is live at all times until you are certain its been switched off. I watched with intrigue not only that moment unfold 'live' on television, but also as the TV cameras followed Brown into the radio studio to be interviewed by Jeremy Vine. This is a media which can mobilise itself very quickly and whilst being made aware of the recording and realising the severity of his comments, Brown importantly also realised the influence of broadcast media.

So whilst no one party can claim an outright victory, I hereby declare Broadcast the winner and a timely reminder of its power to influence.

It was only a few months ago that the conversation amongst commentators and marketing professionals was all about how this year's General Election was going to be the first influenced by social media, following the model of success used by Barack Obama in the USA.

However whilst one will acknowledge that yes social media is most definitely influencing our daily lives and those of customers and audiences, the election itself has also provided a stark reminder of the true power of traditional broadcast and in particular TV.

Whilst as an agency we have undertaken WebTV debates with the three main party leaders with excellent response, I do need to acknowledge the overwhelming power of the live TV debates. Nick who? a few months ago to now a genuine candidate who could yet have a big say in the final decision as to who is Prime Minister. What has interested me amongst all the goings on is the way the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg have mobilized the youth vote. Have they relied on social media; the media of choice for this age group?

As an observer with an interest in both media and politics I have been intrigued to see how they have used traditional methods to encourage young people to both register to vote and then show an interest. Was it Facebook & Twitter encouraging young people to vote or Nick Clegg . . . or was it the media playout i.e. the Live TV debates and his performance in front of camera? My view would be Social Media most certainly helped promote and bring it to the attention of many, but is was the performance and campaigning messages of Nick Clegg on TV that has potentially mobilized their audience to register and vote.

As I write this we are about to witness the second of the Live TV debates, and observers and commentators alike will analyze the performances once more and the tactics of each candidate to try and gauge what impact it has had on peoples choice of vote. At this point it would be good to remember we should be voting for our local MP and policy as technically we do not cross the box for who we want as Prime Minister.

So if we were to draw an analogy from the election to the world of commerce, does a strong orator and communicator automatically make a good leader ahead of their actual leadership or management skills. Is Richard Branson a better leader than Michael O’Leary?

One thing is for certain, the election has reminded us of how a strong interview on television can still have a huge influence on the masses.

PR Week published a story today stating that as UK businesses scramble to keep up with the demands of the internet, new research suggests radio remains much more influential. Their report about the 'Thought Leadership ­Index 2009', compiled by TLG and based on a poll of 1,000 opinion leaders consisting of chief executives and other business leaders, permanent secretaries across Whitehall and leaders in media and the public sector, found that radio had more influence than any other media on corporate reputation. Television came second and print third, while online languished in fourth place, with BBC ­Radio 4 Today programme being seen as having far more impact on a company's reputation than any other ­media title.

This latest research demonstrates what we have continued to champion, that of the power of radio and its closeness to its listener can translate in to trust and hence impact on a brands reputation.

However, it would be an oversight to not also consider the power of this same medium on a local and regional level and the fact that the same closeness that exists between a national programme and CEO's can also be seen with local presenters and its local audience. The distance between the radio and the listener is as close as ever and continues to present huge opportunities for organizations wanting that cut through amongst the ever increasing routes to our decision making process.

In this week's PRWeek - 2/5/08 - I was asked to supply a few words for their Financial Essays supplement, so for those of you who haven't got round to opening your copy, or have already had it stolen off your desk, here's my contribution - enjoy . . .

Power of the personal touch

What is the defining image of the Northern Rock crisis? Is it of a chief executive in calm control, clearly articulating a recovery strategy to camera? Or is it rather one of long queues of twitchy customers, snaking out of branch doors and down high streets, united in fear and concern about their savings and investments?

Without question it is the latter. The clarity of these pictures in our collective memory speaks volumes for the power of television coverage. The broadcast media went to town on the story and in the absence of a compelling response from Northern Rock, confidence in the bank was undoubtedly eroded far faster and further than would otherwise have been the case as news broke of its emergency loan from the Bank of England and criticism swelled relating to its high-risk expansion.

In Northern Rock’s case, a more focused broadcast PR strategy would not have averted the crisis but it may well have limited the damage. Of course corporations still need to communicate business stories to traditional outlets such as the Financial Times but in our age of 24/7 rolling broadcast news coverage and online video, other channels are equally effective at reaching investors and other key stakeholders.

Yet despite the capacity to deliver succinct messages backed up by strong visuals, all too often a broadcast media strategy is overlooked. Some research commissioned by markettiers4dc in 2007 found that just 3.4 per cent of companies use television to publicise their interim and annual results.

That’s a shocking finding when you consider that TV and the web – with its capability for streaming video – play such a significant part in a typical person’s daily media consumption. Investor Relations is no longer just about a few key individuals. Organisations must now be aware of how broadcast material can impact upon public confidence.

While Northern Rock foundered, US toy giant Mattel last year provided an object lesson in how to handle a crisis adroitly. Confidence in the corporation might have plummeted following a series of product recalls after safety concerns were raised about toys from Chinese suppliers.

However, Mattel tackled the adverse publicity head-on and a key part of its response was a video message from chairman and CEO Bob Eckert, carried on its website. Eckert apologised for the recalls, set out lucidly how Mattel had immediately tightened up its safety procedures and empathised with worried parents by pointing out that he was himself the father of four children. Clips from the video appeared on mainstream TV news bulletins and were spread virally across the internet.

The crisis hit profits but Mattel’s approach allowed it to see out the year in reasonably good shape. Despite being saddled with charges of approximately US $110 million related to the product recalls, Mattel achieved a minor lift in operating income for its 2007 financial year and a worldwide 6 per cent rise in net sales against 2006.

Using video messages and TV interviews can contribute strongly to bolstering corporate reputation and propping up a company’s share price. But clearly live TV interviews are more perilous than pre-recorded statements and many corporate comms teams will advise their CEOs against participating in them for fear that they will make a mistake or appear flustered, thereby undermining confidence in a brand or organisation.

Yet it is those chief executives able to perform well in front of the camera and who understand the TV medium that will prosper. For example, Sir Richard Branson is known to one and all, thanks in part to his willingness to appear before the cameras – in both good times and crises. Few CEOs can match Branson’s appetite for self-promotion but those that are prepared to engage with the broadcast media will enhance the profile of their company and arguably their own personal job security.

One current example of a company adopting such a positive approach is National Grid. Chief Executive, Steve Holliday announced National Grid is to adopt carbon budgets and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. Working alongside their retained corporate agency to drive awareness of National Grid’s pioneering stance on energy saving, markettiers4dc produced and released controlled audio and video news features of the Chief Executive to targeted broadcast media.

Of course, for the viewing public ‘live’ interviews are not necessarily watched in real time. As exemplified by technologies such as the BBC’s iPlayer, on demand viewing and listening is becoming more significant in media consumption. Rajar research earlier this year found that 4.3m people in the UK have downloaded a podcast, with 1.87m people listening to podcast once a week; while Motoral research last year found that 43 per cent of UK broadband users watch webTV.

Consequently, producing engaging video content that will work well on the web is assuming increasing importance. Video content can draw stakeholders onto corporate websites, allowing corporations to tell their side of the story eloquently. Moreover, it can provide influential input into wider debates raging across the blogosphere and social networking sites.

Businesses ignore such voices at their peril. HSBC, you may recall, was forced into a U-turn on its decision to scrap an interest free overdraft for graduates after nearly 5,000 graduates signed up to Facebook group Stop the Great HSBC Graduate Rip-Off. In this era of consumer power and investor activism, corporations cannot hope to flourish if they ignore effective communications channels and techniques.