The BBC has now run a day-long anti vaccination campaign. Possibly the most-viewed coordinated anti vaccination campaign in the world so far.
It centred around Novak Djokovic.
Here is a short thread on how it worked.
They got an 'exclusive interview' with Novak Djokovic, the #1 ranked men's tennis player, and the only man in the top 100 who has not taken a covid vaccine.
Everyone who pays attention to tennis knows his stance, but he quickly falls out of the news outside of major tournaments.
Then they filled their flagship morning news program - which they believe sets the news agenda for the day - with ads for their interview, running snippets from it continuously.
Other outlets copied the story, and it has trended all day on Twitter as a result.
Simultaneously, they ran the story as the main article on the biggest news website in the world.
They didn't simply run it as a regular article, they also added several secondary articles, and a 'timeline' of updates on a non-breaking news story.
And they ran this as a 'World News' story, not a sport story, displacing stories like the Ukraine/Russia update.
It is interesting to note that - despite the extremely heavy coverage - the story very quickly dropped to 3rd most read article on the BBC news. In other words: this was not a naturally 'massive' story - it was prompted to be read.
Alongside this, staff put out notes on social media running still more promo for the interview.
Some of these featured Amol Rajan, who fronts the interview, and is being pushed as a sort of next Piers Morgan - an editor/celeb interviewer who ideally becomes a celeb themselves.
Almost all of these articles ended with this 'call to action', urging people to watch the show at a specific time on BBC One, and linking through to the exact location where it can be watched.
If you've ever done much campaign marketing, you will know that trying to establish an idea requires a few things:
1. A message. 2. Proof points to make that message convincing. 3. Distribution, to create awareness. 4. Reinforcement.
This coordinated campaign contains all 4.
First - the message:
The story focuses on his unvaccinated status, and heavily amplifies his assertion that he is not 'anti vax', he simply isn't vaccinated. This message redefines the idea of 'anti vax', and prompts the idea it is simply pro choice, and a sign of determination.
Second the proof points:
Djokovic is a living 'proof point' himself - that you can be extremely healthy without the vaccine. He is an extreme outlier, the only top 100 mens player to be unvaccinated.
He does not represent the masses, he is way beyond the norm, but he is the perfect person to point to and say 'well he isn't vaccinated'. The main negative consequence he has suffered cannot apply to anyone else, and the BBC paints his stance as 'determination'.
Thirdly, distribution.
You cannot buy the top spot on the BBC news. It would be worth millionso, due to the huge number of people who see it, particularly first thing in the morning.
Radio 4 Today is similar.
The dozen+ articles and hundreds mentions of Novak today the same.
On top of that there are the secondaries it creates: copycat articles across all major news sites, trending on Twitter, extra mentions across gossip radio shows.
All of this leads to those central articles on the BBC, which in turn have a call to action to watch the interview.
And finally reinforcement through all that - repeated mentions, followed by a primetime BBC One show that goes into detail on his story: not he is the world's #1 tennis player, and he will remain unvaccinated, and that actually that is not 'anti vax', just pro choice.
And so that's how the BBC ran the world's largest coordinated anti vaccination campaign.
I'm not saying that the BBC intended it to be an anti vax campaign (I very much doubt that), or that it will be successful. I am simply saying that is what - in effect - it is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The ‘Assisted Dying Bill’ is on the front page of many newspapers, and at the top of most news websites today.
It may feel like it has got to this stage organically, but much of its success is due to an extremely strong marketing campaign from one organisation - Dignity in Dying - some in public, some less immediately visible, spending six figures on average each month to make it happen.
Whether you are for the Bill, or against it, it is worth knowing a little about how things like this work, and the influence of marketing on lawmaking in the UK today.
Here is a thread summarising just a few of the marketing tactics used to achieve this, from the outside looking in...
Firstly: What is 'Dignity in Dying'?
- Dignity in Dying is not a charity, it is a limited company. They do not aim to make a profit - instead they aim to use the money they make (some of which is large donations, some a few pounds each month) to change the law
- Dignity in Dying used to be called the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and changed names a number of times over their history
- In the last available accounts they spent over £100,000 average every month on campaigning to achieve Assisted Dying legislation
- They also have a ‘sister charity’ (Compassion in Dying). Many of the team, and the marketing experts on their boards, work across both of these organisations.
- At the same time Keir Starmer was elected PM, they appointed a new Chair who had worked directly with him for several years
- They are also behind much of the polling you see telling you how much people are in favour of Assisted Dying, and if you email the All Party Parliamentary Group on 'Choice at the End of Life', you are actually emailing Dignity in Dying
Without Dignity in Dying's work, it is likely the issue would not even be in parliament.
As one illustration of just how influential Dignity in Dying is, here is the information on the All Party Parliamentary Group on 'Choice at the End of Life'.
You may have seen the MPs listed here (red circle 1) talking about Assisted Dying. But: You have possibly not seen them explaining that their group's secretary, its point for enquiries, and essentially its funder (through benefit in kind) is Dignity in Dying itself.
I went to take a look at the 'Palestine' protest in London today.
I guess I've seen more than 100 demos of one sort or another in London.
Most banners at this one were from either Socialist Worker, or 'Friends of Al Aqsa', which was formed by the optician @Ismailadampatel.
I asked various people what the Socialist Worker/Palestine connection was and even some people carrying 'Socialist Worker' branded signs did not to know. The Socialist Party had various recruitment gazebos at the start of the route too, so I asked there.
It felt slightly odd that they were using a demonstration against military action in Palestine so explicitly to try and recruit new members.
The man on the stand said the link was 'anti imperialism', and they recruit there as people are open to anti-capitalist movements.
We decided to walk 'The Queue' today, but the wrong way: from the finish to the start.
Here is a short thread of photos, from the gates in front of Parliament Square back to the park in Bermondsey where people collect their wristbands to join the queue...
The exit is actually an odd spot - people leave, get asked if they're ok by Samaritans (a nice idea), and have to either force through the crowds of Whitehall, or wait to cross to the relative quiet of the square.
Here's the final outdoor bit of the queue - where people go through security, under the windows of Parliament, after they've looped through Victoria Towers Garden.
On the value of proof reading, and unintended consequences:
There is an NFT project called Azuki. A month ago it would cost you around 34eth to buy one, which at the time was about $100k. Even at the current lows of the crypto market, they were selling at 25eth a few days ago...
As the crypto market has hit a rough patch, one of the team decided to write an article to talk about ups and downs, and that the way out of a crisis is to keep building.
Obviously, they didn't get it proof read too widely.
The blog post revealed - which the writer seemed to think fine - that the team had been involved in several 'rugs' (projects where other people had invested cash, and the team had just abandoned the project, pulling the rug on it).