Comms voices: Tom Fletcher

Tom Fletcher CMG spent four years as foreign policy adviser to three Prime Ministers and four more representing the UK as Ambassador to Lebanon.

He led reviews of British diplomacy for the UK Foreign Office and on the future of the United Nations for the UN Secretary General. His book on the future of statecraft, The Naked Diplomat: Power and Politics in the Digital Age was published by Harper Collins. In 2018 he co-founded The Foundation for Opportunity. He is a Visiting Professor at New York University, and chairs the International Advisory Council of the Creative Industries Federation, promoting Britain’s most dynamic and magnetic sector overseas.

Here, he tells Harpswood about the communications strengths of the different PMs he worked with, the pros and cons of Zoom and why it’s getting easier to pick out phoney communicators like Donald Trump.

HW: You have worked with some amazing communicators. Who stood out for you and why?

TF: UK diplomats have had to become much more active communicators over the last decade. The best are those that can combine authenticity, engaging content and a sense of purpose. Karen Pierce (Ambassador in Washington) has a unique, charismatic style. John Casson (ex Ambassador, Cairo) found a way to reach millions by combining his excellent Arabic with videos that showed he really connected with people’s lives. Of the PMs I worked with, Tony Blair was great at setting out the dividing lines of an argument and then simplifying it; Gordon Brown could communicate moral heft; and David Cameron was strong on giving an opposing position and then challenging it.

HW: Tech has transformed communication in the last 20 years. What has been the most important change in that period? And what has been the biggest danger caused by those developments?

TF: Social media has upended everything we thought we knew about communicating and campaigning. The danger I didn’t properly anticipate when I wrote the book was the extent to which it could be weaponised by the Trumps and Putins.

HW: What do you think is the next big transformation in comms coming around the corner?

TF: I think there will be a backlash against overload and people will seek more high quality, curated content.

HW: With all the communications channels now available, how can individuals, businesses or organisations cut through the noise?

TF: Too often they are polishing a turd. Often in government someone would say ‘we need a better comms plan’. Often what we needed was a better policy. I think it is better to start by identifying your purpose, and then show how that connects to greater equality of opportunity. If it does, you can create compelling content. If it doesn’t, you’re struggling.

HW: You played a leading role in changing how diplomats communicate by fully engaging with social media as well as traditional media. How should innovative businesses leaders communicate in 2020? Should they be on TikTok or stick to appearing on business podcasts?

TF: I think it depends on the individual. What are they good at? What is their personal brand? I’d advise against getting hung up on the specific platform. In my review of the FCO, I recommended that fewer ambassadors join social media – there is no point forcing it if it is not your style.

HW: Which business or organisation has been effective in its communications in recent years and why?

TF: In the diplomatic space, the anti-poverty campaigns at the turn of the century were pioneering and extremely effective. They transformed comms. But we then got kind of stuck in that approach. You now need to be less top down, embrace the anarchy, and be prepared to ride waves you weren’t expecting.

HW: Some businesses and organisations bury their heads and hide away when it comes to communicating. Are there risks to that insular approach?

TF: Depends on the business. For some they have little choice. But I think that will be increasingly difficult to justify. Social media makes people more sceptical and more demanding. If you can’t explain in simple terms what you do and why, you will find it harder to survive.

HW: Coronavirus has obviously had a huge impact on how we communicate – from the rise of video conferencing to (perhaps) the death knell of the handshake. Do you think this has changed how we communicate forever?

TF: It’s odd for diplomats to imagine fewer human connections and the end of handshakes. But it is a reality. The challenge with online comms – Zoom etc – is not necessarily with people with whom you already have a rapport. Much harder is connecting with those you have never met in the flesh.

HW: A quote that’s been attributed to American comic George Burns (and others) is “The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” How easy is it to pick out inauthentic communication?

TW: Easier and easier. I think and hope that Trump and his ilk are the last yelp of that insincere and untrustworthy way of communicating, and that they immunise us against future leaders who want to sell the snake oil of hatred and extremism as a panacea for the genuine challenges people face.

HW: Is there a business/organisational use of jargon that irritates you? Is there any place in communications for jargon?

TW: In diplomacy I have waged a long campaign against phrases like “warm bilateral relations”. Meaningless platitudes that turn people off.