For Europe’s biggest conservation charity, the RSPB, the added [Hang on! Added? Are you really saying that the RSPB did say that thing? If so, I bet they pinched it from me! Rotters! But seriously, just using that word ‘added’ has the effect of wrapping the preceding phrase around the RSPB – sneaky or poor use of English?] attraction of attacking the grouse industry [When has the RSPB attacked the grouse industry as a whole? Maybe it has; I guess it has. But surely not for being rich people shooting birds for fun (which they are and they do) but for damaging protected habitats and wildlife crime against protected birds – kind of what a conservation charity might be expected to do. And some of us wish the RSPB did it with greater enthusiasm] was that every time it did, it saw a surge of donations [Did it really? Things must have changed then. How does Abzed know this? And if true, it presumably shows that aspect of the RSPB’s conservation work is popular – a good thing for any charity working for public benefit. Only if the RSPB were misrepresenting the seriousness of the conservation issue could it be criticised here] . It portrayed itself as the protector of endangered birds [I rather hope it still does. Why the past tense? Not suggesting, are you Abzed, that you changed this in any way through your intervention? Bit rich if you are – sorry, mustn’t say ‘rich’; bit ‘poor’ if you are] against villainous gamekeepers [What percentage of all convictions for persecuting birds of prey are gamekeepers. Abzed? Look it up – most of them].
Sorry – this textual analysis is taking a while. Fun though isn’t it?
The RSPB claimed [Claimed? Why ‘claimed’ rather than ‘had’? But why past tense anyway? Why not ‘has’ because the RSPB does have over one million members, doesn’t it Abzed?] one million [More, I think – isn’t it now closer to 1.2 million?] members and this was giving it a remarkable power [Yes, isn’t it remarkable, in a democracy, that popular organisations have some influence with politicians because they can be seen to be representing a large constituency of views. It’s a long time since a bunch of Dukes from the British grouse industry ran the country – or maybe not. And again, why the past tense? Is Abzed claiming some impact here? It was all like this until Abzed intervened?] over the UK environment department [There isn’t a UK environment department – devolution happened a long time ago but your clients live somewhat comfortably in the past so I guess you, Abzed, must do so too] as well as over the police and wildlife crime prosecutors. For decades the RSPB was able to shape or block government policy without facing any scrutiny itself [Blimey! And I worked there for decades and never saw that happen. I must have been so blind. Of course the RSPB has some influence, but it has to fight for it against vested interests, well-funded lobbyists and high impact government and media relations agencies].
So a besieged grouse moor community [Poor old Dukes!] turned to Abzed. Our approach was to turn the spotlight onto the RSPB [not on to its arguments, but onto it?]. Our investigation of its shortcomings led to a flurry of hard-hitting media articles. The RSPB had been used to the media accepting its narrative in an uncritical fashion so our “You Forgot The Birds” website led to a panicked response from the charity. [!]
We also started bringing the RSPB to the attention of regulators. Following a series of letters the Charity Commission decided that the RSPB had made false marketing claims while the Advertising Standards Authority described its website as being “misleading”. This is leading to further legal and media initiatives with the former England cricket captain, Sir Ian Botham, acting as our chief spokesman.
It is very noticeable, isn’t it, that these two paragraphs don’t actually address anything that the RSPB had done wrong with regard to grouse moors. Rarely will a PR agency have tried to market itself on its own website by bigging up the fact that its approach was to attack the organisation for anything it could find rather than the merits of the case against its clients. Or have I misunderstood this as boasting about an ad hominem attack on the RSPB which had nothing to do with the merits of what the RSPB was saying about grouse shooting (although this case study doesn’t explain what the RSPB was saying)?
It’s quite an interesting way to sell your PR work, but obviously one which has appealed to the British grouse industry (sorry, the ‘besieged and impoverished’ British grouse industry). Go on, read the case study again and try to discern what the RSPB did wrong and what the approach of the Abzed campaign was.
And when you have, you might just want to teach the British grouse industry a lesson by asking government to ban driven grouse shooting by signing this e-petition which closes on Thursday and has already amassed over 31,000 signatures. Although, of course, the fact that driven grouse shooting increases flood risk, increases water treatment costs, increases greenhouse gas emissions, reduces aquatic biodiversity, damages protected habitats and is the source of much wildlife crime directed against protected birds of prey is a far better set of reasons.
[registration_form]
Did you see this on their website? Under Innovation.
Rbutt.com
This beta website is a response to the rising tide of junk science that pollutes policy making. Far too much low quality science is being reported by the media as if it was authoritative. Rbutt will enable panels of world leading scientists to write short critiques of forthcoming academic papers and then automatically send them to relevant journalists and policy makers.
I think many of us would agree that there is a lot of less than rigorous stuff being published but I wonder at the proposal to attack “low quality science” before it has even been published? This seems less than democratic. One wonders what “low quality science” is so important that it needs to be addressed in this way?
If this were intended to challenge any slipshod science and its use in policy making it would have value but the likelihood of that is very low. Rather, I suppose it will simply be a platform for attacking science that is inconvenient to ABZED’s clients whatever the quality of that science. As YFTB has demonstrated, it is very likely that the rigour of the rebuttals will be somewhat less than that of the claims they are rebutting.
As shown by the history of the tobacco industry’s response to the evidence that smoking is harmful to health (to name but one example), where multi-billion dollar industries are at stake truth is the first casualty in the rush to trash the reputation of those perceived to be a threat.
May I change tack slightly? Yesterday a comment was made that Inglorious was not sold by the RSPB. Thankfully, I can report (Rebutt) that if you go onto the RSPB bookshop and type in ‘Mark Avery’ Inglorious does indeed appear next to Behing the Binoculars.
I’m sure Owen will be as pleased as I am about that.
Paul – not as pleased as I am!
Sorry I got that completely wrong! It is very pleased to hear the RSPB is selling it. Thanks Paul
It is sad that the RSPB no longer want to educate children when they have books like ‘The Griffalo’ – A big seller compared to books that actually teach children about real wildlife! Money before education! What sort of society are they creating!
‘
Two weeks ago I tweeted about “the need to scrutinise every single word the grouse shooting industry vomits!”
Thanks Mark for demonstrating this point.
Mark, have you contacted Abzed with these comments? I’m not sure of the legal situation around being less than truthful on websites, but if they are given an opportunity to respond or correct and fail to take it then it will be easier and more powerful to use against them, and YFTB, in future.
In fact, isn’t what adzed is saying actually libellous? (Or is slander the right word, if it’s in print?) Open to legal challenge anyway.
If something defamatory is SAID, then it’s slander. If it’s WRITTEN, it’s libel.
Other way round, Dr Parry!
With a sportsman like Botham in the lead, it is interesting that Abzed are making it crystal clear they are going for the man, not the ball. That, as I’m sure Botham would acknowledge, is what you do when you are losing the game – or in this case the argument. And leading on from my comments about Lynton Crosby politics, this is just another , well recognised version and equally cynical and dishonest.
Abzed’s other clients seem, by proxy, to include President Putin (see http://www.abzed.com/preparing-to-meet-obama/) and each of the entries under ‘ideas’ starts with a quote from Lenin or Stalin. How odd!
Reading between the lines they’re angling to work with climate deniers too. Quelle surprise.
Abzed seem to seek out a client list whose agendas are indefensible on scientific or moral arguments, so they have to play dirty.
However their website comes across as a caricature of Westminster Lobbyists – the endorsements from the un-named corporation and also from a peer are quite absurd. And as for the picture of Lenin with the quote “Sometimes History needs a push”…
Might be useful to find out who works for them and who the company directors are. They are evidently driven by just one thing – money.
I was amused to see that in his latest self-aggrandizing charity walk in South Africa he donated a quarter of the monies raised to a charity working to protect the dwindling population of rhinos.
Is this irony or just rampant hypocrisy on the part of Botham?
I don’t understand why you think that is hypocritcal. The man’s views on the RSPB are idiotic but he claims to be interested in conserving wildlife so donating money to conserve rhinos doesn’t conflict with his publicly expressed views as far as I can see.
Personally I think membership organisations, such as the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts, are always going to be susceptible to misinformation campaigns by these sorts of lobby firms, working for Big Landowner and Big Business. I doubt the RSPB will toughen its stance. This is why I’m still convinced we need a different sort of campaigning organisation – a Campaign for British Wildlife or whatever – similar in style to the Environmental Investigation Agency. Willing and able to say it as it is, backed by evidence.
I’m sure there must be a reason that I couldn’t find ABZED or Ian Gregory on the register of Parliamentary lobbyists see http://registrarofconsultantlobbyists.org.uk/
And if you wanted to contact Ian on his website, here’s what it says about him:
“Ian started his political career by spending his pre-university gap year helping Margaret Thatcher with her weekly preparations for Prime Minister’s Questions. He then studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford before working as a journalist at the FT, the Guardian and the Independent. For seven years he was a senior BBC TV news producer during which he attended a G7 Summit and the World Economic Forum in Davos. He now runs Abzed’s political and media work.”
It sounds like I might have made this up to make him look like a posh rampant Tory but it’s all there on the website…
Whenever I doubt how stupid these people [the grouse moor/establishment complex] are, I look at their constant attacks on the RSPB…Its the one organisation which at the same time has long been aware how much damage is being done to predatory species on grouse moors but which has bent over backwards in its attempts not to alienate the establishment..Its as if they want to force the largest conservation charity in the UK to attack them. Are they completely mad?…Answer..Yes!