December 15, 2025 • 35 mins
What can political campaigns teach business about communication?
In the last episode of Brenda, You’re on Mute for 2025, communications experts Rakhee Verma and Heather Deland break down modern political communications and translate the lessons to be learned by business. From the UK Government’s chaotic and reactive, vision-free messaging to the standout campaign success of Zohran Mamdani, New York's Mayor-elect, they explore what and how to cut through.
And the importance of data, data, data.
If you want to read more about Rakhee's advice to the Government, click here: Why are the UK Government’s communications so cr*p?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
Brenda, you're on mute.
This is Brenda, you're on mute, where we give the side eye to business, work, and thewider economy.
I'm Heather.
(00:30):
Welcome to this episode of Brenda, You're on Mute.
We are talking today about political communications.
You might be wondering why that is relevant to business, but it will all become clearthrough the episode.
Just for those of you that don't know us very well, I thought we'd just give 30 seconds onwhy we feel qualified to talk about political communications and any other type of comms.
(00:59):
Heather, I'll start with you.
Well, I have had a foot in both worlds and I won't do your intros for you because so haveyou.
I have done a fair amount of political campaigning, so I've got to see how that works onthe back end.
But my career has been as a copywriter and creative director working for agencies whereit's been my job to align creative messaging to stuff like a media strategy.
(01:26):
And so you are doing targeting.
You are
splicing audiences and you're trying to get action out of them.
So you also do that in politics.
It's very different.
But I think what we're going to look at is what can these spaces learn from each other?
Absolutely, 100%.
(01:47):
So yeah, my background, although I didn't start my career in comms, the last 10 or 15years has very much been marketing and communications for largely the private sector, but
also international organizations like the UN and other charities, third sector typecommunication.
And actually, Heather, you and I have done a reasonable amount of political campaigntogether.
(02:11):
So we do have.
some insight into what we're talking about.
So we're keeping it kind of easy breezy in this discussion and we picked an example each,didn't we, of political communication.
Mine being one that I think is more negative, but still something that everybody can learnfrom.
(02:31):
And then Heather, we have you holding up the rear with more of a message of dynamism andhope at the other end of the podcast.
So should we get the more...
critical and negative assessment out of the way first from me and then you can help to endeverything in a more joyful and positive way.
How does that sound?
(02:53):
So earlier on this year, back in the summer, I wrote an article for LinkedIn, which wasactually quite well received and got a reasonable amount of traction with the world.
The article itself, which we'll share in the show notes is called, Why are the UKgovernment's communications so
crap.
(03:14):
And the reason I wrote it is because as soon as the Labour government was elected, I keptgetting messages from people saying, well, asking this question, first of all, why can't
they communicate properly?
And when I was going to go and help them sort it out.
So the offer still stands.
So Keir, whenever you need someone to come in and give you a bit of a reality check, I'mhere.
(03:38):
I thought we'd just talk through some of the points that I
made in that article.
think you did read it for me.
In fact, I think you might have proofread it for me and given me some editorial advice onit.
So Heather, before I launch into my assessment of it, what do you think of what you'veseen from the government so far in terms of how they're communicating?
(04:01):
They seem always to be on the back foot, I think.
They're in like a crisis response mode constantly, which does not make sense to me giventhe electoral mandate that they had when they took office.
You would have thought that they would have been in a really good place.
They took office against a backdrop of blatant Tory failure and they've somehow managedto, I think they have in a very short space of time squandered the goodwill of the public.
(04:30):
because of that lack of clear messaging.
So I feel like instead of talking about, like I'm gonna be really crude, but I feel likeyou saw Rishi Sunak standing at a podium with a sign that said stop the boats and that's
terrible.
But what the Tories I think were always able to do would be like, pick a message, pick abruise and punch the bruise again and again and again.
(04:54):
And I get it, I think labor are in power trying to solve a lot of problems.
But instead of having a,
clear message, which we as sheeple kind of need to hear like a single message that we keepdrumming.
Instead of that, it's like, somebody didn't pay the right tax on their property andsomebody's in trouble with their foreign relatives and etc, etc.
(05:16):
So it feels like it's constant crisis management comms rather than let's take a brandedposition.
Let's come up with a campaign slogan, and then let's just keep drumming that home.
That
that for me is missing.
I know it's too simplistic and it's what we do in business and advertising for likeconsumer purposes, but actually I feel like I am no Tory, but the Tories were able to
(05:42):
leverage that those kind of tactics weren't they and it worked and they had publicsentiment for a long time even while they were failing.
I don't think labor is failing as bad as it sounds like they are, but because their commsis so off,
Their public perception is just awful.
Sentiment, as we would say in the agency branding world, sentiment is on the bottom floor.
(06:05):
It's a disaster, actually.
It is a disaster and every day seems to bring a new disaster.
my assessment, and this is what I wrote about, kind of macro assessment of it all is thatthere doesn't seem to be a clear overarching vision for the country from our prime
(06:28):
minister.
And therefore, if that were my chief exec and I was the comms director, I'd be going back.
to my chief exec or my prime minister and saying, I can't communicate chaos, can'tcommunicate ambiguity, can't communicate reactively.
Like we've got to have a vision to work towards because until you have that, none of yourcomms is going to be effective.
(06:53):
And that is what I see happening.
How do I recognize it?
Because so many clients I've worked with, so many organizations I've gone to work for,where they've asked for me to help.
you know, improve their marketing and communication.
This is sometimes the issue that the senior leadership team has not sat down and done thehard work in terms of what is the direction of travel.
(07:16):
So for me, that is one of the key issues is there just doesn't seem to be a clear vision.
I think the other problem that the government has is they don't seem to be able toarticulate anything positive.
anything positive at all.
(07:37):
there are some really good things happening in terms of what the Labour government hasintroduced since they've been in power.
But all of the chaotic mistakes have just overshadowed it.
I think they came in very much on a doom and gloom kind of ticket.
Like, this is really terrible.
(07:57):
They won because
They had an opposition that everybody just wanted to get rid of.
So I don't think they did have a massive Monday.
I think it was protest votes against the Conservatives, which is already a tricky way tostart your governing.
And they basically told us it's going to be doom and gloom from now until forever more.
(08:17):
And with every budget that's announced and every speech that's given, it's just becomingmore and more doom and gloom.
So I think...
my macro kind of assessment of it all is that no overarching vision and a very negativeset of messaging.
(08:38):
The other thing that I'll mention and then I'll shut up and give you back the floor for abit is the fact that nobody seems skilled enough, either in the comms team or in the
government, to be able to reframe the national conversation.
So
We have allowed the far right, the hard right, whatever you want to call them, the rightof politics to determine what the narrative is.
(09:07):
And nobody seems to be skilled enough or have the leadership or courage to say, actually,no.
Let's have an example.
Immigration is actually really good for the country.
I was listening to James O'Brien the other day.
He was talking about how net migration has dropped from something like 800,000.
to 200,000 and that is a nine billion pound loss to the economy.
(09:32):
Like, why isn't anyone talking?
It's a problem.
problem that it's too low, but that's not what we hear.
And I agree.
I think that you were struggling far right.
What kind of right?
Let me just call them fascists.
The fascists.
This is me talking not Rocky.
You can decide what you call them.
I'm going to call them fascists.
(09:53):
The fascists are so singular about what they're saying.
Non-English people are the problem.
Non-English people are the problem.
Every single day.
It's always blame the immigrants.
You know, it's always that.
what's the contrary message to that?
It should be hope.
It should be we're all in it together.
It should be stuff like that.
That's lofty philosophical.
It should be really low hanging fruit for labor to be able to talk about that unity.
(10:16):
And what do we get instead?
We get Keira Stommer saying, we've become a nation of strangers.
It's like, wow, well done doing Nigel Farage's press briefing for him.
There are some errors like that that this leadership is making just astonished me.
I just think you are someone who had a high flying career as a lawyer.
So that means you professionally had to stand up in front of a judge and make logicalarguments.
(10:42):
You have to be highly intelligent to do that.
And yet here you are saying we're a nation of strangers.
So
Weirdly, the only thing I think that Labour has been consistently messaging about is thefar-right agenda.
It's so weird.
Well, just to kind of bring it back out of politics and why this is relevant to anyone orgive an example for business.
(11:04):
It's basically, you know, saying that you have, there are two of you, there's Pepsi andCola or whatever the equivalent is in your industry.
You're one of them.
And instead of trying to create a point of difference between the other, you're justmimicking what they do.
And people are going to go, well, I actually prefer Pepsi or I prefer Cola.
So
(11:24):
You're trying to mimic this.
I'm just going to go and get the real thing.
So it just doesn't work.
It's not a very effective communication strategy.
And also it's not the truth.
instead of having their own USP unique selling point like you would do in consumerbranding, I think you're exactly right.
They've looked at that and gone, uh fascist populism is getting, they're having a reallygood result with public sentiment with their message.
(11:48):
So we're going to adopt the same message.
It gives us all an example that we see in the news every day of why it's really importantto do your research, figure out what you stand for, figure out what you stand for that is
unique.
that the rest of the competition doesn't stand for and then nail that message again andagain and again.
And they're not doing any of that.
(12:11):
one of the other issues I think I have with the government's communications at the momentis that it feels like they're really using a very outdated playbook in terms of how you
target people.
So back in the days of Alastair Campbell, who has evolved with time in terms of how youcommunicate effectively in 2025, they're still using the same kind of comms playbook.
(12:36):
because it worked for the Blair and Brown campaigns and government.
And it doesn't work anymore because we have social media now.
the thing about Alastair Campbell was he wanted that very strict message discipline.
And it worked at the time and you need to have the same message discipline, what audienceswant now, whether they're consumer or voters or whatever they are.
(13:00):
is to see some authenticity.
And also the places where people go to get their news, to learn about new products, youknow, where they're targeted by consumers is not the press, is not the radio necessarily
anymore.
You know, the new and emerging technologies, which I just don't think the government hasembraced.
(13:23):
Now, we've got a 60 something prime minister, so he might be of a type.
that doesn't know how to come across in a super engaging way on TikTok, for example, butNigel Farage does.
This is a problem.
(13:44):
This is gonna be a problem.
So I think these old fashioned ways of communicating where, and sometimes I listen to theinterviews as well, like both of us have done, given a lot of media training and coaching
to people.
And sometimes when they could just say no without any backlash or yes to an answer, theystill don't choose the simple option.
(14:05):
It just really kind of bemuses and surprises me.
it's okay to be yourself.
It's okay to, you know, be a bit rough around the edges.
I think that's fine these days.
People don't mind it so much.
But yeah, I see that as quite a major issue and I don't think you could make Keir Starmera TikTok star.
(14:26):
I don't think that's ever going to happen.
But then find the people in your cabinet who you can send out and be good messengers.
when, when liberals become TikTok stars, I'm thinking of somebody like Nick Clegg where wehad this Clegg mania.
It's like, how on earth did that, that one I could not for the life of me, consider myselfa comms expert.
I, for the life of me, I can't explain to you why that happened.
(14:47):
Just a nerd that everybody took a shine to.
Okay.
I don't know.
Someone examine that for us and let us know what your theory is because I don't get it.
Um, there's something about, I think,
the sheer simplicity and stubbornness of right-wing messaging that seems to always work.
then because it happens in the US as well with Democrats, why is it that when you'retrying to have a message that is one of inclusion or hope or progressiveness, that why is
(15:18):
it that it always seems to be so woolly?
Is it that there's something about the liberal mindset that makes us so fair-minded thatwe say something and then
We realize that other opinions are welcome, so we kind of half undermine what we've saidbefore we get done.
Is it that it's easier to be single-minded if you are right-wing?
(15:40):
It's a theory that I have.
I don't know what it is to be honest.
think it's a bit of left-wing liberal snobbery.
We're maybe bit better educated.
We feel the need to be more convoluted in our speech.
I I come from a very working class background.
I know you do as well, We grew up in communities where people were quite straight talking,not refined.
(16:04):
So maybe we find it a little bit easier to do.
I've dragged myself into the middle classes in my career.
guess you have as well.
So maybe we do use slightly more convoluted speech with other professionals, but I don'tknow.
Is it a bit snobbery?
I don't know.
It's annoying.
I find it really annoying.
Why, every time if you watch the Sunday shows where the politicians go on, you just think,how hard is it to answer a question in a direct sort of way?
(16:33):
So no, it's apparently it's impossible.
apparently it's impossible.
So something's going really wrong in the kind of coaching of people when they're going outand talking because this is not, I mean, if you look at the populist right and the
populist left, so you've got Zach Polanski is an example of someone now who's absolutelycutting through for a very small party, he's on the media all the time.
(16:56):
He is a really, really effective communicator.
And I should say that
Us saying people are effective communicators are not endorsements of their policies oranything because they're not.
But for Farage or for Polanski, there are no endorsement of any policies here.
It's just that they are managing to break through and...
(17:18):
It's just an observation on my part, right?
The only people I've praised for being good communicators so far on this podcast arefascists and Tories.
You know I don't vote that way, but they're on message, aren't they?
They are on message, they are on message and there is a kind of authenticity to what theytalk about.
(17:38):
So my final point on this and then we'll talk about something a bit more positive becauseit's much more fun to talk about your example.
My final message on this is the major kind of gap I see in the comms strategy for thegovernment at the moment is they have not focused on their target audience.
So I think the reason they're tanking in the polls is because even their own base hasabandoned them.
(18:04):
So Boris Johnson, you know, he still had reasonably decent poll ratings because his partymembers, his MPs, his voters were still supporting him no matter what he did.
Same probably goes for Liz Truss.
And you can't say the same for the prime minister at the moment.
It's the lowest poll rating, I think, ever.
(18:26):
And that's because
They're just not targeting their own audiences, the people that support them.
So be that your party members, be that the electorate who either voted for you becausethey were really passionate about voting for Labour or they voted for you tactically.
That was a key audience, let's say a key consumer base to build on because they're warmcontacts.
(18:48):
They voted for you tactically so they didn't think you were an abhorrent choicenecessarily.
Or maybe they thought you were the...
you know, the least worst option.
But those are the people that I would be targeting if I were a business and saying, let'ssee if we can keep hold of them.
Let's give them a reason to believe because they put their trust in us for this oneelection.
(19:08):
But it's not that you don't focus on people that don't vote for you or you don't focus onconsumers that are not buying from you because obviously you do.
But maybe you want to go for that repeat business first.
I mean, that's just my kind of
assessment of it, what do you think?
Well, I think you have to be tailored.
(19:31):
If you're a politician, specifically not for business, I think what we look for is apolitician for all people.
So you need to take office and go, I'm here to deliver on the promise for the people whovoted for me and for the people who didn't vote for me.
I'm going to be your prime minister as well.
And, you know, give me a chance.
(19:52):
think like whatever country you're in, no matter
how the election went, if it was a landslide or not, I think every gracious goodpolitician needs to take office with that exact same stance of, thank you for your votes
and for those of you who didn't vote for me, I'm going to look after you too becausethat's my job, I'm the leader.
And then I think in that sense, the channels that you use in politics are very differentand we have broadcast media and that's probably the primary way that politicians
(20:19):
communicate.
So it's very, very different within business.
And I think that's part of the reason why it's so important that when you're on broadcastall the time, that you do have a consistent message that's up here that you want everyone
to hear again and again and again.
And then you need to pick your channels for the specific stuff.
for me, it's a channel question.
(20:41):
you'll be seen in the press every single day and you can't change your agenda to suit thepeople who didn't vote for you.
but that is what this current government is doing.
I think they're going for this like...
vocal minority, like everyone's trying to go after the same anti-immigration pool ofpeople.
Meanwhile, there's all these other tens of millions of people in the country who areprobably could be captured by a more traditional kind of labor message.
(21:12):
So I don't know.
It feels confused.
Sorry.
what they stand for and they need to stand for something different.
It's back to the Coke and Pepsi problem.
They're like, oh, racism seems popular.
Let's say that we're on island of strangers.
It's nuts, but it's where we're at.
mean, do you disagree?
Racism seems popular.
Let's put some St.
George's crosses, put our St.
(21:35):
George's cross pants on every day.
So, you know, I think it's really simple that
We want them to tell us clearly what they stand for and we would like them to stand forsomething unique and different.
But instead, it's like we have a choice of what color fascism we want and that's thechoice.
That's crazy.
That's not a consumer marketplace, is it?
(21:58):
I don't think so.
Okay, so to sum up my points really and how this is relevant to any comms directors whomight be listening and thinking, okay, I've got to write next year's comms strategy, where
do I start?
Start with the overall vision.
If it's not clear, go back to your stakeholders and say, the vision is not clear, I can'tcommunicate this.
(22:20):
uh Challenge, manage upwards, do whatever you need to do.
I think it's...
time to radically review the channels that you are using and go to where the audiences arebecause it's not really in the press anymore and less and less in broadcast media
especially if you're trying to target younger people.
(22:42):
Find the best communicators in your organization who are the most authentic and able tospeak simplistically and not in a kind of convoluted way that
most people can't engage with.
Although I'd say most consumer businesses are pretty good at doing that.
They're probably ahead of the game than service type businesses, which is where I'veworked for most of my career.
(23:07):
And just be radically focused on your audiences, like segment them, as you said, and makesure that there is a positive, clear vision for what you're expecting from them in terms
of the transaction between you and your organization.
So
Yeah, shall we talk about something a bit more positive and exciting that we've all beenfollowing with more passion and verve?
(23:31):
let's talk about Mom Donnie and let me make that transition by saying there is adifference between what a politician needs to do when they're aspiring campaigning versus
what they need to do when they are in power.
I'm not a PR expert and I don't claim to be.
And I think once you're in power, it's a PR game that you're playing.
(23:53):
And I would not presume to necessarily give people strong advice on how
That should be, although I think they're losing the PR game, I would never look at aruling politician and ever really say a business has something to learn from them because
it's a whole different thing they're trying to achieve.
But I do think there are instances where a business can learn from the way thatpoliticians campaign.
(24:18):
Because when they're campaigning, they have a call to action, which is vote for me.
They have to segment their audiences.
They have to target.
If they're smart, they will.
And that's how you win.
so I think if I was going to say, our podcast is about observing stuff in the world andthen bottling that as communicators and providing it back to business to go, here's some
(24:39):
advice that you can learn from this case study.
I would never give the case study of any really politician in office.
It would be, what do do in their campaign?
Going back to our experiences that we've had together running campaigns.
for someone trying to get votes.
I had worked in advertising maybe for 20 years when I first did an on the ground campaign,maybe 15 here.
(25:05):
And I was astonished at the quality of data.
Incredible.
Street by street, house by house, knowing the sentiment of those people.
it's very unusual that you would ever get that quality of data input when you're in abusiness.
How do we gather data when we're working for clients?
(25:26):
Often it's focus groups, purchase data, stuff like that.
So it is laborious.
It's a mirror, I guess, of the canvassing door to door.
But if you look at the success of Ma and Donnie, Ma and Donnie, goodness, if you look athis success, I think it's twofold.
You've got what we see up front, charming social media guy, know, his branding was handpainted.
(25:53):
burro-centric, really resonated with working class immigrant younger.
So not being a typical politician and breaking the mold.
But here's the thing, I'm sitting here saying, yeah, Mom Donnie was on message and he wasvery charming.
But I wouldn't doubt that what I saw in my feed was a different video than the one you sawin your feed.
(26:16):
And that's because the data was so good.
They went and they looked at really street by street
What do these people really want?
And they can say, this neighborhood, most people are really worried about household bills.
Here, it's the cost of childcare in NYC.
Over here, everybody's worried about transport costs because they're all having to gosomewhere else to work and it's costing them a fortune.
(26:41):
These people are worried about ICE and the rise of fascism.
You might look at that and go, my goodness, how am I gonna, like, those are such differentmessages.
Now, anytime I'm in any broadcast channel, if I'm talking about childcare, I'm going tolose the household bills people or I'm going to lose the people that are worried about
fascism.
Well, guess what?
It's not about that.
Did Mom, Danny go on the late night shows?
(27:03):
Sure.
But what you'll see from him is anytime he's in a broadcast situation, the message isbroad.
It's hope.
I'm going to bring people together.
We're going to be more successful way up here all the time.
Anytime you saw him talking about those other messages, where was it?
It was in social media channels where you can hyper target and you can work to persona.
(27:27):
And that is what the really smart, really good advertisers are doing now.
It's almost like I've still kind of in 2025, you can still turn on the TV and see like aseven figure Christmas advert that's been produced.
And I think who does that anymore?
Everything.
(27:49):
people's sentiment and their uh propensity to act is moved within social channels, as youwere saying earlier.
This is where it all happens.
And if you can do it, the best possible thing you can do is get really deep data aboutyour audience, set your personas, align really specific messaging, putting up a hierarchy
(28:12):
that only talks about the thing that that person is most important to them and target themwith it.
This guy got elected totally against the odds, totally against all the machinery,investment and money.
And if you're a business that's trying to do more with less, like we all are, data is yourfriend and low cost pay per advertising like what you get in social media.
(28:35):
if you can target it properly, is also your friend.
So I don't want people to think that just by, say, just like being, giving kind of broadmessages of hope works.
He was myopically focused on the cost of living and that was what you're, this is what youmean about the message of hope, that he's going to do something about the cost of living,
(28:58):
which affected most people in most boroughs across the city.
Just to get back to your point about saying that you don't necessarily give examples of
politicians who have won their campaigns of positive examples of how they are governingand communicating.
But I think Sadiq Khan has absolutely nailed that in terms of an ongoing campaign forhowever many years has been made now, which is so slick.
(29:25):
Like it started with the London is Open staff, to remember.
they have, he has consistently
managed to carry through the message of his campaign into his governing and I'm sure it'swhy he keeps getting re-elected.
So that was just an example I wanted to point out but I yeah there aren't many others Ican...
(29:47):
a really good example.
And I did very boldly say I wouldn't look at the way anybody governs and recommend it froma cons perspective.
But you are right as a Londoner.
I have my thoughts about him, but he does seem to almost continue to campaign, which Ithink is maybe a part of a good PR strategy that you do a little touch of campaigning and
(30:07):
ongoing outbound cons, right?
Which is another thing.
I know it's going back to politics, but it's another thing that the government
isn't doing, they've stopped campaigning completely.
They are now just constantly in PR response back for mode all the time.
Yeah.
So what are my thoughts on the Mamdani campaign?
(30:28):
The other thing I should say is that he is kind of a unicorn in terms of how well he cancommunicate.
Like he just has it, whatever it is, he just does.
You know, I'm not surprised people make comparisons to Obama because it's the same kind ofspark.
And Blair had the same thing.
You know, he was just humorous, engaging, you know.
(30:51):
obviously so ridiculously smart, you know, can think on their feet.
And that is not something that exists in every political party.
It's a personal gift.
that.
And yeah, mean, Trump even has a crush on him now.
So that's something.
This is true.
So I think what you have to do is, you know, if you've got an organisation is go and findthe Mamdani's.
(31:18):
They might not be the most senior people because we're always like pushing board directorsand senior people to go out and talk.
And sometimes they're not the right people.
You might have a superstar way further down the food chain.
I remember a while ago, I think it was
like one of the rail companies had let some kid do work experience on the channels.
(31:38):
Do you remember this?
He was like a kid in his teens.
was doing the social media.
He'd stepped in to do it for a day or so and just had the most brilliant, heartwarming,amazing responses to the customers.
So much so that I think they asked him to come back.
So you really have to go and find the stars because some people, particularly youngerpeople,
(32:02):
They just instinctively know how to use social media.
So I think they shouldn't be overlooked.
So I think Mamdani, he is 33 years old.
He's very much that generation that's grown up with TikTok and Instagram and YouTube.
Yes, he's a very, very good communicator, but I think he instinctively knows what works.
(32:24):
He's obviously got a brilliant team behind him as well, but.
I think what I would say is he is a brilliant communicator, but he stands atop the data.
But you don't feel like that because of the way he delivers it.
And so if you aren't like to validate what you're saying, go and find the superstar.
Maybe they're an 18 year old intern.
Brilliant.
(32:44):
They don't need to do everything and have your entire business strategy.
But if you let them with their charm stand atop the data, then you can stay on message.
What you can do in social media if you have data is brilliant.
Data plus charm though?
That beats all as...
data plus charm.
Well, that's probably a, that's probably a good place to wrap because I think data pluscharm.
(33:07):
Yeah, that's our advice to you going into your 2026 communication strategy.
This will be our last episode before the Christmas and New Year break.
So Heather, a little message from you to our, I don't know how many listeners we have.
Let's pretend we have thousands.
uh To our millions of listeners!
I my message is that we're always learning.
(33:30):
I can easily allow myself to watch events occurring in the world and think, good Lord, isit Armageddon?
if you, some philosopher said, you have to reframe everything and say, what if this wasfor me?
And so I'll take it all the way to that level to go, well, what if this is somethingthat...
(33:51):
Yes, we have to endure, what if it's something that we can learn from?
And I think that's what this podcast is about, is to go watch events unfold and it's adisaster or it's not a disaster, but there's always something to learn from it.
Cheesy, but that's why you got an American as your partner.
Yeah, no, that's good.
I don't think I can top that really, other than saying a thanks to anyone who has botheredto download and listen to us and our little ramblings over the last few months.
(34:19):
And yeah, we'll cook up some more ideas over the festive period after a little brain restand hopefully we'll be back bigger and better in 2026.
So, and thanks Heather for being my co-partner.
You're a...
fucking amazing person to be doing this with, so thank you.
It's great fun
So yeah, happy Christmas everybody.
(34:39):
We'll see you in the new year.
Take care.
Render Your Own Mute is hosted by Rakhi Verma and Heather Deland and produced by TigrisConsulting and Mediation.
Editing is done by Rakhi, so if it's crap, it's because she's Indian and would rather diethan outsource something that technically could be done for free.
(35:00):
Theme music is by The Mountain on Pixabay.
Please follow, rate and review because laughter is cheaper than therapy and much moreeffective than HR.
See you next time.
Brenda, you're on mute.
This is Brenda, you're on mute, where we give the side eye to business, work, and thewider economy.
I'm Heather.
(00:30):
Welcome to this episode of Brenda, You're on Mute.
We are talking today about political communications.
You might be wondering why that is relevant to business, but it will all become clearthrough the episode.
Just for those of you that don't know us very well, I thought we'd just give 30 seconds onwhy we feel qualified to talk about political communications and any other type of comms.
(00:59):
Heather, I'll start with you.
Well, I have had a foot in both worlds and I won't do your intros for you because so haveyou.
I have done a fair amount of political campaigning, so I've got to see how that works onthe back end.
But my career has been as a copywriter and creative director working for agencies whereit's been my job to align creative messaging to stuff like a media strategy.
(01:26):
And so you are doing targeting.
You are
splicing audiences and you're trying to get action out of them.
So you also do that in politics.
It's very different.
But I think what we're going to look at is what can these spaces learn from each other?
Absolutely, 100%.
(01:47):
So yeah, my background, although I didn't start my career in comms, the last 10 or 15years has very much been marketing and communications for largely the private sector, but
also international organizations like the UN and other charities, third sector typecommunication.
And actually, Heather, you and I have done a reasonable amount of political campaigntogether.
(02:11):
So we do have.
some insight into what we're talking about.
So we're keeping it kind of easy breezy in this discussion and we picked an example each,didn't we, of political communication.
Mine being one that I think is more negative, but still something that everybody can learnfrom.
(02:31):
And then Heather, we have you holding up the rear with more of a message of dynamism andhope at the other end of the podcast.
So should we get the more...
critical and negative assessment out of the way first from me and then you can help to endeverything in a more joyful and positive way.
How does that sound?
(02:53):
So earlier on this year, back in the summer, I wrote an article for LinkedIn, which wasactually quite well received and got a reasonable amount of traction with the world.
The article itself, which we'll share in the show notes is called, Why are the UKgovernment's communications so
crap.
(03:14):
And the reason I wrote it is because as soon as the Labour government was elected, I keptgetting messages from people saying, well, asking this question, first of all, why can't
they communicate properly?
And when I was going to go and help them sort it out.
So the offer still stands.
So Keir, whenever you need someone to come in and give you a bit of a reality check, I'mhere.
(03:38):
I thought we'd just talk through some of the points that I
made in that article.
think you did read it for me.
In fact, I think you might have proofread it for me and given me some editorial advice onit.
So Heather, before I launch into my assessment of it, what do you think of what you'veseen from the government so far in terms of how they're communicating?
(04:01):
They seem always to be on the back foot, I think.
They're in like a crisis response mode constantly, which does not make sense to me giventhe electoral mandate that they had when they took office.
You would have thought that they would have been in a really good place.
They took office against a backdrop of blatant Tory failure and they've somehow managedto, I think they have in a very short space of time squandered the goodwill of the public.
(04:30):
because of that lack of clear messaging.
So I feel like instead of talking about, like I'm gonna be really crude, but I feel likeyou saw Rishi Sunak standing at a podium with a sign that said stop the boats and that's
terrible.
But what the Tories I think were always able to do would be like, pick a message, pick abruise and punch the bruise again and again and again.
(04:54):
And I get it, I think labor are in power trying to solve a lot of problems.
But instead of having a,
clear message, which we as sheeple kind of need to hear like a single message that we keepdrumming.
Instead of that, it's like, somebody didn't pay the right tax on their property andsomebody's in trouble with their foreign relatives and etc, etc.
(05:16):
So it feels like it's constant crisis management comms rather than let's take a brandedposition.
Let's come up with a campaign slogan, and then let's just keep drumming that home.
That
that for me is missing.
I know it's too simplistic and it's what we do in business and advertising for likeconsumer purposes, but actually I feel like I am no Tory, but the Tories were able to
(05:42):
leverage that those kind of tactics weren't they and it worked and they had publicsentiment for a long time even while they were failing.
I don't think labor is failing as bad as it sounds like they are, but because their commsis so off,
Their public perception is just awful.
Sentiment, as we would say in the agency branding world, sentiment is on the bottom floor.
(06:05):
It's a disaster, actually.
It is a disaster and every day seems to bring a new disaster.
my assessment, and this is what I wrote about, kind of macro assessment of it all is thatthere doesn't seem to be a clear overarching vision for the country from our prime
(06:28):
minister.
And therefore, if that were my chief exec and I was the comms director, I'd be going back.
to my chief exec or my prime minister and saying, I can't communicate chaos, can'tcommunicate ambiguity, can't communicate reactively.
Like we've got to have a vision to work towards because until you have that, none of yourcomms is going to be effective.
(06:53):
And that is what I see happening.
How do I recognize it?
Because so many clients I've worked with, so many organizations I've gone to work for,where they've asked for me to help.
you know, improve their marketing and communication.
This is sometimes the issue that the senior leadership team has not sat down and done thehard work in terms of what is the direction of travel.
(07:16):
So for me, that is one of the key issues is there just doesn't seem to be a clear vision.
I think the other problem that the government has is they don't seem to be able toarticulate anything positive.
anything positive at all.
(07:37):
there are some really good things happening in terms of what the Labour government hasintroduced since they've been in power.
But all of the chaotic mistakes have just overshadowed it.
I think they came in very much on a doom and gloom kind of ticket.
Like, this is really terrible.
(07:57):
They won because
They had an opposition that everybody just wanted to get rid of.
So I don't think they did have a massive Monday.
I think it was protest votes against the Conservatives, which is already a tricky way tostart your governing.
And they basically told us it's going to be doom and gloom from now until forever more.
(08:17):
And with every budget that's announced and every speech that's given, it's just becomingmore and more doom and gloom.
So I think...
my macro kind of assessment of it all is that no overarching vision and a very negativeset of messaging.
(08:38):
The other thing that I'll mention and then I'll shut up and give you back the floor for abit is the fact that nobody seems skilled enough, either in the comms team or in the
government, to be able to reframe the national conversation.
So
We have allowed the far right, the hard right, whatever you want to call them, the rightof politics to determine what the narrative is.
(09:07):
And nobody seems to be skilled enough or have the leadership or courage to say, actually,no.
Let's have an example.
Immigration is actually really good for the country.
I was listening to James O'Brien the other day.
He was talking about how net migration has dropped from something like 800,000.
to 200,000 and that is a nine billion pound loss to the economy.
(09:32):
Like, why isn't anyone talking?
It's a problem.
problem that it's too low, but that's not what we hear.
And I agree.
I think that you were struggling far right.
What kind of right?
Let me just call them fascists.
The fascists.
This is me talking not Rocky.
You can decide what you call them.
I'm going to call them fascists.
(09:53):
The fascists are so singular about what they're saying.
Non-English people are the problem.
Non-English people are the problem.
Every single day.
It's always blame the immigrants.
You know, it's always that.
what's the contrary message to that?
It should be hope.
It should be we're all in it together.
It should be stuff like that.
That's lofty philosophical.
It should be really low hanging fruit for labor to be able to talk about that unity.
(10:16):
And what do we get instead?
We get Keira Stommer saying, we've become a nation of strangers.
It's like, wow, well done doing Nigel Farage's press briefing for him.
There are some errors like that that this leadership is making just astonished me.
I just think you are someone who had a high flying career as a lawyer.
So that means you professionally had to stand up in front of a judge and make logicalarguments.
(10:42):
You have to be highly intelligent to do that.
And yet here you are saying we're a nation of strangers.
So
Weirdly, the only thing I think that Labour has been consistently messaging about is thefar-right agenda.
It's so weird.
Well, just to kind of bring it back out of politics and why this is relevant to anyone orgive an example for business.
(11:04):
It's basically, you know, saying that you have, there are two of you, there's Pepsi andCola or whatever the equivalent is in your industry.
You're one of them.
And instead of trying to create a point of difference between the other, you're justmimicking what they do.
And people are going to go, well, I actually prefer Pepsi or I prefer Cola.
So
(11:24):
You're trying to mimic this.
I'm just going to go and get the real thing.
So it just doesn't work.
It's not a very effective communication strategy.
And also it's not the truth.
instead of having their own USP unique selling point like you would do in consumerbranding, I think you're exactly right.
They've looked at that and gone, uh fascist populism is getting, they're having a reallygood result with public sentiment with their message.
(11:48):
So we're going to adopt the same message.
It gives us all an example that we see in the news every day of why it's really importantto do your research, figure out what you stand for, figure out what you stand for that is
unique.
that the rest of the competition doesn't stand for and then nail that message again andagain and again.
And they're not doing any of that.
(12:11):
one of the other issues I think I have with the government's communications at the momentis that it feels like they're really using a very outdated playbook in terms of how you
target people.
So back in the days of Alastair Campbell, who has evolved with time in terms of how youcommunicate effectively in 2025, they're still using the same kind of comms playbook.
(12:36):
because it worked for the Blair and Brown campaigns and government.
And it doesn't work anymore because we have social media now.
the thing about Alastair Campbell was he wanted that very strict message discipline.
And it worked at the time and you need to have the same message discipline, what audienceswant now, whether they're consumer or voters or whatever they are.
(13:00):
is to see some authenticity.
And also the places where people go to get their news, to learn about new products, youknow, where they're targeted by consumers is not the press, is not the radio necessarily
anymore.
You know, the new and emerging technologies, which I just don't think the government hasembraced.
(13:23):
Now, we've got a 60 something prime minister, so he might be of a type.
that doesn't know how to come across in a super engaging way on TikTok, for example, butNigel Farage does.
This is a problem.
(13:44):
This is gonna be a problem.
So I think these old fashioned ways of communicating where, and sometimes I listen to theinterviews as well, like both of us have done, given a lot of media training and coaching
to people.
And sometimes when they could just say no without any backlash or yes to an answer, theystill don't choose the simple option.
(14:05):
It just really kind of bemuses and surprises me.
it's okay to be yourself.
It's okay to, you know, be a bit rough around the edges.
I think that's fine these days.
People don't mind it so much.
But yeah, I see that as quite a major issue and I don't think you could make Keir Starmera TikTok star.
(14:26):
I don't think that's ever going to happen.
But then find the people in your cabinet who you can send out and be good messengers.
when, when liberals become TikTok stars, I'm thinking of somebody like Nick Clegg where wehad this Clegg mania.
It's like, how on earth did that, that one I could not for the life of me, consider myselfa comms expert.
I, for the life of me, I can't explain to you why that happened.
(14:47):
Just a nerd that everybody took a shine to.
Okay.
I don't know.
Someone examine that for us and let us know what your theory is because I don't get it.
Um, there's something about, I think,
the sheer simplicity and stubbornness of right-wing messaging that seems to always work.
then because it happens in the US as well with Democrats, why is it that when you'retrying to have a message that is one of inclusion or hope or progressiveness, that why is
(15:18):
it that it always seems to be so woolly?
Is it that there's something about the liberal mindset that makes us so fair-minded thatwe say something and then
We realize that other opinions are welcome, so we kind of half undermine what we've saidbefore we get done.
Is it that it's easier to be single-minded if you are right-wing?
(15:40):
It's a theory that I have.
I don't know what it is to be honest.
think it's a bit of left-wing liberal snobbery.
We're maybe bit better educated.
We feel the need to be more convoluted in our speech.
I I come from a very working class background.
I know you do as well, We grew up in communities where people were quite straight talking,not refined.
(16:04):
So maybe we find it a little bit easier to do.
I've dragged myself into the middle classes in my career.
guess you have as well.
So maybe we do use slightly more convoluted speech with other professionals, but I don'tknow.
Is it a bit snobbery?
I don't know.
It's annoying.
I find it really annoying.
Why, every time if you watch the Sunday shows where the politicians go on, you just think,how hard is it to answer a question in a direct sort of way?
(16:33):
So no, it's apparently it's impossible.
apparently it's impossible.
So something's going really wrong in the kind of coaching of people when they're going outand talking because this is not, I mean, if you look at the populist right and the
populist left, so you've got Zach Polanski is an example of someone now who's absolutelycutting through for a very small party, he's on the media all the time.
(16:56):
He is a really, really effective communicator.
And I should say that
Us saying people are effective communicators are not endorsements of their policies oranything because they're not.
But for Farage or for Polanski, there are no endorsement of any policies here.
It's just that they are managing to break through and...
(17:18):
It's just an observation on my part, right?
The only people I've praised for being good communicators so far on this podcast arefascists and Tories.
You know I don't vote that way, but they're on message, aren't they?
They are on message, they are on message and there is a kind of authenticity to what theytalk about.
(17:38):
So my final point on this and then we'll talk about something a bit more positive becauseit's much more fun to talk about your example.
My final message on this is the major kind of gap I see in the comms strategy for thegovernment at the moment is they have not focused on their target audience.
So I think the reason they're tanking in the polls is because even their own base hasabandoned them.
(18:04):
So Boris Johnson, you know, he still had reasonably decent poll ratings because his partymembers, his MPs, his voters were still supporting him no matter what he did.
Same probably goes for Liz Truss.
And you can't say the same for the prime minister at the moment.
It's the lowest poll rating, I think, ever.
(18:26):
And that's because
They're just not targeting their own audiences, the people that support them.
So be that your party members, be that the electorate who either voted for you becausethey were really passionate about voting for Labour or they voted for you tactically.
That was a key audience, let's say a key consumer base to build on because they're warmcontacts.
(18:48):
They voted for you tactically so they didn't think you were an abhorrent choicenecessarily.
Or maybe they thought you were the...
you know, the least worst option.
But those are the people that I would be targeting if I were a business and saying, let'ssee if we can keep hold of them.
Let's give them a reason to believe because they put their trust in us for this oneelection.
(19:08):
But it's not that you don't focus on people that don't vote for you or you don't focus onconsumers that are not buying from you because obviously you do.
But maybe you want to go for that repeat business first.
I mean, that's just my kind of
assessment of it, what do you think?
Well, I think you have to be tailored.
(19:31):
If you're a politician, specifically not for business, I think what we look for is apolitician for all people.
So you need to take office and go, I'm here to deliver on the promise for the people whovoted for me and for the people who didn't vote for me.
I'm going to be your prime minister as well.
And, you know, give me a chance.
(19:52):
think like whatever country you're in, no matter
how the election went, if it was a landslide or not, I think every gracious goodpolitician needs to take office with that exact same stance of, thank you for your votes
and for those of you who didn't vote for me, I'm going to look after you too becausethat's my job, I'm the leader.
And then I think in that sense, the channels that you use in politics are very differentand we have broadcast media and that's probably the primary way that politicians
(20:19):
communicate.
So it's very, very different within business.
And I think that's part of the reason why it's so important that when you're on broadcastall the time, that you do have a consistent message that's up here that you want everyone
to hear again and again and again.
And then you need to pick your channels for the specific stuff.
for me, it's a channel question.
(20:41):
you'll be seen in the press every single day and you can't change your agenda to suit thepeople who didn't vote for you.
but that is what this current government is doing.
I think they're going for this like...
vocal minority, like everyone's trying to go after the same anti-immigration pool ofpeople.
Meanwhile, there's all these other tens of millions of people in the country who areprobably could be captured by a more traditional kind of labor message.
(21:12):
So I don't know.
It feels confused.
Sorry.
what they stand for and they need to stand for something different.
It's back to the Coke and Pepsi problem.
They're like, oh, racism seems popular.
Let's say that we're on island of strangers.
It's nuts, but it's where we're at.
mean, do you disagree?
Racism seems popular.
Let's put some St.
George's crosses, put our St.
(21:35):
George's cross pants on every day.
So, you know, I think it's really simple that
We want them to tell us clearly what they stand for and we would like them to stand forsomething unique and different.
But instead, it's like we have a choice of what color fascism we want and that's thechoice.
That's crazy.
That's not a consumer marketplace, is it?
(21:58):
I don't think so.
Okay, so to sum up my points really and how this is relevant to any comms directors whomight be listening and thinking, okay, I've got to write next year's comms strategy, where
do I start?
Start with the overall vision.
If it's not clear, go back to your stakeholders and say, the vision is not clear, I can'tcommunicate this.
(22:20):
uh Challenge, manage upwards, do whatever you need to do.
I think it's...
time to radically review the channels that you are using and go to where the audiences arebecause it's not really in the press anymore and less and less in broadcast media
especially if you're trying to target younger people.
(22:42):
Find the best communicators in your organization who are the most authentic and able tospeak simplistically and not in a kind of convoluted way that
most people can't engage with.
Although I'd say most consumer businesses are pretty good at doing that.
They're probably ahead of the game than service type businesses, which is where I'veworked for most of my career.
(23:07):
And just be radically focused on your audiences, like segment them, as you said, and makesure that there is a positive, clear vision for what you're expecting from them in terms
of the transaction between you and your organization.
So
Yeah, shall we talk about something a bit more positive and exciting that we've all beenfollowing with more passion and verve?
(23:31):
let's talk about Mom Donnie and let me make that transition by saying there is adifference between what a politician needs to do when they're aspiring campaigning versus
what they need to do when they are in power.
I'm not a PR expert and I don't claim to be.
And I think once you're in power, it's a PR game that you're playing.
(23:53):
And I would not presume to necessarily give people strong advice on how
That should be, although I think they're losing the PR game, I would never look at aruling politician and ever really say a business has something to learn from them because
it's a whole different thing they're trying to achieve.
But I do think there are instances where a business can learn from the way thatpoliticians campaign.
(24:18):
Because when they're campaigning, they have a call to action, which is vote for me.
They have to segment their audiences.
They have to target.
If they're smart, they will.
And that's how you win.
so I think if I was going to say, our podcast is about observing stuff in the world andthen bottling that as communicators and providing it back to business to go, here's some
(24:39):
advice that you can learn from this case study.
I would never give the case study of any really politician in office.
It would be, what do do in their campaign?
Going back to our experiences that we've had together running campaigns.
for someone trying to get votes.
I had worked in advertising maybe for 20 years when I first did an on the ground campaign,maybe 15 here.
(25:05):
And I was astonished at the quality of data.
Incredible.
Street by street, house by house, knowing the sentiment of those people.
it's very unusual that you would ever get that quality of data input when you're in abusiness.
How do we gather data when we're working for clients?
(25:26):
Often it's focus groups, purchase data, stuff like that.
So it is laborious.
It's a mirror, I guess, of the canvassing door to door.
But if you look at the success of Ma and Donnie, Ma and Donnie, goodness, if you look athis success, I think it's twofold.
You've got what we see up front, charming social media guy, know, his branding was handpainted.
(25:53):
burro-centric, really resonated with working class immigrant younger.
So not being a typical politician and breaking the mold.
But here's the thing, I'm sitting here saying, yeah, Mom Donnie was on message and he wasvery charming.
But I wouldn't doubt that what I saw in my feed was a different video than the one you sawin your feed.
(26:16):
And that's because the data was so good.
They went and they looked at really street by street
What do these people really want?
And they can say, this neighborhood, most people are really worried about household bills.
Here, it's the cost of childcare in NYC.
Over here, everybody's worried about transport costs because they're all having to gosomewhere else to work and it's costing them a fortune.
(26:41):
These people are worried about ICE and the rise of fascism.
You might look at that and go, my goodness, how am I gonna, like, those are such differentmessages.
Now, anytime I'm in any broadcast channel, if I'm talking about childcare, I'm going tolose the household bills people or I'm going to lose the people that are worried about
fascism.
Well, guess what?
It's not about that.
Did Mom, Danny go on the late night shows?
(27:03):
Sure.
But what you'll see from him is anytime he's in a broadcast situation, the message isbroad.
It's hope.
I'm going to bring people together.
We're going to be more successful way up here all the time.
Anytime you saw him talking about those other messages, where was it?
It was in social media channels where you can hyper target and you can work to persona.
(27:27):
And that is what the really smart, really good advertisers are doing now.
It's almost like I've still kind of in 2025, you can still turn on the TV and see like aseven figure Christmas advert that's been produced.
And I think who does that anymore?
Everything.
(27:49):
people's sentiment and their uh propensity to act is moved within social channels, as youwere saying earlier.
This is where it all happens.
And if you can do it, the best possible thing you can do is get really deep data aboutyour audience, set your personas, align really specific messaging, putting up a hierarchy
(28:12):
that only talks about the thing that that person is most important to them and target themwith it.
This guy got elected totally against the odds, totally against all the machinery,investment and money.
And if you're a business that's trying to do more with less, like we all are, data is yourfriend and low cost pay per advertising like what you get in social media.
(28:35):
if you can target it properly, is also your friend.
So I don't want people to think that just by, say, just like being, giving kind of broadmessages of hope works.
He was myopically focused on the cost of living and that was what you're, this is what youmean about the message of hope, that he's going to do something about the cost of living,
(28:58):
which affected most people in most boroughs across the city.
Just to get back to your point about saying that you don't necessarily give examples of
politicians who have won their campaigns of positive examples of how they are governingand communicating.
But I think Sadiq Khan has absolutely nailed that in terms of an ongoing campaign forhowever many years has been made now, which is so slick.
(29:25):
Like it started with the London is Open staff, to remember.
they have, he has consistently
managed to carry through the message of his campaign into his governing and I'm sure it'swhy he keeps getting re-elected.
So that was just an example I wanted to point out but I yeah there aren't many others Ican...
(29:47):
a really good example.
And I did very boldly say I wouldn't look at the way anybody governs and recommend it froma cons perspective.
But you are right as a Londoner.
I have my thoughts about him, but he does seem to almost continue to campaign, which Ithink is maybe a part of a good PR strategy that you do a little touch of campaigning and
(30:07):
ongoing outbound cons, right?
Which is another thing.
I know it's going back to politics, but it's another thing that the government
isn't doing, they've stopped campaigning completely.
They are now just constantly in PR response back for mode all the time.
Yeah.
So what are my thoughts on the Mamdani campaign?
(30:28):
The other thing I should say is that he is kind of a unicorn in terms of how well he cancommunicate.
Like he just has it, whatever it is, he just does.
You know, I'm not surprised people make comparisons to Obama because it's the same kind ofspark.
And Blair had the same thing.
You know, he was just humorous, engaging, you know.
(30:51):
obviously so ridiculously smart, you know, can think on their feet.
And that is not something that exists in every political party.
It's a personal gift.
that.
And yeah, mean, Trump even has a crush on him now.
So that's something.
This is true.
So I think what you have to do is, you know, if you've got an organisation is go and findthe Mamdani's.
(31:18):
They might not be the most senior people because we're always like pushing board directorsand senior people to go out and talk.
And sometimes they're not the right people.
You might have a superstar way further down the food chain.
I remember a while ago, I think it was
like one of the rail companies had let some kid do work experience on the channels.
(31:38):
Do you remember this?
He was like a kid in his teens.
was doing the social media.
He'd stepped in to do it for a day or so and just had the most brilliant, heartwarming,amazing responses to the customers.
So much so that I think they asked him to come back.
So you really have to go and find the stars because some people, particularly youngerpeople,
(32:02):
They just instinctively know how to use social media.
So I think they shouldn't be overlooked.
So I think Mamdani, he is 33 years old.
He's very much that generation that's grown up with TikTok and Instagram and YouTube.
Yes, he's a very, very good communicator, but I think he instinctively knows what works.
(32:24):
He's obviously got a brilliant team behind him as well, but.
I think what I would say is he is a brilliant communicator, but he stands atop the data.
But you don't feel like that because of the way he delivers it.
And so if you aren't like to validate what you're saying, go and find the superstar.
Maybe they're an 18 year old intern.
Brilliant.
(32:44):
They don't need to do everything and have your entire business strategy.
But if you let them with their charm stand atop the data, then you can stay on message.
What you can do in social media if you have data is brilliant.
Data plus charm though?
That beats all as...
data plus charm.
Well, that's probably a, that's probably a good place to wrap because I think data pluscharm.
(33:07):
Yeah, that's our advice to you going into your 2026 communication strategy.
This will be our last episode before the Christmas and New Year break.
So Heather, a little message from you to our, I don't know how many listeners we have.
Let's pretend we have thousands.
uh To our millions of listeners!
I my message is that we're always learning.
(33:30):
I can easily allow myself to watch events occurring in the world and think, good Lord, isit Armageddon?
if you, some philosopher said, you have to reframe everything and say, what if this wasfor me?
And so I'll take it all the way to that level to go, well, what if this is somethingthat...
(33:51):
Yes, we have to endure, what if it's something that we can learn from?
And I think that's what this podcast is about, is to go watch events unfold and it's adisaster or it's not a disaster, but there's always something to learn from it.
Cheesy, but that's why you got an American as your partner.
Yeah, no, that's good.
I don't think I can top that really, other than saying a thanks to anyone who has botheredto download and listen to us and our little ramblings over the last few months.
(34:19):
And yeah, we'll cook up some more ideas over the festive period after a little brain restand hopefully we'll be back bigger and better in 2026.
So, and thanks Heather for being my co-partner.
You're a...
fucking amazing person to be doing this with, so thank you.
It's great fun
So yeah, happy Christmas everybody.
(34:39):
We'll see you in the new year.
Take care.
Render Your Own Mute is hosted by Rakhi Verma and Heather Deland and produced by TigrisConsulting and Mediation.
Editing is done by Rakhi, so if it's crap, it's because she's Indian and would rather diethan outsource something that technically could be done for free.
(35:00):
Theme music is by The Mountain on Pixabay.
Please follow, rate and review because laughter is cheaper than therapy and much moreeffective than HR.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.