±±¾©Èü³µpk10

The end of uncertainty?

The axe has finally fallen. After two years of living in an economy propped up with emergency measures, including a fall in VAT, the lowest interest rates in history and £200 billion pumped into the economy, payback time is upon us.

The cuts were, as anticipated, swingeing and wide-ranging, with few areas of public services left untouched. However, the Comprehensive Spending Review has, in a way, allowed Britons a degree of certainty again. Indeed, Marks & Spencer chairman Stuart Rose echoed this sentiment recently, stating "I believe that consumers want clarity… with clarity comes, I think, more confidence".

Certainty has been something lacking from British society since the onset of recession. In February 2007, when Britain was ‘booming’ and bust was seemingly consigned to the dustbin of history, just 47% of Britons described the mood of the nation as ‘uncertain’. Just a year later, that figure had risen to 82%.

In June 2008, we asked respondents in our Moody Britain focus groups to choose a colour to describe the mood of the nation. Most chose either red – the colour of anger – or blue – for a low mood. However, one hitherto silent respondent chose purple. When asked to explain his reasoning, he stated "Because it’s like everyone’s holding their breath – and if you hold your breath, you turn purple."

Arguably, this period of collective apnoea has not really abated since, but at least now the cuts are finally upon us, the nation has a better sense of what is to come and can, to a certain extent, start to breathe again.

No more Nowism

With the talk of ‘cuts’ dominating the customer landscape, one of the most important questions is "how did we get into this mess in the first place?"

One of the hallmarks of the previous government was the constant consultation of ordinary Britons. Philip Gould, former strategy advisor to Tony Blair, referred to it as "the new politics – leading and listening, accessibility and accountability".

Many have argued since, however, that this was a dangerous strategy – responding to the whims of focus groups today rather than planning for the future. Tony Blair’s ‘new politics’ was very much the politics of now.

In the noughties, Britons demanded better public services and the government, guided by the politics of now, responded with heavy investment. Our data indicates that this investment paid off - while people are angry about the cost of living and immigration, standards in public services are rarely selected as a major source of dissatisfaction with life in Britain today.

And yet arguably, much of the reason for the deficit run up over the last decade and a half, culminating in the spending review cuts, was through responding to the immediate, rather than setting a long-term vision.

Geoff Mulgan, former director of policy to the government, describes how this played out at 10 Downing Street: "The Prime Minister’s closest advisors were rarely looking more than a few weeks or months ahead."

And perhaps it is here that we can a draw a parallel between the challenges facing government with those facing brands. Brands, like governments, need to keep their finger on the pulse of consumer sentiment and be flexible enough to adapt. At the same time, living solely in the ‘now’ can inhibit the ability to plan long-term and to stay committed to measures that are not an instant success.

While open-sourcing, co-creation and a consultative approach are welcomed by customers, the brands people admire often have their own point of view on the world, borne out of expertise and knowledge in their chosen arena.

It is this which provides a strong centre of gravity at the heart of the brands and avoids the dangers of overt Nowism.