How often do you buy your meat from the local butcher? Your fruit and vegetables from the greengrocer? Fresh bread from the baker? If you’re anything like me the answer is, sadly, hardly ever.

It’s with a heavy heart that I give that response. The demise of the high street at the hands of all-consuming supermarket monsters, or ‘almighty conglomerates’ as Labour has suggested, is sad and damaging. It forces multi-generation family trades out of business; it leaves our high streets as depressing, boarded up ghost towns; it pushes us ever further towards soulless and banal homogenisation.

According to a report last year Britain now has fewer than 1,000 specialist fishmongers, 7,000 butchers and 4,000 greengrocers, and barely 3,000 independent bakeries, driven out of business by the ruthless pricing structures of supermarkets, now selling 97% of our food, with which they simply cannot compete. A close friend of mine recently experienced first-hand his parents’ butchers business folding after being in the family for three generations. How does this fit in with David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’?

Is this the future of the high street?

Of course, the supermarkets would be quick to argue that they create mass employment opportunities. Whilst the opening of a large ‘everything under one roof’ superstore will present a number of job vacancies, it masks a wider issue. What about the local accountants, labourers and suppliers that rely on servicing independent retailers? What about the sense of pride in producing a quality product with genuine passion and enthusiasm? What about the community and mutual support that small towns rely upon?

Before I ascend the dizzying heights of the moral high ground any further, I’ll make this clear: I’m to blame. My complicity helps these inexorable corporate beasts hammer the nail in the proverbial coffin. I’m a creature of convenience and perform 90% of my food shopping in a weekly binge at my nearest superstore. Like most of us, I assume, I feel guilty every time but use my lifestyle as an excuse.

I work full time and have a busy social life  and commitments therefore leaving limited time to pick up groceries. Often the only places open after work are the supermarket. I’m reliant on the familiarity this type of shopping allows, knowing I can get the same products quickly with each repeat visit.

Perhaps I’m just being lazy. I’d love to shop exclusively at independent retailers. I’d feel better about myself; I’d probably save money and would undoubtedly be enjoying a much higher quality product.

With that in mind I have set myself a challenge: for the whole of May I will banish the supermarket. All of my shopping shall be obtained from local butchers, bakers, fishmongers, greengrocers and delis. It will be hard, but will it be worth it? At the end of the month I will evaluate the health of my conscience, my belly and my bank balance to see how justified my excuses really are. Happy shopping!

Are family businesses destined for the fate of ‘high flying stutters that land in the gutter’ by the 3^rd generation? Is keeping it in the family a recipe for business boom or bust?

Having worked within a family business since the age of 19 and now at 28 working within one of the UK’s largest employers, the NHS, I felt inclined to write a blog on the benefits and pitfalls of family business. 

On researching the subject I was staggered to learn that family firms form the backbone of both the UK and world economies. Research has found that some 50% of the UK private sector workforce is employed by family businesses, which would suggest that for some companies ‘keeping it in the family’ must be paying dividends.

A family enterprise represents the coming together of different individuals who may have opposing views, ideas and ideologies, all of which creates potential for conflict.  However many family firms, and I would like to say Persuasion is one, have strengths that few non family outfits can replicate – resilience and mettle.

Perhaps family firms achieve success because they HAVE to.  A family business can’t sit on its laurels, it has to get out there and get the business, deliver the goods or service so that the father, son, brother, daughter, wife, husband, grandchild can take a pay check home.  The business is the family’s LIVLIHOOD.  They can’t turn up at work, do very little and take their pay at the end of the month or hide behind a big corporate monster and plead ignorance.

However research suggests that the potential pitfalls facing family businesses are numerous and can be fatal, but the good news is that most of them can be overcome by anticipating, planning and responding appropriately.   The two major issues which threaten a family firm’s success is communication and succession.    I am sure we are all aware of the statistics and anecdotes surrounding third generation family businesses, which often fail.

The issue of succession can often be a touchy subject, as it reminds the older generation of their mortality and prompts them to make some difficult decisions.  For the younger generation it can be an overwhelming prospect, which also carries the burden of whether they can make the business a success. Statistics suggest that many family firms don’t address succession correctly, taking the ostrich approach and burying their head in the sand.  Failing to plan for succession is planning to fail – one of the contributing factors as to why only 13% of family businesses continue beyond the third generation.

Succession planning need not be traumatic. By tackling the issue well before it arises, the expectations of all those involved can be managed and a considered plan can be enacted in a controlled manner.   For example it may make business sense for the ownership of the business to remain with the family, but for it to be managed by a consultant.

In my opinion the most important part of successful family business is communication – and no that doesn’t mean shouting at each other, although this has been known to happen at Persuasion in the early hours of the morning, before our colleagues arrive! The ability to be able to make TIME to talk to one another CALMLY to raise any concerns, ideas and strategies is essential. However it is important that the business doesn’t become the only topic of conversation… dominating family get-togethers, celebrations and holidays.   There is a time and a place for business banter and it is definitely not at 6am on a Sunday morning!

So to conclude……working in a family business – is it as bad as moving in with the in-laws or going on holiday with your parents?  In short I would say not. Yes it is HARD work, despite people thinking that the boss’s ‘daughter’ or ‘son’ gets an easy ride… believe me you don’t, often having to work twice as hard to prove yourself and your abilities.

What I would say is that what makes Persuasion succeed is its team… and I would strongly suggest that in any family business you have some non family members… to bring some diversity, a fresh approach and to give the family members some respite from seeing each other all the time!

A petulant and possibly spontaneous act of defiance by Liverpool’s Luis Suarez obliterated the line that could have been drawn under his ‘racial abuse’ row with Patrice Evra of Manchester United.

But even if he had shaken his adversary’s hand, as he had apparently promised, would that really have been the end of the matter or have we all taken our eyes off the ball when it comes to racism in football?

Perhaps this is an issue too prickly to handle.

This non-handshake came during a week which saw the England manager resign over the removal of his team captain John Terry, who is facing a court case over an incident of alleged racist abuse directed towards QPR’s Anton Ferdinand.

There seem to be no hard and fast rules to deal with incidents of alleged racist abuse occurring on the field of play.

Whilst Terry will go to court to answer questions, Suarez avoided prosecution and was found ‘guilty’ by the FA and handed an eight match ban.  Both clubs have stood by their players – and why would they not in a country in which someone is innocent until proven guilty – but should footballers under investigation for such serious offences be treated the same as, say, a teacher or a nurse and be suspended pending the outcome of an enquiry?

The FA was put in a very difficult position regarding Terry, but handled it in a typically ponderous style by allowing him to captain the side against Sweden in November but then removing him from his role when the date for his court hearing was moved until after the European Championships.

The decision to cancel the handshake before the QPR versus Chelsea game but allow the Liverpool versus Manchester United one to go ahead, plus the whole debacle with Capello, does not fill me with any confidence that the FA knows how to deal with these issues and seems to want to address them on an individual, ad-hoc basis rather than tackling them head on.

In a recent interview, John Barnes talked frankly of how it isn’t enough to just tell people they can’t say certain things and that we need to change people’s hearts and minds to the point that they wouldn’t even consider behaving in this way.

The question that needs to be asked is whether the FA and the visual presence of campaigns such as ‘Kick It Out’ and ‘Show Racism the Red Card’ have done this, or whether they have just temporarily hidden these ugly incidents which we’ve seen both on the pitch and the terraces.

As the Leveson inquiry reaches its second week it is clear that the fighter in the red corner, the tabloid media, is taking a decisive pummelling. There is no chance of throwing in the towel in this matchup, however; the reputation of the press will keep getting punched and battered until it can no longer stand.

This is truly a dark time for the profession of journalism, its integrity damaged to an extent never seen before. It isn’t the A-listers and celeb big-hitters that have really put the press on the ropes though. The heaviest punches are being landed by the regular, everyday people whose lives have been torn apart by the unscrupulous actions of a lazy, cheap and shameless minority of professionals.

The disturbing revelation that murdered school girl Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked is the final straw for many. The fact that innocent, grieving parents were given false hope about their daughter’s life pushes the actions of the press far beyond simple reportage into voyeurism and emotional manipulation.

Personally I applaud the bravery of Christopher Jefferies, the man wrongly arrested over the death of Joanna Yeates, in not accepting an apology as enough and fighting to clear his name and raise serious questions about the ethics of the media. Mr Jefferies has described the ‘witch hunt’ he was subject to and the campaign by certain newspapers to ‘blacken his character’.

Headlines and stories painting Mr Jefferies as a creepy, predatory loner had no basis in truth and were no better than malicious school ground rumours. In a similar vein to the treatment of the Dowler family, the press once again overstepped the mark. It is the job of journalists to report evidence and fact, not make a rash judgement about an innocent individual’s character and lead a campaign to besmirch it publicly.

Hearing the complaints of celebrities like Sienna Miller, Calum Best and Abi Titmus, all of whom have built a career around publicity and media coverage, is for many people hard to swallow. After all, how can you expect to bite the hand that feeds?

Steve Coogan makes his case at the High Court

Comedian Steve Coogan, who has described reporters going through his bins in search of headlines, claims he “never wanted to be famous, as such – fame is a by-product.” To whatever extent you believe this claim and however much you think those who make a living through the press should be at its mercy, the fact remains that there is a question of ethics here.

Moreover there is also a question of quality and taste. How can the profession of journalism have debased itself to the level of sneaking notes into JK Rowling’s children’s school bags or pursuing Charlotte Church in the hopes of an ‘upskirt’ shot? Coogan’s testimony is symbolic of the depths tabloid media has sunk to – literally digging up rubbish. Why do editors think this garbage sells papers anyway?

It’s clear that people will no longer stand for these actions and, if nothing else, the inquiry will put paid to the crude and lazy journalism that has brought shame upon the profession.

In her article, Robson-Scott speculates if we are in fact dealing with a placebo. Research into anti-depressants increasingly suggests little clinical impact besides the side effects that are universal among the myriad forms of medication. In fact Professor Irving Kirsch, associate director of the programme in placebo studies at Harvard Medical School and author of The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth, says there is no evidence to suggest that depression is caused by chemical imbalance, thereby rendering Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) drugs entirely ineffective.  “Depression is not a brain disease, and chemical don’t cure it.”

Are pills the solution?

I was prescribed the SSRI Seroxat-Paroxetine when I was 17 and continued taking it in varying dosages for the next six years and found it anything but ineffective, though how positive the effects were is debatable.

I’d felt like there was something wrong with me my whole life; an impalpable sense of dread that would arrive intermittently and without warning. In my teenage years, and the maelstrom of hormones this periods brings, the problem began to manifest as wild oscillations in mood. I could be on top of the world one day then barely able to get out of bed the next. The drugs really helped to restore the balance that I was so badly missing, something which I don’t feel can be attributed to placebo effect.

Therein lay one of the major problems with treating mental health with drugs – I went from extreme emotions to feeling nothing. Medication didn’t fix me, it made me numb. And then there are the side effects – lethargy, lack of enthusiasm, insomnia, the decimation of libido.

Kirsch believes these symptoms are a factor in the placebo effect. When we take an antidepressant we expect to feel better, therefore we do, and the side effects make us believe the drug is working.

Whilst at university, under the guidance of a brilliant GP, I changed my prescription to a different SSRI, Citalopram. My experience of anti-depressants didn’t fill me with great hope, but the difference I felt was immediate and powerful. I felt alive again; my enthusiasm and confidence returned. Since I didn’t expect to feel better, how could this just be a placebo effect as Kirsch supposes?

Ultimately I decided the side effects were too great and two years ago I became medication free for the first time in eight years. Since then I’ve tried to combat my issues in more natural and sustainable ways by improving my diet, reducing my alcohol intake and doing more exercise. I’ve honestly never felt better. I still have bad periods, but I’m learning to recognise the reasons for this and work through it. This works for me now, but in the past it may not have done.

My point is this: anti-depressants will work for some people and not for others. Psychotherapy isn’t suited to everyone. Some people may feel depressed for a short time following trigger moment, like a bereavement or relationships breakdown for example, so medication may not be the answer. For some people, like me, depression is a long term reality, something that is simply part of who you are.

A course of anti-depressants can work – it helped me to control my mood swings – but it should be seen as just one avenue to explore. It’s not for everyone, but it shouldn’t be dismissed.

The real problem is the ongoing and unnecessary stigma attached to mental health in this country. Having lived with it for most of my life I feel comfortable talking about it in the same way I would talk about having any other condition. I’ve been lucky as I have great support from family and friends, but others aren’t so fortunate. There is no shame in having asthmas for example, so why should there be with depression? Many people develop a long term dependence on anti-depressants because they feel shame and are reluctant to talk about their problems to professionals. Drugs are an easy fix. They’re anonymous and provide piece of mind in the midst of confusion.

The debate will rage on, but the truth is that until mental health is tackled with more dignity and frankness, people will continue to rely on anti-depressants without the understanding to challenge their health issues in other ways.

For the first time since a brief visit to Merseyside in 2007, the Turner Prize has left London with works by the nominated artists on show at the Baltic in Gateshead.

Baltic Mill in Gateshead hosts Turner Prize

The controversial modern art exhibition, which has seen pieces such as Tracey Emin’s un-made bed (My Bed) and Damien Hirst’s  halved cow and calf preserved in Formaldehyde (Mother and child divided), gains a mixed reception from the general public and I feel that a move away from the capital’s artisan circles is a big risk.

The sad thing is it really shouldn’t be. I’m no art expert, or even enthusiast, but have been to see the last three Turner prize exhibitions and have found something interesting in all of them. When approached as a sensory adventure as oppose to a reverent cultural experience, a walk around these artworks is very enjoyable.

The exhibition’s curator, Laurence Sillars, said the work by the four artists nominated for this year’s prize will be seen by as many people in Gateshead as it would in London. This is partly due to the Baltic’s seasonal attendance averaging between 70,000 and 90,000 people – roughly the same number of visitors as the Turner Prize normally attracts at its Thames-side home.

But the question this relocation poses is whether new people in the North East will be inspired or put off by the Turner Prize and the supposed sense of intellectual gravitas that it could be said is unfairly leveled at it.

Take art critic Brian Sewell’s comments from a few years back declaring that Gateshead should be ‘bombed’ and that the people of the north are not sophisticated enough for art. Such statements from the ‘Educated Un-enlightened’ are detrimental to the future of art exhibitions as they try to marginalise and force people out; telling them they are not clever enough to have opinions of their own.

This is a ludicrous notion. Art thrives on interpretation and opinion and the way something makes one person feel is no less valid than the feelings it stirs in another.

I would encourage everyone to take some time and explore the pieces on show at the Baltic in order to decide what they think for themselves.

On my previous visits to Turner prize exhibitions I haven’t even gone out of my way to go. I’ve been in London Christmas shopping and have chosen to take a couple of hours out of the winter rain and busy shops to have a look around, and on every occasion, to be transported to a different and weird world.

Some things have resonated with me, others have shocked me. Some have made me laugh and some have been just plain strange, but one thing is for sure – all have been fascinating in their own way.

For an insight into the imaginations of four very talented individuals, get down to the Baltic before 8^th January 2012.

Whether it’s the constant flow of emails that I both send and receive during the work day or simply checking the social media notifications which all too conveniently now come to my phone, I am never unreachable.

Many people are now posing the question, have we become too dependent on technology? Is constant contact really such a good thing or does it just create more pressure?

Digital media usage is at an all time high, not only for communication between friends but also within business. Many leading companies use these online forums to communicate with clients, put out key messages and even answer questions which the public may have.

Despite this, there are still those who question the impact of this ‘new media’. The ever-growing lack of privacy and wide-spread scattering of negative or overly competitive messages are only some of the objections that those against sites such as Facebook and Twitter have raised.

In fact even the mainstream media themselves are blaming social media for problems caused in today’s society, specifically during the riots which affected so many of England’s cities earlier in the year.

So what is your opinion of the online media movement? Embrace or abandon?

The newest member of the team, Kristy joined us in July 2011 – just a week after graduating from Sunderland University.

After studying modules in public relations, journalism and marketing, Kristy decided that public relations was definitely the profession for her. Following work placements at the communications department of a local museums group and PR agencies in Northampton and Newcastle, she graduated with a 2:1 BA (Hons) degree.

With this prior experience and a student membership to the CIPR, Kristy has taken on the role of Trainee Account Executive. She will be producing press releases, assisting with campaigns and adding a fresh perspective in all areas.

Outside of work Kristy loves to travel, especially around the USA. With six states ticked off her list, she aims to eventually visit all 50. She also enjoys a wide range of sports including trampolining, skiing and rock climbing.

She says that if she were an animal she would be an elephant because she never forgets.

Her favourite colour is Aqua.

In terms of a global PR disaster for the 2012 Olympic Games, the timing could only be worse if it were immediately before or during the event. Britain’s image and perception in the public eye has taken a hit as its ability to safely host an event of such magnitude is called into question. The big challenge for the government and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is no longer a mere logistical one, but a huge PR campaign to restore trust and repair the damage done to reputation while buildings, shops and livelihoods are rebuilt.

The IOC has once again expressed its confidence in the safety and security precautions in place for the 2012 Olympic Games, due to commence on July 27^th next year. The test events, such as this week’s rescheduled beach volleyball, will be going ahead as planned in a clear statement of resilience. However the IOC’s confidence lies in the hands of the authorities, who so far seem to be struggling under the pressure.

Cruelly, the pre-Olympics beach volleyball test event is taking place in a specially constructed arena less than 100 yards from New Scotland Yard – perhaps an illustration of the challenges ahead. Indeed the hub of the games and all press activity, Olympic Park, is located in Newham, one of the areas most badly affected by the riots.

PR disaster management is in essence about finding the positive in the seemingly negative; spinning bad press back in your favour. We can expect a concerted drive in this area over the coming months. What the capital needs is good news in the face of crisis; the proverbial phoenix from the ashes.

The outlook is bleak though. You’d have to look very hard to see any positives in the current maelstrom of civil disorder. Outsiders would be forgiven for losing faith in London’s ability to safely host the games. After all, what hope is there for a country to host one of the planet’s largest events when it can’t even contain its own youth?

Destruction on the streets

Darryl Seibel, director of communications for British Olympic Association (BOA) is certainly flying the flag though, stating: “It (the rioting) makes an Olympic Games and a Paralympic Games all the more important. We need a reason to come together.”

It’s an unenviable public relations assignment but a necessary one. It’s often said that sport and politics have no place together but with the country’s current civil disobedience forced so squarely into the global spotlight, a successful and trouble free Games is vital if we are to restore Britain’s tarnished reputation.

Stephen Holland, Persuasion PR.