Monday 15 May 2023: In response to two Affinity Water draft videos

Monday 15 May 2023: In response to two Affinity Water draft videos

Video 1

I quite liked the upbeat, inspirational music. Its use helped me to continue to listen to what the man was saying.

I thought the editing of the video was very good: it maintained interest.

I thought that the use of additional images was okay: it maintained interest. However, in contrast to last week's feedback in which I criticised the use of pretty photographs in the document, the use of pretty images here would have been much better than the line drawings reproduced from the document. (I can listen to what a talking head is saying while being shown a short clip of a chalk stream or of a burst pipe being mended.)

I thought that the background scenery was unremarkable, but better than him being in an office or studio.

I thought that the single talking head was a little tedious. I should have preferred there to have been an alternating man and woman talking head. (But not a quasi interview.)

Having watched the video a second time, I found it less interesting, and found myself watching the ducks or geese in the background. It really does need some illustrative material such as chalk streams and people repairing a burst water main.

I think that it would help were the figures spoken verbally by Martin Haslett to be put on the screen (and preferably given some proper context).

I feel uncomfortable and challenged by asking what would make the video more appealing because you are asking what would make it a more effective public relations exercise.

What I found really difficult were parts of what the man was saying. I considered him to be using weasel words. For instance, the five year plan runs from 2025 to 2030, but he then roped in the single figure of a 50% reduction in water wastage through leaks (which would sound okay for 2030) by 2050. It would have been much more honest to say what the 2030 target is for reduction in water wastage through leaks. Also, he made out that the recent cost of living crisis means that this is a financially difficult time for many people, and that Affinity Water can help people by rescheduling their payments - big deal! They will still be required to pay. Were water provision to be in the hands of the municipality, then social tariffs for impoverished people could be levied - and without charging (taxing) less impoverished customers more. He talked about the roll-out of, was it 400,000? smart water meters, without actually acknowledging that a significant proportion of Affinity Water's customers do not currently have a water meter at all. The aspect at which I scoffed most volubly was the part where he said something to the effect of people wanting good quality water in their taps. Yeah? Really? That is what the water supplier is supposed to deliver - it is not meant to be optional. It is the barest minimum expectation. (Which, by the by, Southern Water have failed to achieve, yet again, this time in West Sussex.)

What was missing was any indication that the consultation is an honest attempt to determine future direction, rather than simply a public relations exercise dressed up as a consultation. However, Affinity Water is not a publicly-owned organisation that takes its legitimacy and direction from the people it serves. It is a commercial organisation with an intent to make money as painlessly as possible for all (owners, employees and customers) concerned.

 

Video 2

I found the music in this video overwhelming.

I experienced the video editing as more clunky than Video 1.

I considered the insertion of short video clips to be exactly what I wanted to see in Video 1.

Unlike regarding Martin Haslett, I found the woman talking head to be a serious distraction. Partly it was her waving her hands about. Partly it was about her reading from a script (she did not appear to be very relaxed). She also seemed to be on a mission to convince the viewer that she and her colleagues on the ICG (?) do an excellent job.

The elephant rampaging around the room was that what a majority of customers want is for water provision to be in public ownership. Yes, people want continuity of supply, at least acceptable quality water, and small water bills. However, she did not mention that who owns the water supply matters to many people.

Key message: there are seven independent experts (by whom are they paid?) who do an excellent job at something, so there's no need to worry.

It would seem that the ICG is made up of people intent on keeping Affinity Water in business, rather than challenging its role as a commercial organisation.

I did not take in that the woman's name is Caroline Warner. Is she the chair of the ICG?

The aspect of the video that I found unclear was why it had been made / why I was watching it.

Watching the video the second time through, I found the Caroline Warner to be glib and unconvincing: "people want their water to be eco-friendly" makes it sound like the product she was talking about supplying is washing powder, not about trying to wrest back a natural environment in south-eastern England that has been trashed by some water companies.

I was confused about whether this ICG group relates only to Affinity Water, or to all water companies.