Last night witnessed a much anticipated showdown. John Lowery
proposed the motion that blogging was killing planning and John Grant opposed it.
Being
asked to write up the notes from this debate is, for me, rather like asking the
bloke in the dock to keep the court record of a trial – a bit of a mindfuck.
Anyway I will try, in true planner fashion, to be as objective as
possible.
The IPA Strategy Group’s very own Robert Kilroy Silk, Guy
Murphy, kicked off proceedings by conducting a pre-stage quant study on the
motion to establish a robust benchmark.
A full seven people believed that
Blogging was a threat to all that is noble and good about planning, 52 thought
not and 16 people hadn’t got a clue either way.
Undaunted by the odds,
Lowery laid into the plannersphere with tenacious
ferocity.
His accusation was that the version of planning that is being
presented online is a gross distortion of reality. This wouldn’t matter, John
maintained, if the blogs were not so influential in shaping young planners’
minds. He feared a generation of “blog-shaped planners” would be the result and
this was a threat to the very brand of planning itself, its role and the respect
that it is accorded.
John reminded us of the apprenticeship that good
planners go through that ties them back to the founders of the discipline and
their vision for the role that planners should play as truth seekers in a sea of
conjecture and uninformed opinion.
However, a tour through the
plannersphere had convinced John that blogging planners are deserting their
responsibility for truth, their obsession with effectiveness and their pride in
the craft skills that the essential trademarks of a good planner.
Lowery
then went for the jugular characterising the ‘training’ available online as “a
bunch of people who don’t know what they are talking about setting tasks for and
judging the efforts of a bunch of people who don’t know what they are talking
about”.
“Introspection in, introspection out” as John would
say.
This kind of non-rigorous planning has always existed, maintained
John, but before web 2.0 it had a limited ability to infect the minds of the
wider planning community. Now it was spreading like wildfire.
For John
planning blogs in their current form are malignancies that are slowly but surely
killing planning.
John summed up by telling us that he hadn’t come to
destroy the plannersphere but to cure it with a dose of much needed “human
chemotherapy”.
Strong stuff, and a tough act for John Grant to
follow.
Grant was bemused, how could we judge a new medium after only
year or two? It was far too early to tell what the effect of this new planning
activity would have. Sure the picture that Lowery painted was bleak but where
was the evidence that planning was in anything other than rude
health?
For Grant, Lowery’s entire case suffered from the woolly thinking
and lack of hard facts that he was seeking to defend in the
discipline.
Moreover, John suggested, if we were to vote in favour of the
motion we were to think hard about the signals that we as a discipline, industry
and nation were sending out. Blogging, social media and web 2.0 are facts of
modern life, how could the IPA, endorse a motion that suggested that it wanted
to turn back a tide of technology and behaviour that everyone else in society
was embracing with alacrity.
John was also concerned about the way in
which the planning elite were using this debate to squash the enthusiasm and
energy of young planners, sure some of the stuff young planners were doing
online was naïve but it was ever thus, said John recalling the output of his own
IPA 2 course in 1989.
And finally, he made the point that judging the
state of planning from the plannersphere is like judging the state of the
advertising industry by reading Campaign magazine. Both offer a particular
version of the business without representing it in its entirety.
If that
wasn’t polarised enough, the debate from the floor drove a further wedge between
the camps; this wasn’t going to be one of those lacklustre events that ends with
everyone in ‘violent agreement’.
Many younger planners voiced the concern
that they were looking to the online community for more of the bread and butter
stuff that Lowery was talking about and not just the clever stuff and as a
result, its absence was frustrating.
Other contributions from the floor
pointed out that the blogging debate was a smokescreen for what now appear
utterly opposed versions of what good planning is – facts or ideas.
And
one interloper from outside the industry drew an analogy between planning and
medicine. There were now two traditions that were accepted in medical circles –
orthodox and complementary medicine – wasn’t this similar to the two styles of
planning in evidence.
While back on the podium, Lowery suggested ways to
improve blogging and increase the quality of the contributions, while Grant
insisted that it was folly to try and legislate for planning online “you can’t
write a broadcasting act to control blogging” Grant sniped.
At the final
vote it was a walkover for John Grant who thoroughly defeated the motion 41
votes to 20 with 12 abstaining. However, Lowery’s withering criticism of the
plannersphere was so compelling he almost tripled his count in the course of the
evening.
And from my point of view? Well of course I think it is fanciful
to suggest that blogging is killing planning. It is now an essential part of our
toolkit. But Lowery offers us strategists a timely reminder about the need to
maintain standards of rigour, proof and certainty in what we do.