The Award Goeth to Specsavers - As the Bayeux Tapestry returned to Britain, Specsavers placed an ad beside the British Museum featuring Harold’s famous arrow in the eye, with the line “Should’ve goneth to Specsavers”. The campaign was simple and well timed, using a major cultural moment to insert their all-too-familiar marketing tagline. It is a good study in how a recognisable brand can make reactive PR feel natural.
Getting the Keys to No.10 - Which? wanted to show how easily Booking.com’s fraud controls could be circumvented, so it created a fake holiday rental at 10 Downing Street. The listing described the Prime Minister’s home as a one bedroom apartment and even successfully posted a fake review about “hanging out” with Larry the Cat. The listing was able to remain on the platform for more than two months. The absurdity of the investigation made a serious consumer concern impossible to miss.
Wardrobe Malfunction - Oxford United Football Club started their season with a new merch range featuring an American football-style shirt reading "United 93". It was meant as a nod to the club's founding year, 1893. Somehow, nobody on the approvals chain clocked that United 93 is also the name of one of the hijacked planes on 9/11… or that the range launched right around the attack's 25th anniversary. The club pulled the collection within hours and apologised, admitting it was released "without understanding" what the name would evoke. A useful reminder that context - and a quick Google - is everything.
Show, don’t tell (even on train seats) - The team at Thameslink probably thought they had a slam dunk for PR: they were finally replacing their infamous ‘ironing board’ seats, i.e. the least comfortable seats on the British rail network. But in making a big song and dance about their yet-to-come, slightly-more-padded, slightly-more-comfortable seats - including installing sample seats in stations like London Bridge - they overhyped what is a marginal improvement. They should have instead replaced the seats unannounced next year and let organic social comments drive the coverage once the seats were installed.
Over the past month, Restore Britain has made some big plays for young voters.
Its recent policy announcements include replacing the ‘triple lock’ by linking the state pension to CPI, and abolishing interest on student loans held by British nationals, including removing interest already accrued.
As it stands, Restore is not yet a hugely competitive electoral force, with only 4% of Brits currently indicating an intention to vote for the party. But with an election still some way off, could these policies broaden their appeal amongst young voters?
To start, many young people are understandably dissatisfied with their experience of the UK. Alongside concerns around employment, debt, housing, and the cost of living, there is a growing sense among young people that the current political system is not working for them. The 2026 UK Youth Poll found that 30% of young people do not trust politicians, while 27% say politicians do not listen to young people.
This gave Restore an opening to present itself as a party willing to make difficult decisions that established parties have avoided, and to rebalance what it sees as an increasingly unfair social contract between younger and older generations.
It’s fair to say that Andy Burnham’s pledge yesterday to reform the triple lock after the next election, means Restore can no longer claim a clear monopoly on this messaging.
But there could still be cut-through for them.
With such high levels of distrust in mainstream politics, Labour will have the difficult task in persuading young voters that Burnham’s offer represents a meaningful break from the political settlement they are frustrated with. If it cannot, Restore, unburdened by historical disappointment, may still be able to position itself as the party willing to go further and make more difficult choices.
Other policies, specifically immigration, could provide another route in. Restore’s position is considerably tougher than those of the mainstream parties, but that does not necessarily mean it will be a deterrent to all young voters. The proportion of 18-24-year-olds identifying immigration as the most important issue facing the country has risen from 7% four years ago to 31% today. If Labour fails to develop an offer on immigration that speaks to the concerns of this group, Restore could potentially pick up support from young voters who feel that mainstream parties have not addressed the issue to their satisfaction.
Rupert Lowe might have, in his own words, a “real fight” on his hands, perhaps more so than he expected. But Burnham’s intervention doesn’t mean an end to Restore’s appeal. If young voters remain unconvinced that mainstream parties are willing to make meaningful changes in their interests, there may still be space for a party willing to offer something different and disruptive.
How do you turn a local dispute into an international news story? Well, as residents in Piddington would tell you = declare independence.
On the 16th of September, Piddington, a village of roughly 350 people, held a symbolic referendum on seceding from the United Kingdom, in protest at government plans to house around 1,200 asylum seekers at a nearby former military site.
The result was decisive with 285 in favour of independence against 26. The parish council subsequently declared the town as the "Principality of Piddington," complete with a flag and anthem.
The vote might not have had any legal consequence, but that did not mean it was not of significance. The results received blanket coverage, Google searches for Piddington are up 350% from the last month, and even Trump and Elon Musk have thought to weigh in. The village recently also had a visit from Kemi Badenoch who echoed the concerns of local residents.
An issue that might ordinarily have remained within the walls of the parish council suddenly attracted significant international media and political attention.
But, why was it so effective?
Part of the stunt’s effectiveness was that it tapped into several wider debates already attracting significant public and media attention: immigration and integration, pressure on local communities, and concerns around the protection of women and girls.
This gave politicians something to latch onto. Piddington became evidence of a wider political debate rather than simply a local disagreement, helping reinforce some of the arguments they were already making about government policy.
But the referendum itself was what made those concerns newsworthy. A village declaring independence is inherently unusual. Add a flag and an anthem and you have a story tailor-made for the media. A good lesson in how changing the format of your argument can make it ten times louder.
