Public Relations – Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff

Another hapless ‘PR person’ achieves the dubious distinction of a mocking mention in the Evening Standard’s City Diary section. (Sadly, I can’t link to it, so you’ll simply have to accept my word on this one.)

The gist of the article was that said hapless ‘PR person’ put a call into the City desk, requesting that, when writing about Boots (the company, not the footwear), journalists should refer to the company as Alliance Boots – not just in the first para, but throughout the story. Suffice it to say – as I presume the request was couched in less-than-requestful terms – the story’s pay-off was simply “no – get a job”.

Now. We’ve all been there. Client fiercely protective of company, its reputation and its brand equity, and also – in cases where two entities have come together and combined their names – very mindful of the politics that go with it. Unfortunately, many clients also believe (and it’s not necessarily a bad thing – how else could they deal with the long hours and the sheer tedium of much of what they do?) that the company they steer, and they themselves (by default) are the most important things in the entire universe.

This, inevitably, leads them to believe that the outside world will dance to their tune and that they simply have to snap their fingers and their bidding will be done. In this case, the fingers they’re snapping take the form of a pin-stripe-suited associate at Finglebum Snide Travesti Partners, financial PR advisors of this parish. Who, mindful of their obscene retainer, pick up the ‘phone and make arses of themselves and the profession as a whole.

Journalists often have a good whinge around how the PR profession doesn’t understand their needs and their constraints. In fairness, PR people often have a whinge around how they’re treated by the media – and both parties have a point.

In this case, however, Finglebum Snide Travesti Partners let the side down. They are financial PR advisors. So advise. Tell the client that their company is getting decent coverage, and that the coverage is having the desired effect – communicating corporate messages to the required audience. Remind the client that their company is a strong one, and that the shareholders are unlikely to even notice that a journalist has not used the company’s full (proper) name. Advise the client that making an issue out of this may, actually, have an adverse effect.

Like clearly demonstrating to stakeholders that the company is run by anal-retentives, who quite clearly have too much time on their hands and therefore are not involved anywhere near enough in the frying-of-bigger-fish department.

(NB For the purpose of this post, I have made all sorts of assumptions. In the interests of providing balance, I accept that the fingers that were snapped may equally have taken the form of an in-house communications advisor. I am prepared to concede that Finglebum Snide Travesti Partners does not exist, although it probably should. I will go as far as to propose that no fingers may have been snapped at all and the ‘phone call made to the Standard’s City desk may have been an off-the-cuff, spur-of-the-moment decision by an inexperienced junior. All this being said, my point still stands.)

Social Media – Twitterette’s Syndrome

Twitterette’s Syndrome is a localised but extremely virulent strain of Social Media Tourette’s (oh yes it fucking is) which, as you will know, gentle blog snorkeller, is an odious ailment that afflicts a small but significant proportion of the population when they are presented with the opportunity to post whatever they like to a public forum.

It can take the form of simple intolerance of anyone else’s point of view, or extreme bad language, or posting of inappropriate material (visual or written), or racial harrassment (and yes, Nick Griffin is a white bollocks – he’s a White Nazi Bollocks, actually), or career-threatening stupidity. Or one of a myriad of other opportunities to be a complete arse.

Twitterette’s Syndrome is the delusion that people are interested in everything you do, leading the sufferer to tweet things that are wholly unimportant, have no relevance, wouldn’t be considered appropriate to say out loud or are simply the product of a mind with the consistency of blancmange.

Stephen Fry, recently. So you’re a manic depressive Stephen – that’s not a good thing, and I know you struggle with it, and I appreciate that it’s not easy – but if you’ve got a Black Dog, step away from the Twitter feed. Duncan Bannantyne, not so long ago. No-one wants to know that you’re in the airport, coming back from your house in France. In fact, most people actively don’t want to know. There are a million other examples, if you go looking for them. Most are, however and thankfully, hidden from overly public view and their authors are only perceived to be useless cretins by a small group of their peers.

This morning, however, we have the salutory tale of the woman who tweeted details of her miscarriage, while she was having it. Now, OK, I wouldn’t know about it were it not for the media picking up on it. And they wouldn’t know about it were it not for a few outraged souls who feel that a woman should not be pleased that she’s having a miscarriage – in fact probably shouldn’t be allowed to have a miscarriage full stop. Penny Trunk, the miscarriagist, (with a name that ‘minds me of a cheap elephant) put forward the perfectly valid point that if you don’t want to know about it, don’t log on. Totally agree.

But what, on earth, was she thinking when she decided to tweet about it? It’s not the sort of thing that most sane people would consider a valid conversational topic. I don’t know Ms Trunk, but I’m presuming that she didn’t actually say – in her board meeting – ‘Hey up, lads, I’m having a miscarriage – great!’ But she saw fit to tweet it. This is Twitterette’s Syndrome – and I can’t help but thinking it’ll get worse before it gets better.

Oh – and Ms Trunk – she’s the ‘boss’ of this firm. She was in a board meeting. And she’s tweeting. Goes to show that social notworking is everywhere.

Corporate Communications – The Role of Publicity

Without beating about the bush – “according to public relations scholarly conventions, publicity is a small part of public relations”.

Read the full thing here.

Further, as someone else put it “publicity is not considered among the higher forms of practice.”

Bollocks. 

What is meant by ‘publicity’? In what sense is it not considered among the higher forms of practice? What practice? By whom?

If we are talking about the PR or corporate communications industries, then I would humbly point out that publicity (of some sort, on some level) is the aim of everything that we do – from writing a news release, through the creation of the annual report, via investor relations, to lobbying of public figures.

‘Stunt’ PR is one way of generating publicity (and by ‘stunt’ PR, I include use of celebrity and also the publicising of celebrities themselves through use of their own celebrity)and I firmly believe that it needs to be subject to the ethics of our trade (amongst which are don’t lie, don’t misrepresent, don’t insult, belittle or demean).

But publicity is not ‘among the forms of practice’. Publicity IS the practice. A lot of the high falutin’, self-important practitioners would do very well to remember that.

You know who you are.

Social Media, Social Commentary

“Meanwhile Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said the latest Fry-related Twitter slaying strengthened his theory that social networking was steadily turning everyone into a clinically insane 14 year-old girl.”

From The Daily Mash – read the full article (if you wish) here.

Social Media – Blurring Boundaries

It wasn’t all that long ago that I read someone somewhere complaining about how LinkedIn was rapidly losing value – how, as social media became the hot topic du jour, there was a massive influx of new people, the curious, the band-wagon jumpers, the late adopters – and as they joined, so the ‘background noise’ increased and the value to those who were already there began to decrease.

Which made me think about the different social media and what they’re used for. Undoubtedly, as Twitter thinks about offering video, there’s a convergence of the media and that will mean – inevitably – that a few big brands will survive and many will fall by the wayside. But, further to that, there’s – until now – been a clear difference between, for example, LinkedIn (a business social network) and Facebook (a social social network).

I say until now. Only yesterday, one of my newer contacts posted an update which read (I’m paraphrasing) ‘enjoying some sleep after a successful product launch’.  To my mind, this is something that would be better tweeted, or posted to Facebook.

And it’s not an isolated example. And it shows, if I can venture an opinion, that the social side of social media is far stronger than any commercial or business networking element.

 

Social Media – Size Matters

The following excerpt is from a post about the Interbrand Top Global Brands survey, vs the Sysomos on-line presence survey – which shows how top brands are perceived in terms of social media ‘buzz’. (Horrible word, not mine.) Here you go:

“One conclusion that could be speculated based on the data from this small study is that well-established, mature brands don’t seem to need the high levels of social media buzz to sustain their value, while new and growing brands can reap great benefits from the power of a social media buzz.

Of course, this is a very small study of just the top 20 brands based on global value, so conclusions can only be hypothetical.  However, it makes sense that new and growing brands have more to gain from investing in social media advertising and branding campaigns than established or new brands do.”

While this is quite clearly a statement of the bleeding obvious, on a bit of reflection, like most statements of the bleeding obvious, it actually needs saying.

If there is any benefit in social media as a marketing tool, it is most easily accessed by small companies who a) have nothing to lose b) have everything to gain c) do not have massive organisations and overheads d) have limited employee numbers e) do not have massive marketing budgets and programmes, thus having the ability to dedicate time to social media as their sole (or major) route to market and f) will see and appreciate any ROI their activity generates. And if you reverse engineer points a to f, you’ll see why established organisations are wasting their time.

Here’s a link.

Social Media – @DameElizabeth

Elizabeth Taylor tweets support for Michael Jackson movie. How wrong is this? Let me count the levels.

1) Liz is geriatric and not known for her hi-tech leanings. Someone is tweeting on her behalf. Either she’s pressed her butler into service, or she’s hired someone new. Mind, Babs Cartland used to dictate her ‘novels’ to a secretary, so perhaps it’s not that bad. Oh, who am I kidding.

2) We can’t be sure it actually is Liz. 177,052 sad souls are following her (100, to date) tweets, hoping for a 140-character touch of greatness, and all they’re getting is guerilla publicity for the cynical money spinner that is This Is It. A fair proportion of the 177k will go and see the film. Who says Twitter doesn’t deliver ROI? Ah yes – I do.

3) These tweets quite clearly aren’t Liz’s opinions or her words. At least I hope not. And if you’ve not read them yet, you might wish to furnish yourself with a bucket and some kitchen towel. You’re going to need it.

4) This ‘film’ is simply appalling, in its premise and delivery. No, I’ve not seen it, and I have no intention of doing so, ever. Does anyone else see anything wrong in watching a frail, sick, old man, with some form of body dysmorphic disorder, quite literally dancing on his own grave? This is a train wreck happening in a cinema near you.

5) Here we have proof that absolutely nothing is sacred, and that there is nothing that people will not do to part other people from their money. In this case, we get the particularly edifying and salutory spectacle of a family eking the last few cents out of their dead child and sibling.

It’s a free world, I guess. This sort of stuff makes me wish it wasn’t quite so free.

Social Media – The Other End of the World

As my regular blog snorkellers will know, I’ve not been backward in coming forward with my theory that social media is on its way out. This is for reasons too innumerable to mention here, including the fact that no-one’s making any money out of it, it’s being swamped by spam, the user growth figures are slowing, the user growth figures have never reflected the reality of the amount of people who sign up then never use the service again and – my favourite – because I say so.

There is another theory, however and in the spirit of fairness and balance, I give an iteration of it a hearing here. Clickety-clink – here’s the link!

(Can’t believe I just wrote that.)

The theory says that the traditional digital comms tools – email, websites – are themselves on the way out, to be subsumed into social media. The reasoning goes that social media provides opportunities to communicate and to provide content that email cannot – to summarise and paraphrase – email is one-dimensional and the social media are not. Same goes for the traditional, reasonably static website – why would you, really, when user-generated, arguably richer content pertaining to a brand or organisation is out there in the blogosphere, or posted on Facebook?

But then the theory trips up. I think it trips up because of the widespread inability to separate social media into its two component parts.

  • Something that people do in their spare time (and when they’re notworking, obviously) to keep up with friends and family, ask for advice on things that trouble/interest them and view/download jokes, clips, tracks, patches etc etc.
  • Something that simply is not working as a marketing, communications or reputation-building tool.

Just because individuals, in their day-to-day lives, may decide to run those lives via Facebook or Twitter or some combination of the two, does not make them valid, or valuable, business tools. Business requires communication without distractions, without logins, without a ‘spirit of community’ and – most importantly – without commentary from everyone who reads it. This is why email, as it is currently, works – for business purposes – so well. You can choose who receives it, you can monitor it and you can cane people who misuse it or try to hide their use of it. The thing that will change about email is how we send and receive it and what it looks like when we do send and receive it.

I also draw attention to the school of thought that says ‘ask a 20-year-old whether they’re using email’ as if this has any bearing on the matter. No, they’re not – they’re texting and using social media (well, some are, anyway) – but, quite frankly, who cares? Email is a business tool (and I include marketing and corporate comms within ‘business’) and 20-year-olds are a notoriously difficult-to-reach audience with limited appeal. You might as well ask an 80-year-old whether they’re using email for all the relevance it has.

And traditional, static websites – well, here’s a sensible post. Actually, there’s more of a place for traditional corporate websites that ever before – and why? Because, thanks to social media (and the way the bigger internet players are forcing us to behave – yes, forcing – Google SideWiki, anyone?) there’s such a slew of information that, ironically enough, the only place you’ll be able to go for reasonably accurate and (dare I say) impartial information will be the corporate website.

Now, I’d just like to make it clear – again, and mainly for my wife, who thinks I’m a cave-dwelling technophobe – that I am not either denying the existence of social media or telling anyone to stick their heads in the sand. Social media is here. Loads of people are using it. It is right and fitting that if we work in communications then we should have a knowledge of it. That being said – I repeat – do not confuse the social media that people use to run/ruin their personal lives and the social media that has all the potential to ruin your business (uncontrolled rumour and bad-mouthing) and none of the potential to materially enhance your revenues.

Social Media – B*ll*cks to Twitter

Better late than never. Trawling through my backlog of trade magazines, I came across an issue of Marketing from September 30. Almost a month old. I’d be a really crap journalist.

Luckily I’m not. And neither is Mark Ritson, who wrote this (to my mind) brilliant article. Mr Ritson is an ‘associate professor of marketing’ – whatever that is – and these are his thoughts on the parallel between what’s happening now with social media and what happened 10 years ago just prior to the dotcom bust. Here’s a flavour:

“If you believe the hype, Twitter is the future of media and marketing. John Borthwick, chief executive of web investor Betaworks, told the New York Times last week that Twitter ‘represents a next layer of innovation on the internet’ and that the investment was justified ‘because it represents a shift’. Ten years ago, I would have gulped, assumed I was missing something, and nodded my head at this.

“These days I am older, fatter and a good deal wiser, and I say (in fewer that 140 characters): bollocks to Twitter. And bollocks to it being worth a billion dollars.”

It’s nice to know that I’m not alone.

(Mind – a month is a long time in social media and Mr Ritson may already have changed his mind.)

Social Media – The Last Days of The Empire……

History shows us that, right before a major upheaval, there’s normally a flurry of activity. Decadence. Celebration of the good times. Wringing out of the last drop of excitement and pleasure. I refer you to, in no particular order:

  • Nero and the whole Rome deal
  • King Charles, his nasty long hair and his cavalier attitude
  • A nice slice of cake prior to the French Revolution
  • The divinely decadent parade getting a good raining on courtesy of Mr Hitler
  • £400k for a one-bedroom flat in Acton – that’s worth nothing now

Taking this into account, I was interested to read a piece from Communicate Magazine which highlights a veritable slew of social media events, publications and workshops that are springing up and taking place over the next month or so – including, if you can credit it, a two-day ‘social media retreat’. At which, apparently, ‘the finest wines are available’.

I think the parallel is there to be drawn. Vive la revolution!