Crisis Management

Crisis Management – Yes, Stupid, You Need A Plan

Posted on by in Crisis Management, Crisis Management Guides, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , , .

Following on from news of Burson Marsteller’s research in to European companies’  level of crisis-preparedness – I wrote about it recently – which revealed (in addition to such gems as ‘crises may affect share price’) that while 60% of companies polled had encountered some sort of crisis, 53% didn’t have a plan – PRWeek sees fit to inform its readership that “Crisis Comms Is (a) Hot Topic”. (What is this? Some sort of uncontrolled outbreak of the Galloping Bleedin’ Obviousnesses?)

Now, in fairness (because, when all’s said and done, I’m a reasonably fair bloke) PRWeek is reporting that ‘more than 60 communicators from large international corporations across the EMEA region were set to meet in London to discuss the findings” (of the Burson-Marsteller report).  Which I find both terrifying and very difficult to believe in equal measure – what are 60 communicators going to do with the loosely-structured, scaremongering collection of motherhood statements that is the B-M report? Will they agree with the statistics – ie 36 of their number have experienced a crisis, while 32 of them don’t have a plan in place? And will the 28 who do then jeer and point at the others?

I suspect, given that the keynote speaker at this – judging by the breathless PRWeek copy (“Senior comms executives were set to convene this week to thrash out crisis comms strategies in the wake of new research” – oh, please) – hastily-arranged gathering, is the owner of a security and risk management advisory firm, that this is more of a paid-for training session cum conference. But, hey, call me an old cynic.

Two things then. All you 60 communicators set to gather in London – what are you doing? If you haven’t got a crisis plan – and you don’t know where to start –  don’t spend your money on coming to London to listen to a lecture. Get in touch with the CIPR or the PRCA and ask for their recommendations on a crisis management consultant, and then go and have a conversation. Quick-smart, choppy-chop.

Thing two. PRWeek. Instead of reporting this horseshit in a breathless fashion, could we please, please have a three page feature on creating a robust crisis management plan – some case histories maybe? You could even shadow one of the 32 of the 60 who don’t have a plan as he or she goes through the process of getting one together. Just a thought.

Crisis Management – Who’d Have Thought It?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , .

Today I is mostly loving Burson-Marsteller and their ability to keep a straight face. That most marvellous of publications, Communicate Magazine, has a story about some research that B-M has conducted into the crisis-preparedness of European companies.

I am extremely lazy, and therefore, you – dear blog snorkeller – can read it for yourself. Click the light fantastic here.

What prompts me to share it are B-M’s findings as regards the consequences of a crisis (crisis (n.) an unstable period, esp one of extreme trouble or danger in politics, economics, etc), which, apparently, can include “falling share prices, loss of corporate reputation, loss of media and/or public trust and law suits by individuals or groups”.

In other news, scientists at the Institute for Studies have discovered that water is wet, the sky is blue and petrol is frighteningly flammable.

Corporate Communications – The Boxing Metaphor

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , , , .

Following on from an earlier post about publicity and the rules of engagement. Taking it as read that publicity – in some form or other (publicity (n) – information that concerns a person, group, event, or product and that is disseminated through various media to attract public notice) – is the end goal of everything that we do as communicators, then – ergo – there must be rules that the professional communicator has at least an eye to when going about the task.

For my part, these include (but are not limited to) telling the truth (or at least a part of it), not misrepresenting, not insulting, not belittling and not demeaning – and, here’s a biggie, not saying anything that you cannot, if called upon to do so, back up.

Obviously, there’s a fine line here. Many moons ago, Tesco announced a new home delivery service – for those of its customers who lived in some splendour and didn’t wish to see a Tesco-branded van up their cul-de-sac (to coin a phrase). The new service involved delivery by dark green Range Rover, and the pictures of said Range Rover (along with the story) got square hectares of coverage.

I myself announced that a particular pub restaurant chain was to launch ‘Pincher’s Portions’ of chips – to solve the age old issue of wives, girlfriends and partners refusing to order their own chips and then pinching yours. (Ooooooh – it still irritates me.) Again, the story tapped into the zeitgeist and generated a decent footie pitch of coverage.

Of course, neither story was strictly based in complete fact. Tesco had one, perhaps two, Range Rovers, and the posh delivery service vanished as fast as the story did. My lovely pub restaurant chain put the Pincher’s Portion on the menu in a couple of its outlets, for a brief while. It didn’t matter at all, though – the ideas behind the stories were great and, if absolutely pushed (by some humourless killjoy) to prove they were true – well, we could.

Now the boxing metaphor. As you may know, dear blog snorkeller, on Saturday, one David Hayes is to step into the ring of pugilism and face Nikolai Valuev of Russia. Clearly, Mr Hayes’ fortune rests on the publicity he can generate around the fight, encouraging people to pay their subscriptions to watch it, and making himself more marketable. He has been most vociferous around how well he is going to do, and how is is going to knock his opponent out. There has been reams of coverage – the story has been wholly unavoidable, unless you’ve been living in an hermetically-sealed bunker somewhere for the past couple of weeks.

Unfortunately for Mr Hayes, he is going to be called upon to prove all the claims he has made. Also unfortunately, his opponent is seven foot two inches tall, and weighs 23 stone. He is – looking at it in a logical and balanced fashion – going to get spanked.

A company caught generating publicity on the back of a lie will lose the trust of its stakeholders and the impact on its corporate reputation may be mortal. If you squint a bit and look at Mr Hayes as a company, what’s going to happen to him on Saturday is exactly the same.

Social Media – Effectiveness Depends on Point of View

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Flicking through the pages of a PRWeek advertising supplement – it was the Corporate Affairs one – and came across an article by Colin Byrne.

(And no, contrary to what you might expect, I’m not going to have a go at these trivial exercises in self-publicity and ask why do what appear to be otherwise quite sensible people insist on perpetuating their existence by agreeing to participate and paying for the privilege. No – this time I shall demonstrate some restraint.)

The article was, in summary, about the danger to corporate reputation presented by the rise of social media and the fact that guarding against it – or being prepared to guard against it – is now a fact of business life. It also plugged a recent Weber Shandwick (Mr Byrne is CEO, UK and Europe, Weber Shandwick) study – Risky Business: Reputations Online – which I am delighted to re-plug here. Should you so wish, I am certain that Weber Shandwick will be delighted to furnish you with a copy of the study (and some salient advice to go with it), in the same way that I am certain that PRWeek will furnish you with a copy of their Corporate Affairs advertising supplement. For a small consideration.

In the article, Mr Byrne referenced the now-infamous Domino’s Pizza incident, in which a group of employees filmed themselves abusing ingredients and posted the result on YouTube. He suggests, rightly, that ‘reputation assassins in their many shapes and forms are hard at work out there and the real test is how the incident is subsequently handled’.

So far, so good. A description of Domino’s response follows – apparently ‘instead of issuing press releases and back-pedalling to limit the reputational damage, Domino’s released an apologetic YouTube video response featuring company president Patrick Doyle, and set up a Twitter page to answer customer queries’.

Thing is, blog snorkellers, Mr Byrne seems to think this is a good response.  Now, I could be misinformed and my memory could be playing tricks, but as I remember it, it took Domino’s an unconscionable amount of time to do anything at all about the incident – whether on social media or otherwise – and this delay was not seen as a good thing.

Regardless of whether that is the case or not – the incident, which started out on YouTube, rapidly went mainstream and (given that not everyone is plugged into social media, and not everyone has internet access) many thousands of people will have heard about it via broadcast and print without ever having seen the offending film.

By not issuing a press release (hell – I’d have gone further and taken out some tactical ads) and restricting themselves to Twitter (4,412 followers) and Facebook (312,645 fans), Domino’s missed a chunk of their audience, and only semi-addressed the issue. This is the problem with taking the ‘social-only’ route, or giving undue prominence to social in the communications mix. It doesn’t work in isolation. Can’t.

So – the Domino’s issue. Same incident. Same response. Different views on it and – therefore – different views on the effectiveness of social as a whole. Take your pick.

(By the way – the last comment on the Domino’s Facebook page reads “EWWWWWWW THE NEW SALAMI AT DOMINOS IS FUCKING SHITHOUSE. IT TASTES LIKE SOMEONES ARSE!!!!!!!YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK.” Makes you wonder why they bother. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion – but I think I’d rather gather it through customer research, myself.)

Social Media – More on Corporate Social Media Use and Policy

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Just as I’m seeing chinks of light – OK, maybe social media can be used in localised and focused fashion to boost the fortunes of smaller concerns (see here, no apologies for linking you to the US and all that goes with it, we have a special relationship, get used to it), although I’m still a bit fuzzy on the bit that gets the punter to the Twitter – up pop the creatures.

The post in question dates from last week and, because I know you, blog snorkellers, and you can’t be bothered to do clickety-dickety, it’s yet another take on the reasons why corporations don’t embrace social media. I am, surprisingly enough, not going to pass judgement on it – I’m going to limit myself to a few observations.

1) Employees will waste time with social media.

Yes. They will. But let’s not confuse the internet with social media. The internet is, broadly speaking, a Good Thing in the work place – a source of information and ideas that can assist the company in the achievement of its goals. Social media are simply bits of the internet, choices if you like, which may or may not be benign, and if they benefit a company only do so if approached in a planned, strategic and carefully monitored fashion. Policies on social media usage by employees should be draconian and companies are within their rights to block usage of social media sites.

2) Haters will damage our brand.

Yes. But haters will damage your brand whether or not you have a social media strategy or presence. This is about whether your brand’s any good. If it isn’t, word of mouth will damage your brand. Get it right, however, and people will like it (simple. eh?) – and no-one goes out of their way to say nasty things about a brand if it isn’t nasty. You don’t need the followers of a Twitter feed to do your crisis containment for you. Trust me, you don’t.

3. We’ll lose control of the brand

Of course you won’t. But that’s because a brand’s essence is controlled by the brand guardians, its equity is protected by law and its appearance enshrined in the brand guidelines. – not because people are talking about it on-line or off-line. Of course people talk about brands – always have done, always will do – doesn’t change the brand unless the brand guardians decide it should.

To say, however, that message control is an illusion is either laziness or a failure to grasp one of the most basic principles of corporate communications. Message control is about the messages you, the brand communicator, and your brand spokespeople, put out there. Your output, over time, should change the tone of the general chit-chat in the way you want it to. That’s message control. It takes time and effort. It is not suited to social media but, hey – if you want to be constantly at risk of being backfooted and you want to increase your investment manyfold – go ahead.

4. Social media requires a real budget! It’s not really cheap or free.

Yes, it does. No, it’s not. And as social media doesn’t deliver a quantifiable ROI and has yet to make anyone any money, just, exactly, why would you put your limited marketing budget against it? I merely ask.

5. They’re scared they’ll be sued.

And rightly so. Employees + unregulated access to social media = Risk.

6) They’re scared of giving away corporate secrets or that information on social networks will affect the stock price.

Yes, you do need to create a social media policy. But policies aren’t foolproof. The FSA (in the UK) has serious rules on disclosure – doesn’t stop people playing fast and loose with financial information, and these are professionals, not naive and untrained employees.

Some employees are hired to represent the brand and talk to customers, others are hired because they have  a specific and specialised skillset. Not all of them would be comfortable being a brand ambassador. Others suffer from a sort of corporate Tourette’s when confronted with message boards and suggestion boxes. It’s not a question of trust, it’s a question of horses for courses.

Someone actually said – and I’ve quoted it in a previous post – that the very nature of social media leads to inadvertent disclosure. Which scares the living crap out of me.

Anyway, I’ll leave you with another post. This time about a company that gets mentioned quite a lot in connection with social media (along with Starbucks, Dell, Zappo, Amazon and Dominos – always these six, strange really), Best Buy. They asked, on their Facebook group, whether they should have the Best Buy website in Spanish. Cue negative, even racist comment. (Actually, in fairness, how were they to know? But it does say something about the type of Facebooketeers attracted to Best Buy.) So what were they to do? Well, as I understand it, if you’re a social media head – a company hippy – then you join the conversation. You motivate your online community to rally to your defence.

Horsesh*t. If you’re sensible, you do exactly what Best Buy did. You pull the plug and hope that it goes away.

This is the wonder of social media – you never know what it’s going to do and whether it’s going to take a big chunk out of your bum. If it does, however, just turn it off.

Join the conversation, my *rse.

Spin – Not What You Say, But What You Appear to Have Said

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , .

Another weekend, another bag of political shenaniganning. The one-eyed Scottish idiot (that’s Gordon Brown, according to Jeremy Clarkson – he, Gordon should consider himself lucky, according to Jeremy Clarkson, Prince Philip is a c**t) was on Andrew Marr’s telly programme on Sunday morning, when Marr asked the question that we’ve all be dying to get an answer to. Is, in fact, Prudence Broon a stark raving lunatic, retaining a modicum of self-control only through the use of industrial-strength medecines? Here’s the transcript:

“Marr If you were an American president, we would know all about your medical history. You were asked in the States about your eyesight, and I think the reason you were asked is because people were wondering whether that would be a reason for standing down at some point. Let me ask you about something else everybody has been talking about – a lot of people … use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of those?

Brown No. I think this is the sort of questioning that is …

Marr It’s a fair question, I think.

Brown … is all too often entering the lexicon of British politics. I have had very serious problems with my eye. I lost my eyesight playing rugby. I had three major operations and they could not save my sight. I then had exactly the same thing happen to my second eye … and every year, of course, I have to check, as I did only a few days ago, that my eyesight is good and there has been absolutely no deterioration in my eyesight, and I think people should be absolutely clear that although …

Marr What about my other question?

Brown I answered your other question. Although I have problems with my eyes and it has been very difficult over the years, I think people understand that you can do a job and you can work hard. And I think it would be a terrible indictment of our political system if you thought that because someone had this medical issue they couldn’t do the job. So, Andrew, I think these questions … of course you might be right to ask them, but … I feel that I have done everything to show people that I can do the job even with the handicap that I’ve had as a result of a rugby injury.”

This morning, the news channels are full of it. Complaints are being made to the Beeb for allowing Marr to ask the question and ‘right wing blogs’ are the new reds under our beds. In fact, there’s a real feeling that Gordon Brown really should not have been put in the situation where he had to dignify the rumours (about his use of anti-depressants) with such a denial.

But – hold up a moment. He didn’t deny it. Did he? All I read here is a sentence that, in its entirety, says “No. I think this is the sort of questioning that is all too often entering the lexicon of British politics. I have had very serious problems with my eye.” Which I understand to mean ‘no – don’t go there – this is the sort of question you shouldn’t be asking.’ I don’t see a denial there at all.

A little later, Marr asks again ‘about my other question’. And Brown simply says ‘I answered your other question’. Again, no denial – this time a simple refusal to revisit his previous answer.  Obviously – it’s not a massively important point – either he is taking horse-tranquillisers or he isn’t. And if he is, he’ll be stuffed, whether he denied it or not.

What really intrigues me is the way that apparently sensible people have seen his words as a denial. He said the word ‘no’ and therefore he’s denied whatever he was being accused of. Or is it that there’s some massive cover-up going on, for reasons of national security?

Either way, while Gord’s got muckers like the Other Prime Minister on his side, no amount of cover-up conspiracy his going to save his grey and jowly neck. Can’t help but noticing how quick Peter was to speak out ‘in defence’ of the PM, thereby ensuring that the issue wasn’t forgotten, or passed over by a less-than-vigilant media.

And this is the same Peter Mandelson who, at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, when the waggish Mr Bean called out ‘Mr Prime Minister!’ simply smiled a hooded and vulpine smile and replied ‘not yet’.

And speaking, as I have been, of Mandy, Gord and painkillers – I quite enjoyed this.

Social Media – Culturally Diverse, or Simply Take It or Leave It?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, Evaluation, External Communications, Internal Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Apologies in advance – this isn’t a terribly clever post. (And we do like a bit of clever, blog-snorkellers, don’t we?)

It’s simply that I got randomly forced, like a reluctant and rather fleshy square peg into an unattractive and not-terribly-fulfilling round hole, into attending a training course recently, entitled ‘Communicating Across Cultures’. With the help of some Janets and Johns, we were introduced to the pitfalls of dealing with colleagues and stakeholders from other parts of the world, and the things we might need to think about in order to ensure that the message got across, that we didn’t mortally affend anyone and that the right outcomes were achieved. We talked about direct and indirect styles  of communication, task vs relationship focusing and egalitarianism and status as a leadership and personality styles.

Then, in direct contrast, at home, over the weekend, over a glass of wine, I watched a movie called ‘Body of Lies’. (Which gives you an insight into the sort of cultural level at which I am comfortable operating.) Said movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, is almost an anti-course in cultural awareness. Russell Crowe is extremely effective as the senior CIA operator who – quite clearly – does not give a shit whether he offends or not, and is either self-confident enough, or deluded enough, not to care how he is perceived. At the end, however, you feel he is rather more isolated than he would like to be and, while achieving against his goals and the goals of his employer, there is something slightly pathetic and tenuous about him.

Unfortunately, I cannot help but thinking that social media is the Russell Crowe Body of Lies character. It’s heavy-handed and there’s no room for nuance. Indeed, as the province of the cyber-hippy, where we should all love each other and share everything and give peace a chance, well – there’s no need for nuance, is there?

It works well across communities and countries which share common cultural dimensions. What this will mean in practice is that the US, the UK, Australia and South Africa will be comfortable sharing a social medium, but it’s unlikely that China, or India or (perhaps surprisingly) Brazil are going to want to join them.

The thing about communicating effectively across cultures – and being successful as a business across cultures – is that it requires a basket of difefrent tools – words, attitude, behaviours and knowing which medium to use. The thing about social media is that it is one-dimensional and it brings nothing to this party.

It’s something else for the social media gurus to start working on and something else for their clients to throw money at. And I’d warrant that it’s something else that will never be resolved.

Social Media – Fire the Facebook Five!

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Internal Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Another day, another example of social media tomfoolery. Today, for your delight and delectation, we have the Facebook Five – a group of prison guards from New South Wales who ‘stand accused of misconduct after making disparaging remarks about their boss on the social networking site’. The full story is but a click away.

 They’ve been threatened with the sack, however their union has gone to tribunal to save their jobs – the argument being that the guards were letting off steam in their own time, in a ‘private’ Facebook group, and therefore it’s simply like shooting your mouth off in the pub, which everyone does.

 And that’s the nub of the matter. Recently, I copped some flack after saying that employees should not be allowed to post to social media either about their employer or on behalf of their employer. This last function should be left to qualified company spokespeople. I said that freedom of speech is not a right that an employee has on company time or when using company equipment. I went as far as to mention disciplinary action.

 What I didn’t say, of course, because I took it as read, is that employees DO comment about their work, their company and their boss. Of course they do. To friends, family, colleagues and the posse down the pub. That’s a given.

 However, no matter what the Facebook Five’s union official may claim, there is a massive difference between making disparaging comments down the pub and making disparaging comments in a Facebook group, even a private one.

 The difference – quite obviously – is that no matter how private your Facebook group, there is a chance that someone – outside of your circle – will see it. And its content – your comments – may become a matter of public record. And, social media and the internet being what they are, your comments may attract a very wide audience.

 Simply put, remarks down the pub last as long as someone’s memory of them. Comments posted to social media last forever, somewhere. Social media, the internet, is not private and no-one should regard it as such.

 The New South Wales prison service should have had a social media policy – this may have acted as a deterrent. The Facebook Five, however, should have thought about what they were doing and recognised the potential consequences of their actions – and it’s for that crass stupidity that they should be fired.

Social Media – Really Worth the Risk?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Internal Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Came across this paragraph this morning. I’m not going to go into the context – suffice it to say it was the conclusion of a commentary on Barack Obama’s ‘off-the-record’ comment that Kanye West is a ‘jackass’. (Which he is, but that’s another song, as they say.)

 Anyway – it’s not new – it’s what every comms practitioner knows, simply updated for the social media age in which we live.

 “In today’s wired world, every bystander with a camera phone, a blog or a Twitter account can play reporter and turn an off-hand comment into a worldwide news story. For almost any setting, the best policy today is not to say, write or do anything that you don’t want to see in the newspaper tomorrow, on the TV news tonight or on Twitter or YouTube in the next two minutes.”

 So – given that we take this truth to be self-evident – how does this square with official employee use of social media? Already this week I’ve come across – and published – the quite extraordinary assertion that “….since this type of communication is often viewed as less formal than other (sic), there is increased risk for inadvertent disclosure”. And we know, from some very high-profile examples, that – above and beyond inadvertent screw-ups – there are also employees who come over all Tourette’s when confronted by Twitter or YouTube.

 As I’ve said already, I’ve changed my mind. Doing nothing and hoping it will go away is not an option. Every organisation, by now, should either have, or be giving thought to, a social media policy. Preferably one that doesn’t entertain the notion of allowing employees free rein to post to social media either during company time, from company machinery or on behalf of the body corporate. The sanctions against anyone doing it should be quite draconian.

 I was, frankly, open-mouthed when I found out that WholeFoods has over 1,370,000 followers on Twitter. It is extraordinary. I was reasonably shaken when I saw Starbucks had nearly 294,000. Even allowing for the large proportion who became followers on their first visit to Twitter and have never visited again, that still a lot of potential dialogue and a lot of room for error.

 I know that Ford and Coke have created social media ambassadors – carefully trained, briefed and monitored social media spokespeople – to deal with their respective 15,000 and 8,500 followers. I’m presuming that WholeFoods and Starbucks has done the same.

 Best Buy, with its Twelpforce, hasn’t and the experiment is not considered, universally, a success. They’ve had some Tourette’s incidents with some of their employee Tweeters.

 The point is, I guess, that I’m not convinced of the value-add of social media. If it didn’t exist, would anyone actually bother to invent it? What I am convinced of is the increasing amount of time, effort and budget that is going to have to be invested in it – and its ancillary activities like training and monitoring – if those companies who have so bravely (and so very quickly) embraced the technology are going to keep on top of it.

 I am also convinced that the rise of social media has introduced a new, and very elevated, level of risk into external and internal corporate communications that we, the gatekeepers, ignore at our peril. As social media cannot be (properly) monitored and isn’t regulated, so it is difficult to create a plan for its use or target the message.

 Every organisation should, by now, either have, or be working on, a social media policy. And it should aim to restrict corporate usage. Before the trouble starts.

It’s The End of The World As We Know It……..

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , .

….and I feel fine. Sorry. Gratuitous REM reference.

Listen chaps, sorry I’m a bit late coming to this one, but it is quite important. So listen carefully.

Great story in PR Week, couple of weeks ago. (I know, I know, I’m not a fan of PR Week, but credit where credit’s due, eh?) It was about the Guido Fawkes blog – see, here – more specifically, the chap behind it, Paul Staines, avowing to take on and reveal ‘the fat cats of spin and their hidden hand in politics’. He said his primary targets were Matthew Freud (almost had a Freudian spelling slip there – irony at its most pure), Alan Parker and Roland Rudd.

What Mr Staines is reported as saying is that ‘there is a legitimate role for lobbying, but (not) over coffee and cigars after a meal.’ He also said ‘people are coming to me with information and I’m building up a picture of who. what, where.’ Our august industry journal went on to reveal that ‘lobbyists privately dismissed Staines’ efforts, but were reluctant to go on record’. Hold on – where’s all that smoke coming from?

Personally, I think this is brilliant stuff. If Mr Staines delivers on his promise, then we (as an industry) are in for some very interesting times. Spin will have been proven. All those terrible rumours about PR behind closed doors will be exposed as truth – in the minds of most Daily Mail readers, anyway. What I would really like to have seen, mind, is some response from Messrs Freud, Parker or Rudd – but I am a realist and it’ll be a cold day in hell etc etc etc.

The real star of the piece, mind, was Lionel Zetter. “The Tories have been using the letters page of PR Week to send a clear message to lobbyists that it will not be ‘business as usual’ if they win the next general election.” Excellent.

Wait a minute, though – is Mr Zetter saying that it IS currently ‘business as usual’? And am I right in understanding that ‘business as usual’ in the context of this article is the ‘coffee and cigars after a meal’ that Mr Staines talks about? Confirmation, perhaps, that Guido Fawkes is on to a winner?

Anyway, I know nothing about the subject. I think it is a marvellous story though and I look forward to the follow-ups.

The only thing, and it’s just a thought, why was it buried on page whatever of the magazine, while the front page was graced with a ‘story’ about research that showed that professional footballers are not in touch with their fans?

Surely some mistake? Or is Mr Staines considered too dangerous for the front page?