Thursday 10 December 2009

A chance for the obesity makers to repent

The UK's biggest advertising spender, the Central Office of Information, has started a process to find the biggest brains in behavioural change to join a new panel of experts who will advise the Government on how to get people to act differently.

Rather than taking us on a further step towards an Orwellian distopia, this is actually a pretty sensible idea.

Delivering real and sustained positive behavioural change is the holy-grail of marketing and over the last few years PR campaigns have demonstrated how effective they can be at helping deliver this change.

The public sector often leads the way in developing new theories and techniques for influencing and effecting behavioural change so it's welcome that the COI is now looking to bring the best academics and practitioners together to help inform and improve future campaigns.

But as I commented in PR Week, the biggest challenge for this panel will be to overcome the limits of behavioural models - which are deliberately kept simple and theoretical. Therefore, it's crucial that the roster has fair representation from senior professionals who represent current practitioners and that it also recognises wider, non public sector, insight and expertise.

After all, the peddlers of 'fast moving consumer goods' (FMCG brands in marketing speak, or selling sweets to kiddies in common parlance) have caused obseity rates to rocket - let's use their expertise to help us address these trends!

Wednesday 25 November 2009

Easyjet's 'Double Dip' Crisis

Easyjet probably thought they'd won the crisis management battle to shut down the debate on the holocaust memorial photo spread.

Online media coverage over the weekend showed them acting quickly, decisively and sympathetically by pulping 300,000 copies of their inflight magazine (although it took 3 weeks for the complaint to surface).

But the issue has been re-awakened on the eve of the mag nominated for an award for best use of illustration and traditional media waking up to the issue.

Is it so bad? Are the (tastefully shot) pictures all that bad if it encourages more people to visit the Holocaust memorial and learn more about the events which took place? After all, the New Statesman who broke the story felt it acceptable to re-print the shots willfully and other media have followed suit. INK's website says:
"Far from trivialising the Memorial, on the contrary the intention was to encourage passengers to visit for themselves… The aim of each monthly shoot is to highlight an easyJet destination and tell a relevant narrative. The shoot was intended to not only promote local design talent and the city itself, but to raise awareness... We absolutely regret any offence caused."

It seems that a lack of permission from the trustees of the Memorial is the problem behind the crisis.

But regardless Easyjet finds itself on the airwaves and debate intensifies and it shows that while online media may lead the way in breaking news, it still takes mainstream media channels to wake up before a crisis has been fully seen through - all PRs should beware this potential for a 'double dip' crisis.

Thursday 12 November 2009

PR needs to embrace the chance to show it works

The UK's Central Office of Information has suggested that advertising value equivalent's (AVE) are no longer included as part of mandatory evaluation criteria when measuring how well PR campaigns perform.

And not before time!

You can read my comments either in PR Week or on the website of the company I work for. But, if like me you get excited by evaluation (or just want to understand more about the context of this debate) I thought I'd use this space to go into a bit more detail and set out what AVEs are, why they are so evil and what COI is planning to change.

Basically, some people reckon the way to evaluate if a media PR campaign works is to look at how much it would have cost to take out adverts of the same size as the coverage a campaign generated in the media. Some then go on to create a 'editorial value' which multiplies this amount to reflect the fact that people trust editorial more.

Sounds a bit crazy? Yes it is... and very inaccurate. There are three main problems:
1) There is no way of accurately recording the ‘value’ of pieces of coverage on BBC and other non-paid for channels, including social media.
2) There is confusion between AVEs which are based on, often rarely used and quickly outdated, rate cards and a ‘PR Value’, ‘weighted AVE’ or ‘editorial value’. This second group of measures are even more inaccurate and simply multiply the AVE by an editorial trust weighting estimated at 2.5 or 3 times AVE.
3) Despite the popularity of AVEs among some clients and widespread industry usage, just a third of communicators actually believe them to be somewhat or very effective as a measurement tool, according to an important international study.

So, the COI, as one of the largest providers (and purchasers) of PR services in the UK has suggested replacing AVEs with a cost per impact model. This is defined as the amount spent on PR divided by impact. Impact is the number of times the article is seen (reach multiplied by opportunities to see).

But this in itself may have its own drawbacks:
1) The suggested model may be open to abuse. Historically, ‘opportunities to see’ generated by a media outlet can be claim to be obtained by using a circulation figure (easily obtained from media databases) and a common multiplier – again three has become an industry standard because more than one person will traditionally read a paper or watch a TV (again, not exactly science when you consider my earlier post on YouGovStone research). And despite people having the 'opportunity' to see/read/hear, not everyone reads every bit of a paper or listens to every minute of a radio station.
2) It's difficult to see how this model could be expanded to include non-media campaigns as well – including social media, online, viral, stakeholder and event campaigns, etc.

In fact there is limit on any model which essentially only examines the efficiency of PR activity in generating coverage (important as this is). In Band & Brown's submission to COI in response to the consultation, we strongly argue that all evaluation measurement should also measure effectiveness and as such requires the inclusion of attitudinal and behavioural measurement (it's probably only fair to point out that at the moment, we use both types of evaluation, depending on client needs/budgets).

These measures ensure that all PR activity can be evaluated – not just media coverage - and also proves that the industry is not walking away from accountability and is living up to the standards adopted elsewhere in the marketing industry. This will help PR stand up for itself alongside other marketing disciplines as part of what the head of COI news and PR calls 'holistic evaluation'.

The paper I helped write for Band & Brown in response to COI set out five recommendations for addressing the problems above and improving the way the industry proves the real impact of public relations... let's see if COI and the rest of the industry accepts them when the final framework is published!

Wednesday 11 November 2009

Who really influences Britain? The Sun or Twitter?

For those of us with a statto-like obsession with the UK media, some very interesting figures have been released by pollsters YouGovStone.

Ostensibly undertaken to find out who is more influential, Google or Murdoch, the raw data paints an interesting picture of UK media consumption and influence:

- 91% of the general public watch BBC channels and while 67% watch ITV, Channel 4 is right behind on 66%. 17% watch Sky channels.

- More people use Twitter (7%) than read the Sunday Telegraph (5%) or use Myspace (3%).

- The effectiveness of websites on the overall impact of a print media outlet is pronounced and proven with over 1,000% more UK adults saying they read the Guardian's paper/website (10% or 4.7m people) compared to its reported circulation figures (around the 350,000 mark).

- And while papers like the Times, Mail and Sun are still thought to be very or fairly influential by the public (67, 64 and 54% of UK adults agreeing), more so than some individual social networks: Google (62%), Facebook (47%), YouTube (39%), Twitter (33%), Myspace (18%), and Blogger.com (5%), print media needs to watch out, because when added together...

- 17% of UK adults believe online media has the most influence in Britain today, compared to 10% who think the same of print media and 67% who feel that way about broacast media.

And while there are some limitations to the survey (which I'm happy to go into if you Twitter me!), it shows some interesting trends.

But is however, all very worrying when 3% of the population believe the BBC is owned by Murdoch! Perhaps the BBC coverage of the Sun switching sides or attacking Brown is having an effect and Mandleson was right about it damaging the BBC's impartiality!?


Sources: Daily and Sunday Newspaper data from ABC via the Guardian and population data from ONS.

Friday 6 November 2009

Online safety should be as important as road safety

I quite enjoy it when I'm asked to comment on campaigns I'm not working on - especially when they're at brief stage, you can say what you think another agency should be doing.

But PR Week asked me to comment on one I wouldn't mind being part of - apparently there is a brief for PR to support.

Not having seen the brief, comment was always going to be a bit speculative, but the bit PR Week missed from my quote was (I thought) the best:

"Of vital importance will be the role of schools in instilling a sense of safety online from an early age. If internet safety is approached in a similar way to road safety, long-term benefits as well as short-term communications gains will be realised."

Wednesday 4 November 2009

Worst PR Stunt of the Year

Afraid I can't claim credit for spotting this one, but got an email setting out a very disturbing PR idea... Email quoted below:

"As part of my job, I’m always looking to check what media campaigns are out there... this has to be the worst.

"Kenco are trying to promote the fact that they are reducing the amount of packaging they will make.

"Not only have they failed to see the irony in trying to do that by creating a giant piece of packaging...

"They’ve also failed to notice how disturbing an image of Amanda Holden’s bum with the words ‘refill and reuse’ over it can be..."

The NUJ must keep to its core mission

A PR and a member of the National Union of Journalists? Surely not. Heresy some will cry. Well, I am one.

Before I get on to the editor of the Journalist debate, perhaps I'd best set out why I joined. Years ago the NUJ helped me in a contract negotiation and my membership has been kept up since then - afterall, who knows what will happen in the future. I also believe the NUJ's code of conduct for PRs is one worth upholding and that it's better to have a vibrant union movement than none at all.

I made my mind up who to vote for in the Journalist election before the NUJ Left debate came to a head and based on the following criteria:
- Do they grasp the absolute importance of new and social media to the Union?
- Did they have the vision to make Journalist a relevant and interesting publication for NUJ members?
- Did they acknowledge the breadth of the membership of NUJ from PRs to book editors?

In the statements I read as I cast my ballot, sadly, none of the candidates truly met all of the criteria - so it was always going to be a case of the least worst option.

But the NUJ Left debate has only confirmed my belief that, as the union for journalists (and wider media community), the NUJ must not compromise members' political neutrality - regardless of how much we may believe in campaigns personally. There are other organisations to support which will help bring about the changes in social justice, peace and equality many members would like to see.

The NUJ's fight should be on media freedom, workplace rights, salaries and the maintenance of a vibrant, investigative and challenging media community.

And from the PR side, it should concentrate on placing "the NUJ among those leading the fight for the highest professional and ethical standards in public relations practice" as it claims it will do in the NUJ working practices for press/public relations and information officers.

So, now I would add to my criteria that I also hope that the next editor of the Journalist creates a title which reflects these priorities.

Perhaps I should have waited to cast my vote!

Friday 23 October 2009

Question Time shows how Dick Griffin can be beaten

The most encouraging sign emerging from last night's Question Time was that it has shown that the BNP can be beaten through debate.

Griffin was uncomfortable, uncertain of his own policies, exposed for having no idea of British history, not even sure of his own past and branded a 'thoroughly deceptive man'.

The audience - more impressive than any politician - tore his agenda apart with the mainstream media this morning picking over his support for the KKK, his repulsion at homosexuality ("the feeling is mutual" said one excellent lesbian audience member) and how, according to the Independent, he 'choked on the oxygen of publicity'.

Even the Daily Mail, Express, Sun and Star were united with the Mirror and quality press in their damning headlines this morning. Even Sky News have finally managed to stop treating "Dick - sorry Nick - Griffin" (another audience member) as a neo-celebrity in its reporting.

But while the BNP performance coupled with the headlines this morning will not have helped win new support, Griffin may have felt the party landed some important punches on mainstream politics this week.

The squabble about immigration on Question Time will not have re-assured any wavering voters inclined to vote on this issue - something Labour, Tories and Lib Dems must sort out rapidly. For such an important topic in beating the BNP, the three parties should agree a common line.

And against an almost united studio and media, the victim card may have cut through and helped galvanise his existing support base.

But (as I've argued below) last night's TV showed that when its ideas are debated, the BNP have no answers and nowhere to turn, other than in blatant lies, racism and homophobia. As Margaret Hodge MP suggested on Channel 4 News, when the debate is had, the BNP are exposed to voters as a nasty, hollow, violent party.

Mainstream politics does need to get its act together with clear messages which deal with the issues, a united approach and support from the public, but the BNP can be beaten and last night was a good start.

Monday 19 October 2009

TweetMobs will not always be a power for good

There have been more words written subsequent to the Jan Moir article on Stephen Gately's death than she's ever written in her life. So there's no need for me to recount how error ridden her article and subsequent reply are (Charlie Brooker in the Guardian, Daniel Finklestein in the Times and even Janet Street Porter in the Mail give some of the best responses).

Even the freedom of speech debate is now well trodden (on right wing blogs and this morning's Wright Stuff). Moir should have the opportunity to express herself (she should get a blog), but the Daily Mail should not have printed such erroneous and PCC violating information.

But both Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and the Telegraph's Damian Thompson get closer to the most worrying issue.

The PCC may act, the Mail may lose advertisers, distribution channels or even sales, but what those of us tempted to rejoice must consider is what happens when the boot is on the other foot.

Just as a TweetMob has been created (if you scroll though What The Hashtag it's clear it's not just a few celebrities or gay activists behind this campaign) around Jan Moir and Trafigura, so – in time – will such a campaign rally round a more worrying debate.

An illegal immigrant kills a young mother leads to calls for mass deportation, a suspected pedophile is lynched by a TweetMob after his address is posted then found to be a pediatrician, a high profile gay celebrity is found cruising on Hampstead Heath as a class on a school trip pass by leads to a TweetMob calling for total CCTV cover and 24/7 policing of our parks.

We should never assume that a TweetMob will always be a power for good.

And given that, the question for those who have taken part in the more recent TweetMobs (and for those working in public relations) is how do you fight back against one?

That's a blog for the future...

Friday 16 October 2009

Daily Mail Demonstrates Its Ugly Side (Again)

Two blogs in a week. The world is obviously taking a turn for the worse.

Jan Moir and the Daily Mail are the focus of my indignation today. Most notably the article today suggesting how Stephen Gately died because he was gay. Horrid woman.

Anyway, thanks to my pals on Twitter, it's been pointed out this is in clear breach of the PCC Code. So please complain away.

I reckon, this article is in clear breach of:
1) Accuracy. The coroners report clearly states natural causes - not being homosexual caused Gately's death
5) Intrusion into grief. Clearly this article is designed to hurt the grieving family of the deceased.
12) Discrimination. The author is clearly homophobic.

But there may be other breaches!

Wednesday 14 October 2009

Trafigura, Twitter and the questions for PRs

I'll cut to the chase - those who haven't read up on Twitter vs. Trafigura/Carter Ruck only have to read the just one the Guardian's articles on the scandal to realise the case has implications for PR.

Will Jordan has started discussing this, but I think it raises five key questions for PRs, which certainly weren't discussed in PR Week's brief coverage of the issue this morning.

1) Will this become a case study of how not to act reputationally in the social media age.
Has there been a more spectacular transformation from a company which was virtually unknown to one with a reputation as a toxic waste dumper and destroyer of free speech in a matter of 24 hours?

2) What was the role of PR in the situation - Bell Pottinger's denials in PR Week are being questioned by The Guardian?

3) Regardless of BP's role. This is more important - where do PRs and lobbyists start to get involved in these legal proceedings? Is a case for the Law Society and the CIPR to investigate best practice and provide guidance?

4) Every PR needs to think about how they would have acted in the situation. Where does protecting a client and their right to representation become more important than protecting free speech? And do we need to look again at the 'whistleblowing' protection PRs have in this circumstance (membership of NUJ or CIPR looks more attractive by the minute)?

5) Finally, what is the resonance of this campaign? Sure PROs and the twitterati have heard of it, but has it resonated with the public? And what is the likely impact on Trafigura as a business?

And apart from these initial questions - what next?
Yes, Twitter has helped protect democracy and free speech - but should we as a nation really need to rely on Twitter to play this role? Will this mean new legislation to counter the actions of some lawyers - and what is the lobbying industry's thoughts on how big business will react to this?

Monday 7 September 2009

Question Time and the BNP

Got an email first thing this morning from PR Week asking for comment on the BNP/Question Time issue (nice to see they remembered my last contribution to the debate on how to deal with them).

With representatives elected at a national election, I guess there was a sad inevitability that the BNP will be given the right to appear on mainstream political shows - interestingly the BBC have reversed a previous policy.

However, the uncertainty around the handling of their potential appearance on Question Time shows that it still hasn't been decided by other politicians and the media how best to deal with the party.

Politicians shouldn't be afraid of debate - but there is a concern that they will allow themselves to be distracted by the BNP's presence or simply try to rubbish their arguments with rhetoric rather than highlighting the very serious consequences of their policies. A clear strategy for tackling the threat needs to be decided and implemented - across the political spectrum.

Commenting in the article also made me question who is best placed to lead this national strategy... it probably isn't politicians.

Monday 8 June 2009

BNP and mainstream media

Our industry bible, PR Week, has picked up on the BNP campaign - claiming that Anti-BNP efforts fail to stop party have failed. There's an interesting comment from Insight Public Affairs agency stating that the BNP "exist outside of existing media channels."

But in addition to the party political broadcast, Newsquest newspapers in target areas ran adverts from them and the constant hand-wringing coverage of the party on TV news helped add credibility to their name - without highlighting the hideous consequences of their policies.

I was suprised to learn though that there was an anti-BNP online campaign... not surpised it didn't work, as Amanda Stuart correctly states, the fight against the BNP needs to take place in communities and on the doorstep. The question is how do we persuade people to stand up and take part in it, when they are so obviously disillusioned with the existing parties...

Monday 18 May 2009

Papers and the BNP

Earlier today journalism.co.uk highlighted that some regional press are now accepting advertising from the fascist BNP. It seems just to be Newsquest's online titles, but as Jon Slattery points out, given they have bans on adult sex advertising, you'd think they'd take a moral stand on this!

So earlier on I suggested a boycott of Newsquest titles... if people threaten to boycott all their titles maybe the management will take notice.

Shame I don't have any control over ad budgets, but it will be interesting to see if brands look to pull other advertising like they did to Facebook a few months ago.

Friday 20 March 2009

PR needs apprentices rather than graduates

Last week, PR Week ran a story saying that our industry heads were unconvinced by PR degrees. No big suprise, even people I know who have taken them reckon they are crap (apart from the work experience placement).

But, I had a letter published today in response arguing that it's not PR degrees which should be a worry to the industry, but the reliance industry heads seem to place on degrees in general.

For too long, agencies have relied on graduates many of whom now seem to be leaving university with less and less of an idea about how to work in the real world. Recruiting PR Trainee level staff through offering work experience programmes available to graduates and non-graduates and promoting admin juniors - who can start work with GCSEs or vocational qualifications - should be the focus for the new wave of PR recruitment.

In fact, it seems that the industry is actually looking for recruits at the wrong level - we don't need PR degrees, but PR apprenticeships.

But PR apprenticeships come with their own problems... most notably the difficulty in actually setting them up. Our industry is supposed to be represented by the Creative and Cultural Sector Skills Council for , but when I spoke to the excellent City & Islington College to try and look into setting one up, I was told that PR wasn't a priority for this SSC.

This may turn into a one-man campaign to try and set up a PR Apprenticeship, but does anyone else have any thoughts on how the industry can come together to set up this apprenticeship?