The i-deal

From the paper which was the first to steer away from political ties and which ended the era of the broadsheet only 'quality', comes the first new UK-wide national newspaper in decades.

i from the Independent is a brave attempt from a loss making newspaper to try and attract a new readership.

So I rushed out to buy my copy for 20p today (just in case it sold out).

The bad news (for the owners) is that it wasn't sold out. The good news is that it's a great idea.

Starting with the front page - i's lead is clever. House price crisis. Designed not only to appeal to core Guardian / Independent readers, but also steal from those paying full price for a 'mid market' Express / Mail.

The tribute to Andy Holmes and the provocative 'is kids TV gay' debate will also appeal to the more 'mid market' audience.

So, assuming i doesn't retreat into the Independent's enviro-concept front pages and continues to set a similar populist course, the content is there (enough to satisfy the commuter, but not overwhelm) and the price feels right.

And the strategy is potentially interesting.  It has three main selling points:
- It's a lightweight quality paper for those who have deserted newspapers for the Internet
- It's a replacement Metro in commuter areas - which will do more than reprint the previous evening's Standard
- Finally, and most interestingly, it's a real rival to the lucrative mid market audience.

And good luck to it.

What public relations does next...

It's been exactly two months since the last Rambling... and things are very different now.

So it seems like a good time to look again at the threats and opportunities to the PR industry under the new government.

As I warned in my last posts (and as the PRCA confirmed), the worst news for the media industry would be a victory for the party which pledges to cut the deepest. 

In recent days, the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition has reaffirmed it's consideration of 40 per cent cuts in departmental savings.  In fact, for marketing this is largely academic as there has been a 100 per cent cut in immediate budgets - with a freeze on marketing activity until it has been approved by the Cabinet Office's Efficiency and Reform Group (how the government's advisor on architecture's love your caretaker competition got through this process though I don't know).

But add to this cut the closing or downscaling of many quangos and, while many may not be too upset by the principles of smaller government, the effects on jobs in the public and private sector are starting to be felt.

Already there are freezes on recruitment of marketing professionals in most government-funded organisations.  And the cuts are starting to bite into the private sector too.  Last week, one regional marketing agency went under - taking 11 jobs, a major publicly funded event and a supply chain's cash with it.  The market leader in public sector PR - Kindred - is also looking at a major restructure if rumours are to be believed.

In fact, with cuts now spreading in all directions, it's becoming worryingly easy to see how the impact of public sector cuts will be felt on the private sector.  And given the new government hopes many public sector redundancies will be offset by private sector growth, the plan to stimulate this growth is not only unclear, but seemingly based solely on a stable tax environment and is certainly poorly communicated.

But this last point hints at the opportunities...

The government is still communicating.  But is it communicating effectively?

It seems that most government communications is coming direct from press offices - such as the glut of 'world cup tie in' stories like this one from the Department for Communities and Local Government.  While the best press officers in the business are based in government, they are more used to briefings, issuing news stories, policy announcements and crisis management, rather than implementing ongoing activity which works alongside other marketing disciplines to deliver behavioural change.

And that is what many of the new government's programmes are looking for.  From the Big Society, to the expansion of Teach First, through to encouraging a more entrepreneurial culture, communications can play a vital part in the success of the new government's programme.

 

Delivering these changes and ensuring success is where communications agencies can play an important role.  Driven (as good agencies are) by a thirst for creativity and measured by client targets and performance indicators, agencies can make a difference.

So this is what the industry - led by the PRCA, Chartered Institute of Marketing and other bodies, including the government's own Central Office of Information (COI), need to be celebrating: our creativity, our passion for using communications for good and our effectiveness in delivering tangible behavioural change.

If we don't, a vacuum will develop and marketing will be forgotten. 

Yet the industry seems strangely silent.  Maybe it is worried about rocking the new government's boat.  Maybe there is lots of behind the scenes discussions going on.  Or maybe it is feeling guilty for the excesses of communications during the New Labour years.

No-one doubts that there were some excesses and the old government was too quick to issue a marketing brief just to generate media coverage or get a message out into the public domain. But it's time to move on.

We need to celebrate how accountable communications can help deliver a real public benefit - and have a positive impact on implementing government policy. But we need to do it quickly before the skills and expertise in public sector communications are all diverted into work for the private sector - or are lost to the industry altogether.

So that's what this blog will do from now on... less politics, more examples of good (and bad) PR!

How the media should vote tomorrow

What a mixed bag for the media this election has been.

It's demonstrated dramatically how style can triumph over substance, how poor presentation can lose audiences and how the most persuasive messages are simple and positive.  It’s also shown that social media may not be able to deliver knock out blows, but is vital in creating advocacy for campaigns.

All good news for us marketing disciples.

But less documented is the damaging impact a Conservative government could have on the industry itself.

Let me explain…

It was to be the social media election.  We would all decide our votes based on Twitter, Facebook and maybe even Foursquare.

Well not quite but it has been influential.

Social media has been more of a bystander and commentator rather than leaders of the news or advocacy, but it hasn’t lost its purpose. 

DemocracyUK, the Slapometer and even #labourcakepuns have all helped engage voters and the social media sphere has done what it does best – enabling people to have conversations.

So while it will be interesting to see the outcome of planned research into how social media (or rather what you and your friends discussed on social media) influenced voting behaviour, I personally hope that the more campaigning side to social media returns.

In fact, there have been a couple of examples of where social media has (at least tried to) set the agenda. Kerry4MP’s blunder and #phlipastroud have been notable examples.

Which brings me onto how I’ll be voting…

As a colleague pointed out, one example doesn’t make a whole party nasty.  But, sadly for every Margot James, there is a Philipa Stroud.

Similarly, for every Dianne Abbot or Tom Watson there is a Bob Blizzard (i.e. an MP who will trudge through the voting lobbies on behalf of his party). And for every hard working Lib Dem, like Lynne Featherstone, there is a quirky colleague – Lembit Opik or Anna Arrowsmith for your MP anyone?!

There is no substitute for a good local candidate.  But, in many, many constituencies less than 50 per cent of the electorate vote for the winning candidate.  This is unfair. And the expenses scandal has shown just what our politicians can get up to if not held in check – and simply saying people have a right to recall MPs just isn’t enough.

Simply put, the politicians are more accountable if every vote counts. And the best way to ensure better, more accountable candidates is voting reform.  The list system is not the way forward, as we do need to protect the need for local candidates linked to their constituency – which makes me favour single transferable vote or alternative vote systems.

And the best way to guarantee this reform is a hung parliament.

I don’t buy the fact that Britain’s economy will suffer with a hung Parliament – credit agencies don’t have a problem with it, nor does the City and, according to the FT, neither should it impact on sterling.  In fact, people now seem to be lining up to say it will benefit everyone from young people to the Scots.

So my decision comes down to which sort of coalition government would I prefer? And let’s be clear, a deal struck between parties to ensure a stable coalition will need to happen – a minority government would not be a good idea.

Well, my own fears about what the Tories would do for gay rights and civil liberties aside, the decision has to be fundamentally economic.  How far do I want the cuts to go – and when?

Which brings me back to marketing.

Set aside the disturbing impact that immediate, savage spending cuts will make on the lives of everyday families, not to mention the deflating impact on our economy, the marketing sector – now a significant slice of UK plc – is simply not ready to see cuts of 40 per cent in public sector spending on marketing and communications in 2010/20111. 

When the Conservatives make fun of government waste, they include marketing budgets in this.

The Conservative pledge is to reduce Central Office of Information spending alone back to 1997 levels.  While marketing agencies need to continue to make strides in evaluating their work, proving the impact of their campaigns and reducing their reliance on the public sector overall, the replacement for his government spending from the private sector isn’t there yet.

The reality of implementing such cuts is that they are applied with a blanket approach – every £1 of marketing spend should be reduced to 60p (and just because one segment of the industry says it is more effective than another won’t mean it is safe).

This won’t just affect agencies and mean job losses in public sector communications departments, but it will have an impact on the wider media industry. 

With an annual budget of £208m spent on advertising space by the government, cutting this to £124m will leave huge holes in newspaper, online and TV advertising schedules – and the latest Institute of Practitioners in Advertising report showed a very mixed picture for the industry in 2010, with almost as many marketing directors saying they will cut budgets as will increase them. 

With the majority of any increased advertising spend likely to be online and a reapportioning of budgets away from TV and print, it is ironic that those media outlets who celebrate cutting waste are in many ways turkeys voting for Christmas.

The private sector just isn’t ready to fill the hole which would be left by 40% cuts in public sector spending this year – the cuts need to be made, but need to be less severe and less immediate than the Conservatives propose.

It really is the economy that matters – the country can’t take a chance with the recovery and I can’t vote for cuts now.

Vote Labour (or Lib Dem depending where you live).

Cameron's slip means the end for pre-records

The majority of interviews for TV and radio don't happen live, but are pre-recorded. This works well for everyone - spokespeople get to do the interview at a time and place to suit them and broadcasters can line these set pieces up in advance and get content for stories in the bag.

The other benefit for PRs is that it allows us to re-assure nervous spokespeople with the line 'don't worry it's a pre-record'. The belief being that you can ask for it to be RE-recorded if it doesn't go well (or you forget a key message). This also does mean that the interview will look better when transmitted.

Of course, in this social media age and with the volatile political climate, perhaps the Tory spin doctors should have used the adage 'there's no such thing as off the record' rather than the 'don't worry, it's pre-record' line.

Yesterday we learnt that the age of the pre-record is over. And another old PR trick bites the dust. Sadly for David Cameron, he learnt this the hard way. For someone who prides himself on his media interview skills it really is awful...



Actually maybe the word 'slip' in the headline is being a bit generous...!

Twanscript: Royals and the media

Twanscript (is that a permissible Twitter-word?) from the Republic debate The Royal PR Machine with Richard Palmer, royal correspondent of the Daily Express and Emily Hill, Evening Standard journalist and Guardian commentator.

Here are the pick of the comments from the debate (all have been shortened due to Twitter use and are comments made at the debate by others).  For a full list of the Tweets I sent, search #royalmedia.

'Concerted campaign to prevent taking pictures of royals' - eve standard
 
Would people be so keen on royals if heir was a cross between Charles + Camilla?

Queen’s press officer known as Samantha the panther

Express corr never been allowed direct conversation with Charles

My right to know stops where the detectives we pay for's knowledge stops - Express

Press association under pressure corporately to toe royal line

Charles will look to set up Kings Conferences on issues

Royals using courts to deny right to know, or even release pics without approval

Abuse of civil lists makes mp expenses look like peanuts. Freedom of Information Act requests denied

9 times out of 10 royals take train to somewhere and fly back

Conservative and Labour dodging discussion on civil list

Charles will talk to his plants but won't dig them up - Emily Hill

Royals using Kate Middleton to take legal action to see how far they can push the courts
 
That it's a taboo to criticise the queen is a disgrace - @RepublicStaff

And the final subject - how advertisers would react to an anti-monarchy media will be a future blog!

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.

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.

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!