Have a heroic new year

Got a Google Bike

Google's kinda scarey.

It records all your searches; develops a profile about you from your use of the search engine and your visits to other websites; if you use gmail it reads your emails so that it can serve you adverts; if you use Google Maps it literally knows where you are down to a point of 3 metres; its secret algorithm is NOT the Dewey Decimal System, so it should concern everyone about how decisions are made about the editorial policy, the prioritisation of websites in search results and the information that comes top of search rankings.

But it is very easy.

So whilst people should be concerned about Google, naturally there are benefits, and just like walking into McDonalds for a hot meal that's ready in less than a minute, the convenience of the service means that people can sell out their ethics and concerns about dealing with companies that raise ethical concerns.

However, since my last bike got stolen, I decided I wasn't going to mess around - I got myself a Google bike.

Never heard of one? Well this is where some of that scarey stuff that Google does has a security utility.

The chip forged into the Google Bike's frame means you can track via Google Maps by synching it with your mobile phone or sticking a code into the app on your PC. I like it because if someone steals it, I can instantly find out exactly where it is within 3 square metres - and so can the police.

Of course, it's also handy if you just forget where you parked the bloody thing. Doubtless parents might get Google Bikes so that they can keep track of their kids when they go out cycling.

So whilst Google can be scarey, the social utility of some of its applications is undeniable. Maybe I fear the untransparent monotlith of information gathering that is Google. Or from my experience with the Google Bike, maybe I don't mind Google and it's tracking, info gathering, profiling activities, as long as I'm in charge of it.

The Social Network - Review

NB: I hate spoilers, so this blog won't give away plot, but will talk about themes in the film.

Aaron Sorkin? I didn't even know he was the screenplay writer until it popped up on the opening credits, and as a HUGE West Wing fan (I have to watch an episode before I go to sleep every night - no kidding. Get lost!) I figured I'd be into Social Network. (It's him and David Mamet that are so seriously wicked.)

And Sorkin hits you with a first scene that is masterful in its integration into a face to face conversation of the crap cliches and meaningless, trite content of social media messages and comments that belie true feelings and honesty.

Seriously, it's worth going purely to experience the first scene's cynical regard for the changes in human communication that social media has impacted upon us.

You can read about the anti-hero claptrap from other reviews, but instead consider the contemporary portrayal of geeks in films recently, of which this film is a prime example. Whatever happened to Hollywood's loveable poindexters? Y'know like Lucas, the guys from Weird Science, and Revenge of The Nerds? (Jesus, the temptation to summise that we're in "Generation G" for "geek" is incredible. Cliched device duly avoided.)

Executive producer Kevin Spacey follows-up the vibe of his film 21 - which explores the corruption of geekdom - with an even stronger and darker assertion that successful nerdity leads to megalomania.

But of all things, almost counter-intuitively until you reflect on it, this film is about superficial friendship and insincere communication. But then it's about Facebook, so of course it is.

The only entity in the film that retains integrity is The Social Network. (I don't want to spoil it, but I'm dying to make a point about a character which you might also argue retains integrity - but the very last scene proves that not to be the case.)

Fiction or not, it's a tragic depiction of the loneliness of the man at the centre of the world's largest social network, the man who commoditised friendship.

But regardless of whether the sense of affirmation for my cynicism towards social network "relationships" was from my own imposition on the film or whether it was an intentional reflection of my views, it was the most powerful thing I took away.

Lots of other things were just lessons I'd already learnt. Never blog when you're hammered. But great ideas come to you when you're pissed - in both the UK and US sense. Defamation is defamation, on the 'net or not. Pretty girls on websites drive traffic. A "the" is great for bands, not for brands. People you think are "cool" will disappoint you when you realise their reality.

Questions I asked myself after the film:

Whatever happened to Faceparty.com?

Why was my university only on the second round of UK invites?

Why the hell would people put photos of themselves drunk on the internet? Looking in the mirror when I'm drunk is frightening enough, why the hell would I want to relive that?

Lessons I think are intended by the film:

If you've got a true friend who's become simply a facebook friend, go hook up with them, have a real chat about real stuff.

Also ask yourself, how many of your Facebook friends you would give $25mn to?

And if you really think that social network friendships are real friendships, take your social media face out of your social media arse, go down the pub, and talk to someone you don't know about something real. And if you like them, learn something from them and think you can add to each other's lives, stay in touch with them. Ask them if they're on Facebook.

Outrage For The X Factor Machine

It’s official. The nation is obsessed with the media monstrosity that is The X Factor. Auto-tuning auditions, exploiting the mentally ill, the innocent and the deluded hopefuls, and the production team’s decisions to drop anyone with real talent but no emotional back-story. Not despite, but because of, the continuous negative coverage related to the show, the public are tuning in and ratings seem to be at an all time high. The publicity strategy for this year’s X Factor campaign (cue back drop fireworks, stings and rapturous audience applause please)…causing, and sustaining, public outrage.

When Cheryl Cole chose not to let eighteen-year-old Gamu Nhengu through to the live shows after a flawless performance at Cole’s million-pound pad in Ascot, the public were furious. They blamed Ms Cole’s decision to end the young girls dream on her immigration status, as Miss Nhengu and her family have recently been refused permission to stay in the UK and face deportation back to their violent and unstable home country, Zimbabwe. Although cleared of racism after Cole punched a black toilet attendant in 2003, her decision not to let Miss Nhengu through to the live shows sparked a huge race row. Seeing the usually obsessed-by-everything-Cheryl-Cole-says-and-everything-Cheryl-Cole-does nation turn against her was fairly man-bites-dog, so great publicity for the show.

Call us cynical but at the back of X Factor publicists’ minds, the toilet attendant fiasco is something that has been forgiven but not forgotten from Ms Cole’s past. Faced with a black African contestant, the publicists were able to turn a controversial event in Ms Cole’s past into a valuable media asset to publicise the show through outrage.

We’re not the only minds that this possibility has popped into, Mark Borkowski commented in a recent article, on his website Mark My Words that: “I strongly suspect that they may be deliberately leaking info and then claiming to be upset, thus generating more stories. All of this boosts the show, the ability to make money, and more often than not it is at the expense of the ‘talent’.”

Social networking sites are undoubtedly one of the best ways for people to express their personal feelings, vent some anger and generate debate. And the vehemence in which people portray their opinions through these sites is a hell of a lot more aggressive than what is portrayed in print or broadcast media. With 17,000 people joining a Facebook page ‘Gamu should have got through’ in a matter of hours after the show was aired, and a ‘Hate Cheryl Cole’ trend emerging on Twitter, these two social networking sites were clearly a great method of supporting the media strategy. And The X Factor is clearly aware of this. If they want to create hype, using social networking sites is probably the best way to go about it and they’re certainly not going to generate the same amount of fuss about the show if they put through the public’s favourite, maintain Cheryl Cole’s ‘the nation’s sweetheart’ title and simply let the overall winner get that expected Christmas number one spot they’ve always dreamed of.

However, one’s fall is another’s rise. The “Mr Nasty” music mogul and fellow X Factor judge Simon Cowell is coming off looking like the good guy. Again. Granted it is his show, so why wouldn’t he want some positive PR. Using Miss Nhengu’s uncertain future, BBC News reported Mr Cowell “has thrown his weight behind the campaign to save X Factor singer Gamu Nhengu from being sent back to Zimbabwe.” Simon Cowell commented: “We have lawyers working with her lawyers – not because we have to – but because I really feel for their situation, and that’s outside of the show.” How good of him. Although I’m sure the price he’s paying for his lawyers will be like a drop in the ocean compared to the money gleaned from sustaining viewers to the ad breaks during The X Factor, whether or not Miss Nhengu’s potential deportation is “outside of the show”, the media coverage of the threat is a boon to the programme’s view figures.

Nick Ede, Creative Director of Eden Cancan, comments that: “The controversy surrounding the judges’ choices is always of interest and there will always be media stories to fuel the public’s interest in the build-up to the first live shows. It’s a win for The X Factor but a loss for Cole.”

So with Cole getting the negative coverage this time round, the tables really have turned as Cowell has managed to go from Mr Bad Guy, to Mr Nice Guy – at least for now. On the contrary, the incredibly powerful entrepreneur is never going to come out of the show any worse off from any negative publicity the show receives. This is, after all, the man who attacked last years Rage Against the Machine campaign to sabotage the Christmas number one spot from winner Joe McElderry, telling The Daily Star: “It’s all very Scrooge.” Of course, he probably wasn’t that bothered by it at all as he does after all own rights in Sony BMG’s catalogue – who Rage Against the Machine are signed to. So for Simon Cowell, it was always a win-win situation. He’d earn money from sales of “Klling in the name” and “The Climb”.

Profiting from the positive and the negative – what a genius.

It wouldn’t be unfair to suspect that the previous 2008 campaign to get Jeff Buckley’s Hallelujah to the number one spot and deprive winner Alexandra Burke of the Christmas number one with her version of the song, was a test run for the Rage Against the Machine campaign. Social networking sites went lunatic, and although Alexandra Burke still managed to win the top spot, fans were angered on either side of the debate. This perhaps resulted in the show realising just how much benefit they can gain from pissing people off.

So when Ms Cole kicked off Gamu-gate, social networking sites were swamped by X Factor viewers’ campaigns demanding the reinstatement of Miss Nhengu and hundreds of fans lined the streets outside the eighteen-year-old’s house to show their support for her.

How on earth did they get her address? Has the show no consideration of public safety?

Well, actually they probably do. It’s quite easy to come to the conclusion that the X Factor publicity team may’ve organised such an event. Cheryl Cole on the other hand reportedly received death threats over her controversial decision.

So we could finish this all off by saying the same trite stuff that “people are clearly forgetting that this is just another reality TV show. It’s a competition. It’s just a bit of fun…”
But no – what people are clearly forgetting is that the X Factor is a masterful media product, a powerful publicity machine and a genius money-making, ad-unit selling device. Question and criticise the ethics, but be amazed and aware of its raison d’être.

All the so-called ‘leaking’ of stories about the show and about its contestants seems like an inexcusable way for a huge corporation to exploit innocent contestants who have no idea what they are letting themselves in for. Miss Nhengu recently told The News of the World that: “If I hadn’t been on X Factor everything would have been fine. Someone else would have been the scapegoat instead of me.” All these hopefuls want is a chance to live their dream of becoming the next Leona Lewis, but if the show actually treated them with any respect, they wouldn’t receive the publicity the show craves so badly.

So this years PR campaign of causing public outrage is doing pretty damn well so far, but what those who are so outraged need to see is that while it’s all very well campaigning against decisions made by the show, bitching about it by the water cooler and criticising the ethics of the show, if you really want to make the point, stop watching the show.

Try it. See if you can. We challenge you.

Remember the Cluetrain Manifesto?

Someone kindly sent me a link to the Cluetrain Manifesto this week as a "really interesting article" regarding online communications. I read it back in 2000, so someone finding it useful 10 years later, and with the emergence of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, is really telling that maybe social media has given us new tools for online PR, but the strategies aren't that different.

She prompted me to look back at some of my own research from then to see if and how it might apply today, and it's pretty critical, I think. (Of course I would say that.)

The important point is incorporating the internet and its channels and communities into communications programmes strategically. Lots of research seems to be focused on the new things we can do with social media, but it's very tactical, and often enamoured with the tech and what it can do, instead of asking the important questions - how can we make it work best for us? how can we make it work with our other communications activicies? is there an appropriate RoI?

If you're not doing much this weekend have a look at what it's still right - and what was a little naive - back in 2001 when I wrote this research document

News of The World gate is no Watergate - how odd!

A lack of definitive evidence of complicity seems to be sole reason that Andy Coulson has managed to cling on to his job as Director of Communications in Downing Street. In damaging headlines that have been prevalent throughout September, the former News of the World editor is not only alleged to have been complicit in, but ‘actively encouraged’ the phone-hacking of several high-profile individuals during his time at the tabloid. The re-emergence of this story, first carried by the Guardian in the summer of 2009, has not only led to questions of judgement in the British Government, but clearly demands a wider inquiry into media morals and the power possessed by the media in society.

Despite the accusations directed at Mr Coulson, he can count on the support of both Nick Clegg and David Cameron who have both stood by him in the face of anxiety throughout the coalition. In Parliament, it was claimed that when Coulson originally resigned from his editorial position at the News of the World, the first person to offer commiserations was then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. So political support from all sides, it seems – at least publicly. However, whether Cameron still feels as ‘relaxed’ about Coulson’s appointment, as he claimed when the story originally broke, is unlikely as clamours for his departure reign down from the backbenches. In many ways, it could be suggested that it’s only for a lack of cohesion and sense of direction in Labour’s PR department that Coulson has been able to remain in his job to date. A clear opportunity for the opposition to launch damaging blows in Cameron’s direction has nearly passed without the former editor having to use any of his media skills.

The emergence of the phone-tapping scandal has also evoked a need for further investigation into the role that Rupert Murdoch, owner of ‘News of the World’ parent company ‘News International’, has in the decision making process at the heart of British government. News International, in 2009, seemingly paid out more than £1 million to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of journalists using criminal methods to acquire stories. Controversially, it would seem that the intimate relationship enjoyed by Cameron and Murdoch was hugely significant in Coulson’s original political appointment back in 2007. Cameron, with Coulson in his current position, may soon experience a rebuttal of his government’s integrity, particularly with a number of MP’s, and high profile celebrities alleging their phones have been hacked, and many would argue he’d be prudent to quietly show Coulson the door before the police question Coulson following new allegations.

In any democracy one must ask if a person can remain in an authoritative position when they are under investigation for using Stasi-like tactics. Let’s not forget that it was bugging and secret tape-recordings – an offence not dissimilar to that of voicemail hacking – that was at the heart of President Richard Nixon’s impeachment.

In a coalition that has endeavoured to distance itself from previous scandal and make ‘government accountable to the people’, the Coulson predicament has the potential to be even more damaging. The fact that Coulson denies that he knew anything about the phone-tapping suggests a disregard for duty in the first place; either way, his position as ‘Head of Communications’ seems difficult to defend. It is essential that any media editor should check the strengths of his journalists sources, if Coulson was not mindful of the investigations his journalists were conducting, there should be questions as to why this was not the case, and his general competence.

Clearly, this is a scandal that Cameron would be wise to try and distance himself from, sooner rather than later, as there appears to be almost no redeeming aspects to the quandary in which he now finds himself. The sacking of Coulson, alongside an attempt to make government changes to tighten the checks and balances involved within media investigations, could help to limit the potential damage.

Divisions between private and public information have become increasingly blurred post 9/11. Electronic eavesdropping is a serious crime, and should be treated as such, yet, in certain cases, also has the ability to uncover vital information that may help to keep the public safe. Nevertheless, what is inexcusable is the tapping of phones for entertainment purposes. As more people come forward to speak about the ‘News of the World’ case, the Westminster village is full of rumours about how widespread the practice really is. Clearly tighter controls on the methods used by journalists are essential to avoid repeat questions of the invasion of privacy, alleged to be practiced throughout the News of the World under Coulson’s tenure. The culture that had emerged, with allegedly nearly 3,000 people targeted, further demonstrates the extent of the problem and the need for change. This is just the latest case of journalists sacrificing professional ethics for commercial benefit.

At present, there seems to be little power or desire of holding the media to account by anyone. At present, Coulson’s close relationship to News International may have limited the backlash to issue to just a handful of publications, unsurprisingly none of them belonging to News International. The BBC also took their time in reporting a follow-up story from the New York Times which introduced a “former reporter” who said Coulson was present during discussions about phone hacking.

Murdoch’s dominant publications remain The Sun and the News of the World. As Britain’s best read paper, and a daily readership of over 3 million, The Sun is consequently well placed to influence many of the British public’s perceptions. An illustration of the power The Sun wields is the “elephant in the room” treatment of what one can easily argue amounts to porn on its third page. However, critics of Page 3, although many, remain noticeably quiet, perhaps fearful of the backlash that The Sun, with its unmatched ability to influence public perception, will almost certainly embark on.

Those who have castigated this national treasure have often performed a startling u-turn on their original statements. One recent example of this is the apparent softening of Government Minister Lynne Featherstone’s desire to ban page 3 claiming that her original comments went “against liberal principles”. If such retractions have been made because of the threat of reaction from a News International publication, then it further indicates a sense of fear that The Sun and News of the World have created, and a subsequent imbalance of power in society.

The ability for a media institution to exploit the privacy of some, whilst limiting the freedom of speech of others is something that should never happen in a modern democracy. Regardless of what happens in the instant case of Mr Coulson, the coalition has a duty under international law to protect the privacy and free speech of its citizens – including its politicians. It has promised in its programme of government to protect civil liberties. If it is proved that there is a reckless senior advisor in Downing Street who’s shown few qualms about overstepping these boundaries, it will raise questions about the integrity of the UK’s new Government.

Spam Headlines and Headline Spam

An article from ISP Grub.

"...say "marketing emails" and the man in the street would be forgiven for thinking "spam". But anyone working in the ISP industry, particularly a committed analyst of the ISP industry, such as ISP focused journalists and bloggers, would know the difference. Should know the difference. In fact, MUST know the difference."


http://www.ispgrub.org/2010/10/spam-headlines-are-headline-spam.html

Showgirls and iPads are prize-less entertainment

The exchange of a business card for the possibility of winning an iPad; the latest in tablet computing for a trivial portion of paper. A tempting offer, with the potential gain far exceeding the insignificant loss.

To anybody who has recently attended a business conference or networking event, the sight of two attractive showgirls further subsidised by the offer of a technology prize is familiar. Two fit girls gagging for your phone number, it seems too good to be true and how often it is. To the few who have ever triumphed in one of these raffles, the remainder of this blog may seem an excessive tirade. To the thousands of executives who never win with iPads or pretty trade show girls; immerse yourself in this rant.

There are several changes to the current format of prize raffles at corporate events required, if the respect of executives is to be retained. The Sirens that are the permi-grin execs, part-time models and iPads can seemingly go far in luring potential clients to give up their contact details. However, those experienced in attending such networking events may be growing immune, or just plain cynical, to their shallow charms.

The quest for greater clarity and fair treatment in prize promotions is now essential if the current format is to retain the industry’s respect and get results. Perhaps most importantly the mythical prize has to be visible; a realistic target. At present, nobody is sure who wins the prize leading to confusion and a greater sense of disappointment for those who entered. Imagine if the same occurred at a sporting event, with the champion hidden under a cloud of anonymity. Not only would it represent a severe lack of drama, but would also soon lead to a lack of interest.

The likelihood of someone giving away their personal contact details and winning a prize should not be overstated. Exactly where the all-conquering victor should collect his modern day laurels should be clearly established and this must happen on the same day. The re-occurring explanation that the raffle will be inconveniently drawn in several weeks time helps nobody. Who has the time these days to chase up a potential prize? By this point, many people have probably forgotten they entered the prize in the first place. That is until they receive their first email marketing message from the competition holders. It now becomes desperately apparent that the cute showgirl will never call back, a large, ungainly bloke almost certainly will and a pang of regret creeps in.

Marketing and PR, have long used the incentive of a prize to lure people to sacrifice their personal details. It offers a chance to formulate a huge database of particular clients and people with whom future business may be done. This can often benefit both sides of the deal, so why the need for the sideshow, that is a potential iPad and the chance to talk, without fear, to a pretty girl? For the majority of people, the result of such an encounter is not hours of fun playing with said iPad, or the love of a pretty girl, but just the odd email from time-to-time for products and services they may or may not want.

A much simpler system, and the one adopted by Parker, Wayne and Kent, is to offer, on receipt of a business card, a chance to win numerous cash prizes on demand, immediately. This offers immediate gratification to winners of the draw, and helps to prevent obvious logistical difficulties in trying to forward the prize to a winner weeks later. Not only do competition champions experience the quick but memorable elation of receiving a tenner on the spot, but it also remains cost effective. With an iPad retailing at close to £500, using the Parker, Wayne and Kent tactic gives more gratification to more people for less money. Using this procedure also helps entrants as they are not required to chase up a mythical prize they secretly know they have not won, reducing the likely disappointment. Instead, they can gleefully accept their cash prize, dash to the nearest bar and congratulate themselves over a few pints.

Rooney pays privacy price for profitable publicity

If Wayne Rooney’s PR team had had some sense they would have known that one tell-all interview about prostitutes was quite enough personal information. But instead of then requesting privacy they advised him to splash his wedding photos across the covers of the nation’s glossy magazines. And then helped his wife to build an empire of fashion lines and reality TV shows on the back of his fame. Of course, they received a handsome fee for all this.

It should have come as no shock then when they were forced to advise him not to even try and keep the press quiet about recent allegations surrounding his infidelity. After all, he was happy to ‘bare all’ about similar stories in the past; the only difference was this time it wouldn’t be him and his advisors making money out of it. Rooney’s PR men have turned the idea of his ‘celebrity private life’ into a laughable oxymoron. It appears they’re not the only ones to have done so.

Celebrities, like Rooney and his wife Coleen, promote themselves, with the help of PR teams and advisors, as a brand and make a lot of money from telling the media about their private lives. Any celebrity worth their salt will now have accounts on many of the various social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, allowing them to promote themselves directly to their fans and across the Internet.

Frequently celebrities will use social networking as a covert PR tactic. They tweet personal information and then, just when we’re hooked, ask for the press to ‘respect their privacy’. Actor Neil Patrick Harris is a prime example of this. He tweeted that he and his partner were planning to adopt twins but also expected complete privacy. As every good celebrity advisor knows, by asking for privacy a celebrity will, more often than not, generate more press coverage – just take a look at the Catherine Zeta-Jones wedding photo scandal if you need proof. It’s all just a little like reverse psychology for the media world. After all, the word privacy just screams ‘scoop’ to journalists.

Despite this, it should not be forgotten that some celebrities are famous simply for being very good at their job. Fame is a price rather than a perk to these celebrities and they have no choice but to hire PR advisors simply because of who they are. These celebrities are usually able to have social networking accounts and handle publicity without causing too much scandal. They are after all just people living their lives. They are not elected officials or members of government necessarily deserving scrutiny for immoral behaviour. Which profession celebrities choose to work in should give the media no more right into their personal lives than they have into anyone else’s.

It is the celebrities who exploit their fame, through extensively revealing interviews, ‘too-much-information’ tweets and publicity stunts, who give up their privacy. Agents and PR teams must take responsibility for this though. Most celebrities have their actions dictated by advisors whose main aim is to make as much money from their 15 minutes of fame as possible. Although everyone is accountable for their personal actions, the way celebrities handle the media, particularly in times of crisis, is often not their decision.

As such, many celebrities are advised to plea for privacy on emotional grounds and there is no doubt that stories such as this do have a devastating impact on the individuals involved. However, it seems that much of the time the wish for privacy actually has nothing to do with protecting them. It is simply a PR team’s way of trying to save brand value and keep hold of lucrative sponsorships and contracts.

Rooney’s case draws unsurprising parallels with that of John Terry whose gagging order was over-turned because it appeared he was more concerned with protecting his financial interests than his family’s feelings. Rumours of Rooney’s infidelity were already rife in football circles. With the certainty that they would soon reach the Internet, it seems his advisors motivations may have been no different. The Rooney brand is fronted by a ‘happy family’ image and the suggestion is that it was this they were trying to salvage, not Coleen’s feelings.

Celebrities, despite what the media says, are not always aware of what they are letting themselves in for by becoming famous. The media argues that celebrities should expect privacy invasion simply because they’re famous and journalists often claim ‘the public’s right to know’. Whilst celebrities undoubtedly have a right to privacy what they have lost is the expectation of it. Rooney’s failure to obtain an injunction suggests that when it comes to celebrity PR clearly there is such a thing as ‘too-much-information’. Agents must make celebrities very aware that there’s only six inches between a pat on the back and a kick in the arse. Unlimited or uncontrolled promotion of private lives naturally compromises claims for personal privacy.

CEOs need the ABC’s of media training ASAP

"There's no one who wants this over more than I do - I would like my life back,” said Tony Hayward, CEO of energy company BP, that’s dealing with the biggest oil spill in history, in response to finding a way to stop the spill. Hayward has already been dubbed "Wayward Hayward" by the media for his interview gaffes because even when he says very little, he gets it all wrong.

Examples like these prove that it is extremely important to have extensive media training before speaking to the press about any issue. This involves knowing how to effectively communicate with the press and news organizations to get your desired message across to the public. This is especially important during a time of crisis, because one needs to understand a news organizations’ needs and how to respond to the media, while at the same time protecting your company’s reputation.

There are many options for media training but regardless of the supplier, there are a few things that are critical to a media relations training program for the training to be worthwhile. Some tips include:

-Know how to handle interviews. Whether they are via telephone, email, or in person, knowing how to handle interviews is vital to the survival of any media spokesperson. This will allow for more effective communication, protection from not saying something stupid and always being on target to gain more coverage for the company.

-Spoon feed the media. The end goal is to cater to the media so that your news and company information has a large share of coverage in the article. This includes giving them press releases, backgrounders, images, videos, audio sound bytes and media packs to ensure your messages are communicated in the way you want them to be.

-Say what you want to say, and do so your way. It is important to exercise some control in interviews. This allows you to stay on message and make sure you are able to express your points without being overshadowed by journalist opinions. This also ensures you can answer questions the way you want and that the information you release is what you want, not what the media wants. Never say “No comment” or speak ‘Off the Record.’

-Pick an appropriate spokesperson. Especially in a time of crisis, the public wants to see an individual directly related to the situation speaking to the media. A senior representative in the company that has excellent communication skills is necessary to speak on behalf of the company.

A perfect example of someone who has been media trained to get their message across was Michael Howard when he was interviewed regarding the prison service in May 1997. Although he was relentlessly asked the same question by the interviewer, Jeremy Paxman, Howard was able to work around the question and give an answer he wanted to give that best represented his position on the issue.

Howard demonstrated a key media training tactic known as ‘ABC:’ Acknowledge, Bridge and Communicate. This method encourages the interviewee to take initiative and control the interview. One should acknowledge every question without necessarily answering it. For example, you may acknowledge a question by saying: ‘That’s an interesting point, but more importantly...’ Phrases like these create verbal bridges from which the interviewee can then communicate their key messages.

Overall it is important to know how to work with the media because they are your free advertising source, yet they can also be detrimental to your company’s reputation if not presented with solid information. It is their job only to report on a story, not to give free, positive, publicity to your company. They don’t work for your organization and as such, do not always want to print or broadcast the full story. It is your job as a well-trained media spokesperson to get a message out that best showcases your stance and positively represents your company.

New Wave of Journalism affecting all areas of the Media

In an age when speed and efficiency are valued at such a high standard, journalists and editors are increasingly pressured to put out news information as soon as it breaks. Although the growth of online journalism and blogs give the public quick access to information, it is causing the quality of journalism to suffer. As PR professionals, we can learn many lessons from journalists and the importance of doing thorough research before reporting any information to the public.

It’s so easy to make mistakes when things are done quickly and to be considered a credible journalist, it’s not worth reporting information before the facts have been checked and confirmed.

A classic example was on May 13, 2006 when the BBC quite literally interviewed the wrong “Guy” for their segment on live television. A producer for the show came out to the lobby looking for Guy Kewney, who was supposed to be interviewed for the show, but it turned out that the producer grabbed Guy Goma, a man waiting for a job interview with the BBC Technology Department. This mistake caused weeks of embarrassment for the BBC and was all over news sites within a few hours of airing.

Left: (Guy Goma courtesy of the DailyMail.co.uk)                      

Right: (Guy Kewney courtesy of Fronline.co.uk)

Later that day, The Guardian, as well as several other publications posted on their websites that the man who had been mistakenly interviewed, Guy Goma, was a cab driver. On May 15, Reuters posted the same story on its website.

But the following day, Reuters came out with the real story. Goma was a data cleansing expert and was at the BBC for a job interview working with the IT department. "The mixup is being blamed on a young, inexperienced producer," said the Reuters video next to which was no correction on the previous day's story. The Guardian's article also does not have a correction.

The new wave of journalism in which being the first to report news overpowers the need to have accurate facts is hurting the quality of journalism the public receives. There are too many opinions instead of facts out in the online community, causing the actual events to be undermined.

In a letter to The Guardian a reader wrote, "The growth of blogs and online communities seems to be contributing plenty in the way of opinion, of which there’s already plenty and not much in the way of facts. This is creating a brand of journalism in which it doesn’t really matter if you get things wrong.”

People are hungry for information, but are often only offered opinions. Journalism may be losing its focus: to report the facts. Journalists need to be equally responsible in ensuring they produce news and information that has value. As PR professionals, we rely on our relationships with journalists to report accurate information and gain credibility for our clients. However, this relationship is becoming hindered because of pressures on editors and journalists to keep producing new content to make deadlines.

In his novel Flat Earth News, Nick Davies refers to the current state of global media as ‘churnalism,’ in which journalists are constantly trying to churn out stories at rapid speeds “Speed. The problems of churnalism have become even worse with the arrival of news websites-some of them staffed by specialist journalists; some of them by mainstream reporters who file copy for the site was well for their traditional outlets. For all of them, the possibility of filing their stories immediately has become an imperative to spend even less time on their work, even less time checking. Rapid repackaging takes over.”

As new technologies continue to emerge, it will be interesting to see the effects and pressures they have on journalism and the media industry. But as PR professionals, we can learn many lessons from journalists; one of the most important being to always do thorough research and present accurate facts. We also must appreciate the pressures journalists are under and help the relationship by giving well researched facts and knowledgeable spokespeople to achieve a positive outcome for the public.

For other PR lessons and more media videos visit:

http://pwkpr.com/downloads/FreePRLessonsFromFamousPeople.htm

Note: On April 8, 2010 Guy Kewney sadly passed away at age 63 after battling with bowel and liver cancer. He was one of the most influential writers of the technology world and had long stints with publications such as PC Magazine and Personal Computer World.

Demands of large companies ending stereotypical PR agency model

During this time of recession it seems that many large companies are taking their PR business elsewhere, to smaller agencies that have a lower price tag, but still deliver a quality service. This new phenomenon might just be a consequence of the economic downturn, but at the same time, we might also be in the midst of a new PR trend.

Mobile network giant Vodafone recently signed over all its accounts to Paratus, a ten-person agency that was selected after a competitive pitch from other larger agencies. Similarly Symantec, the largest maker of personal computer security software, hired Speed Communications in August to handle its six-figure corporate and enterprise PR brief for the UK and Ireland. And finally McCain Foods, the world’s largest producer of frozen-foods, signed Pitch PR in June to promote its sponsorship of UK Athletics. All these companies had the option to go with a larger agency but in the end chose the smaller firms. Just what is making small firms so appealing in comparison to large agencies and why are companies making the sudden switch?

When you typically think of a PR agency, you think of posh offices, attractive socializing females, schmoozing clients over lunches, often unnecessary extravagance, over the top and pulls out all the stops to impress its clients. All great, but the bells and whistles have to be paid for by someone – and that’s often client budgets or higher fees.

A handful of the top PR agencies grossed more than £130 billion globally in 2001. Impressive, yes, but in the end it’s the client who ends up paying more for all the extra, lavish, amenities and in a time when money is tight, finding the PR agency with the most economic benefit is a must for companies.

Naturally larger agencies also pride themselves on their ability to provide media relations, lobbying, event management, social media and other PR practice areas for companies, to make up their "integrated communications services" for their clients – but smaller companies are also offering all these services.

“Boutique” agencies are smaller and are typically less expensive for clients. Often they have a more detailed focus and expertise in certain industries and this business model seems to be thriving. These agencies are beginning to compete with large PR firms because they offer attractive budgeting options. New technologies have made the PR process so much more efficient that small companies can conduct PR just as well as large agencies – the Internet; customer relationship management systems; online media monitoring; cheaper, easy to use, high quality audio and video production tools; web design – all services now provided within small agency walls.

David Watson, senior Vice President of PR Boutiques International said in a letter to PR Week, “Importantly, it has never been easier to outsource non-core activity and plug into global markets through online communications and networking. Boutique PR firms are managed with the same rigour as big companies, and are succeeding worldwide.”

But even the “boutique” label for smaller agencies is just a fancy way of saying what they really are: a smaller company providing the same public relations services for companies wanting to gain publicity, build an image and be perceived positively in the public arena. Why not be proud of being a “small agency,” offering more cost effective, high quality PR services without making us sound like some sort of fashion house.

The primary driver for Symantec Corporation’s Dominic Cook is the flexibility offered by small agencies. “For those of us in-house relying heavily on external agency support, one of the key drivers in agency selection, particularly in tight budgetary conditions, is flexibility. The flexibility to move budgets around, to increase or decrease focus on social media or another piece of the PR puzzle, is vital and unfortunately many of the larger agencies find this difficult to cope with,” he says.

Companies may be turning to small agencies because they recognise they value the practitioners’ proficiency, flexibility and lower fees – rather than the unnecessary perks.

John Brice of the small U.S. based agency, Brice & Associates said, “Like doctors, lawyers, accountants and electricians, one good PR practitioner can get the job done well and generally do so at a more cost-effective price. A small agency can convene substantial marketing expertise as needed and not have to pass along any overhead to the client.” Flexible budgeting options and their deviation from the ‘typical’ PR agency traits may prove that these small agencies might just be the public relations industry’s new trend.

"For the PR's out there who use death by newswires this is worth a read."

So tweets @LittleScotty aka Ashley Scott, the Northern Tech PR with a love for gaming, pies and gravy - although one wonders whether at the same time - and if so, one hopes that the game she's playing is Wii Fit.

She was referring to the research from Parker, Wayne & Kent that showed that nearly three quarters of PR people (72.1 per cent) use press release wires, but almost one in five of them (18.3 per cent) said that these services “very rarely” or “never” get coverage. Only one third (30.5 per cent) confidently claimed that they gained coverage “all the time” from these services. Unsurprisingly maybe, these respondents were generally very positive about the value of their release appearing on a news aggregator site or on electronic press release distribution services. But is that really "coverage" that can be reported back to clients?

Notfiona from PR blog TheSpinBin says, "When you're so enthusiastically shown clips on websites that boast brand names such as Business Week, Fox News, USA Today... remember, it is almost a dead cert that no reporter on those publications has ever read your story, let alone evaluated it and thought about endorsing you. It's just one of the growing breed of auto pickups: fine for Search Engine Optimisation…but is that the only reason you do PR?"

Well for one in ten PR people who use press release wires, that's primarily the reason they use the services.

So a journalist hasn't looked at the release, never mind edited it, worked with it, and selected it for publishing: so is it "coverage"?

Well according to many of the PRs surveyed in the report – probably not. Our public relations peers suggest three main criteria for “coverage”: appearing in trusted third party media that are channels or opinion-formers to the publics being targeted; an element of editorial input by a journalist; and the inclusion of key messages and company sources.

So are electronic press release wires value for money as ways to get coverage of the sort desired by the industry - and we hope its clients? Or have they been relegated to crude SEO tools? Moreover, can the PR industry claim that they get coverage when an unedited release appears on irrelevant websites that will very rarely be read by a client's target customers except with a very specific search or Google Alert for the name of the company featured in the release?

Take a look at the research - Press Release Wires - A Circulation without a Readership?.

Truth and Lies in PR and Media

It is foolish to believe that articles in media are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is also imprudent to say that everything in the media is lies or untrue. The people that say, "I don't believe anything in the papers," can't possibly be right. They may not agree with the content of an article, and they may have a very healthy scepticism about the content of the media in general, but most people only know that Barak Obama is the President of the United States via the media having not ever seen him in the flesh.

Nick Davies, author of Flat Earth News, argues that journalists have become dependent on the public relations industry to such an extent that it is harming the media’s balance and objectivity in news reporting. Journalism’s primary task, says Davies, should be “to filter out falsehood” but journalism has now “become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda.” The easy access to information in today’s society, as noted by Frederick Williams- author of The New Communications- coupled with the rise of electronic communications and the media’s recent obsession with providing a constant stream of news, has meant that journalists are under ever-weightier pressure to file an ever greater number of stories. With this increased pressure, and given how email has made it easy, quick and affordable to disseminate press releases, Davies argues that the newsroom has become like a factory production line, with reporters’ role now being to “churn” out an uninterrupted stream of stories.

The change in the reporter’s role has had a striking impact on the reliability of the British news media. In a recent study of 2,000 news stories in several major national newspapers, researchers at Cardiff University found that only 12 per cent of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. Four fifths of the stories were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Journalism is easily influenced by PR, so if reporters are failing adequately to check their facts, then there are implications for the PR industry. The media has never before been so dependent on news stories created or influenced by PR. So, while a PR person’s job is primarily to provide information and opinion, they are in an almost uniquely powerful position when it comes to influencing the veracity of news that appears in the media. The industry as a whole must take care not to abuse this power, and be seen actively to contribute to the truthfulness of news stories. This leaves aside public relations’ ethical duty to the wider public. But that ethical duty to the public goes further than merely disseminating accurate and truthful information. If PROs have a duty to the public at all, then they must also be committed to influencing the media to ensure that what appears therein is truthful. Journalism and PR are two professions supposed to keep the public informed.

Over the course of the autumn and winter of 2009, more than 444 PR professionals from a wide variety of organisations and consultancies were invited to take part in an online poll to establish their opinions on the importance of honesty in public relations and the media. There are limitations to the poll. It is an online poll conducted in isolation- it analyses the opinions of a single industry's practitioners on the truthfulness of their own profession and on that of the media. Also, the construction of the questions encouraged respondents to take a very absolutist approach to the ethics of communication and lying - you either lied, so "Yes", or you did not, "No". In an absolutist sense, white lies are still lies, and we should be aware that if the industry absolutist in its defence - stating that its practitioners never lie - then they must also be absolutist in their communications ethics.

The results reveal a streak of cynicism within the PR industry, with the vast majority of PROs claiming personal probity, yet criticising their industry peers. Although 88 per cent of PR practitioners say they have never made a claim or disseminated information that they knew to be false, 73 per cent believe that public relations professionals lie in the course of their work. This huge disparity in perceived ethical conduct suggests that people in the PR industry have a very low opinion of their own industry. That said, 96 per cent of PR people agreed with the statement that they regarded themselves as fundamentally honest (55% "agree", 41% "totally agree").

When considering the media environment as a whole: presenting truth in an absolutist sense - as in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - is very difficult to attain whether by journalists, sub-editors, editors, advertising executives, publishers and public relations practioners. So if truth in this sense is unobtainable, the currency of the media can be seen in general as fact, opinion and interpretation of facts. Or maybe "angles".

There are often many unconsidered facts, opinions and interpretations that do not appear in articles, however dressing up lies as fact is of course morally reprehensible. Lies do appear in the media from time to time - unquoted "sources", someone in an online forum and maybe even journalists themselves. That does not mean that everything that appears in the media - either from a PR operation or a journalist is a lie. Both industries must necessarily provide fact because without those facts, trust as a source of information will be lost very quickly.

One does not need to write an essay on ethics to conclude that public relations, like journalism, has a duty to wider society to tell the truth. When a journalist checks facts, and puts the time into investigating an article in an unbiased manner, this gives more value to the article - both to society and often to the PR operation itself if the article or subject matter is truly useful to society.

Deservedly or not, the PR industry has a reputation among the public for spin and untruthfulness, and the survey results show that this perception is current even among PR people themselves. The issue of truth needs to be considered more by the industry rather than just through this simple survey. It needs to get to a point where PR people can be confident that they and their peers are acting ethically. When there is confidence about the ethics of people working in the industry, that ethical confidence will be communicated to critics. If public relations practitioners are not truthful, this threatens any genuine attempts to foster productive and mutually beneficial relationships with publics.

Read the full report: Facts, Angles, Opinions And Interpretations - How Much Is Truth And Lies In The Media