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.
The media, public relations, companies we meet, best practice and things that get our goat.
Thursday 30 September 2010
Friday 10 September 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)