"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

The Ads That Dare Not Speak Their Name

Remember Phorm, the evil data pimps who wanted to collect browsing data on Internet users so that they could deliver targeted advertising? Well, yes, of course you do. It was only a few months ago that the company effectively folded in the UK, having been battered by a succession of staggeringly stupid PR blunders, leaving their investors seriously out of pocket.

So the world and its dog can breathe a sigh of relief that it's safe from this invidious form of advertising, which threatened to usher in a cataclysm unequalled in the annals of human history, surpassing the plagues of Egypt, the eruption of Krakatoa, the rise of Jedward etc. etc.

Er, actually, no. A little-known Internet firm called Google is doing exactly the same thing, with nary a murmur of discontent from the brave warriors who brought Phorm to its knees. And we're not talking about Google's gentlemanly habit of routinely reading Gmail users' emails so that they can serve them with targeted ads. No, it goes further than that.

Some of our more technically literate readers may know that the world's largest text ad broker has, for ages, served up different search results for users logged into its services, such as Google Calendar or Gmail. These search results are tailored to users' previous browsing behaviour, so if you spend a lot of time on bbc.co.uk/sport, Google search results will place this web page higher up the list when it's asked to search for "sport". This, of course, is an entirely selfless service from Google that helps users gain the most relevant results - and it's only coincidental that it helps them to make more money from behaviourally targeted ads.

No problem with that - Google fanbois presumably read the terms and conditions when they sign up to these services (doesn't everyone?). But now Google is "personalising" search results for any user, anywhere, regardless of whether they're signed in to Google or not, through cookies placed on unwitting users' computers.

We've covered behavioural targeting before and, while we don't think it's inherently evil, we do believe that it requires a delicate approach, along with rigorous adherence to best practice procedures to ensure that users are well-informed and are offered a clear choice about whether they want their browsing profiled. Google haven't gone out of their way to publicise their service; nor to explain how to turn it off (it is, naturally, turned on my default).

If companies continue to implement behavioural targeting in a sly, underhand way - as though it were something to be ashamed about - then one can hardly blame the public for being suspicious of it. Instead of cloaking it in the depths of a terms and conditions form, companies like Phorm and Google should communicate openly on the benefits of targeted ads and offers.

One final question remains: why has privacy campaigner Alex Hanff - the single-handed scourge of Phorm and NebuAd, whose brave and lonely battle against these Internet behemoths ended with a victory that brought dragons and St George to mind - been so silent on this issue? Alex, where are you?

Postscript: Google's CEO Eric Schmidt yesterday trotted out that favourite line of civil-liberties-deniers the world round: "If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." (©Richard Littlejohn / David Blunkett). How this statement sits with Google Chrome's infamous Incognito function - which hides your porn viewing from other users - remains unclear.

Gut feeling

In spite of our previous post about the NHS, this blog is concerned primarily with data in general, and the impact of technology on personal information in particular.So, at the risk of appearing to stray off topic, we’ll start today with Gordon Brown’s plan to liberalise the UK’s rules on organ donation. The prime minister wants everyone in the UK to be automatically included in the organ donor register under a system of “presumed consent”. Anyone who objects to having their kidneys re-used after their death would have to opt out of the system.The thorny issue of organ donation provokes visceral (sorry) reactions in most, if not all, of the population: some see it as inherently selfish not to let others use your lights after you’re dead; others see it as yet another example of the creeping nanny state robbing citizens of jurisdiction over their own bodies.There are, of course, powerful arguments both for and against presumed consent, and it’s beyond the remit of this blog either to defend or denounce Gordon’s plan.But the principle of consent, and specifically the opt-in / opt-out debate, sits at the very heart of the continuing debate about the protection of our personal data, especially on the web.Should services that use our personal data be opt-in or opt-out? Most people would instantly and decisively declare that any Internet service which collects, processes, uses or stores our personal data should naturally be opt-in.We strongly disagree.Regular readers will know that this blog tries to champion people’s right to privacy, whether online of offline, so there might be some who are surprised that we feel so strongly against the opt-in model. After all, shouldn’t we have to give our express permission, based on thorough information, before allowing others access to our private lives?Ah, but indeed; and therein lies the problem.Every time we tick the checkbox accepting terms and conditions – be it for a website, a new online service, or to set up an email account – we are giving our consent to everything in the small print.When was the last time you read through a website’s Ts&Cs? In fact, have you ever done so? Do you know what you consented to when you signed up to watch YouTube or set up a Google Mail account? No, but you checked the box without thinking, just because you were impatient to get on with it.And that’s where the danger of opt-in lies. Irresponsible sites – unlike YouTube and Google Mail – can use the opt-in mechanism to obtain people’s explicit consent for any number of nefarious activities by slipping new services into their terms and conditions, knowing that the vast majority of people will blithely tick the box without reading them.Much better, then, to obtained people’s informed consent before they sign up – let them know exactly what they’re consenting to by having an unavoidable notice, explaining any changes to service, on the log-in page.No reasonable person can argue that it should be easy as possible for people to see what they’re signing up to; yet most campaigners on this issue seem still to be in thrall to the sanctity of opt-in, which makes it so easy for people to bury nasty surprises in the Ts&Cs.This visibility, this informing of stakeholders, is what’s lacking from the prime minister’s plans for presumed consent. While presumed consent is fair to the educated, literate and informed, it ignores the much greater majority of people who are not au courant and thus are in no position to give informed consent to organ donation.

Unique Networking Event-January 2010

The next NFI Networking event will be held at 18.00, Thursday 28th January 2010 atThe Woodstore Bar and Grill1 Carpenters MewsNorth RoadLondonN7 9EFMap and info at http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/pubsandbars/woodstore-bar-and-grill-info-16331.html

New Watchdog Chief Bares His Teeth

So, farewell then Richard Thomas. The outgoing Information Commissioner handed over the baton to Christopher Graham last June, and the new head of the ICO has wasted little time in getting stuck into parliament, the courts and newspapers for failing to stop the flourishing trade in illegally obtained personal and confidential information.The former DG of the Advertising Standards Authority was giving evidence to the Commons media select committee investigating phone-hacking and other unscrupulous press activity. This issue came to a head a couple of years ago with the revelations that the News of the Screw's was tapping Prince William and Harry's mobiles; the fact that it's taken until now to establish an investigation speaks volumes about the procrastination of our pusilanimous parliament.While it comes as no surprise that tabloid journalists resort to questionable - even illegal - activities in their work,what beggars belief is the complete absence of deterrent in the form of proper punishment. Graham raised this in his evidence to the committee, criticising the goverment for failing to introduce jail terms for hackers and other willful violators of the Data Protection Act, and claimed that custodial sentences could end the practice "at a stroke".It's worth noting that Clive Goodman, the Screws' former royal editor, did in fact do four months' bird for hacking the Princes' phones, but Graham pointed out that the NotW case was merely part of a much bigger malaise. Graham said that the ICO had tried to sound the alarm about the scale of the problem as far back as 2006, when it published a report showing that 305 reporters were using private investigators. Unfortunately, said Graham, "...we were let down by the courts, who didn't seem to be interested in levying even the pathetic fines they had at their disposal; we were rather let down by parliament in the end, with no legislation; and we were let down by the newspaper groups, which didn't take it seriously."It's good to see such forthright common sense from the new Information Commissioner - it's a sign that the ICO is fast becoming a Watchdog with real bite. Graham has made a great start, and we will be following his progress with interest.

Pre-roll Continues to Prosper as Companies Catch On

MTV Networks recently declared pre-roll as the ‘most effective and consumer-friendly’ advertising method within today’s entertainment and media industry. Their general belief is that companies should ultimately exploit online advertising or face falling behind their competitors. Jason Witt, Senior Vice President and General Manager of MTV's digital advertising unit certainly seems to think so and urges others to follow suit.Pre-roll is an advertising technique that has proved to be worth investing in. Companies that have the capability and readiness to exploit new advertising areas seem to reap bounteous rewards. For example, Southern Comfort, having previously spent $6 million on late-night cable TV and a further $1.5 million on magazines announced a change of direction. It has now increased its online advertising spending by 25 per cent, including on online video advertising on Hulu and other websites of NBC, CBS, Fox and FX. Online video advertising is essentially able to reach a wider range of consumers in a more cost-efficient way. Lena DerOhannessian, Southern Comfort’s U.S. Marketing Director said, ‘As we’ve focused more on 21 to 29 [year olds], TV becomes less and less effective at reaching that audience.’ More and more opportunities are to be found elsewhere, namely online.The online community is continuously expanding with it estimated to grow 85 per cent by 2013. This growth provides the perfect chance to exploit pre-roll to the full. Research shows that out of the 87 per cent of UK Internet users watching online videos, 52 per cent have taken action after seeing a pre-roll ad. Thus far, it appears that short pre-roll ads are the most effective form of online advertising. The web video company, BBE, asserts that pre-roll ads are 8-25 times more effective than other types of online advertising since viewers are more likely to sit through a short ad that is played 10-20 seconds before their desired content. Shorter online advertising, therefore, is able to promote companies in a way that does not ruin viewers’ enjoyment, especially since any pre-roll longer than 20 seconds threatens to send frustrated viewers elsewhere. Compared to TV, where 3 minute long adverts are tolerated by audiences, a pre-roll that lasts even 30 seconds seems like an eternity.Pre-roll essentially enables the relationship between brands and consumers to develop in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Kent J. Krizik, President of NewsProNet, declared that ‘online media publishers and local and national advertisers know there's no better way to reach consumers than through the compelling format of online video’. Moreover, after positive results from MTV’s study of over 50 million video streams across the US, Sharb Farjami, Vice President of Ad Sales within MTV Networks Australia & New Zealand, praised this form of online advertising as an ‘exciting area that is gaining popularity in this marketplace because it delivers rich user interaction’. Online video advertising may in fact help companies stay afloat in the current economic climate. Tod Sacerdoti, Founder-CEO of the online advertising network BrightRoll remarks that general advertising revenues for online video are ‘up 217 per cent between the first and second quarters of this year’. He argues that it will ‘rise 50 per cent to 100 per cent for the entire year based on increased volume, even though prices may continue to fluctuate during a down economy’. Of course, the advertising industry has, on the whole, been in a slump for quite a long time which further emphasises the importance of online video advertising.So, online video advertising is undoubtedly the preferred and wisest advertising method of today.