Should online "editorial" be regulated?

Despite claims of corporate social responsibility, it appears that food manufacturers have swapped banned television advertising for social media activities - leading to calls to include “editorial” content in the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). 

According to the Guardian report:

At the beginning of July, the sweet brand Skittles paid a six-figure sum to set up a profile on the social networking site Bebo which has already been viewed more than 50,000 times and attracted more than 3,500 “friends”. In an interview with the Guardian, a Bebo spokesman described these “friends” as “brand ambassadors”. Bebo users have to declare they are at least 13, but it is known that much younger children do use the site.

Apparently such sites are not viewed as advertising (which they clearly are), but as editorial.  As well as a presence on social networking sites, brands are accused of using games, videos and cartoons on special websites to attract young audiences.

Claims from the PR representatives of this companies that their activities are responsible seem flimsy with arguments that the products are promoted as part of a healthy diet or that sites state adult permission should be sought by under-16s. 

I don’t object to the right of these brands to exist and go about their business - but as Nic Howell, deputy editor of New Media Age says:

“The issue of fast food brands targeting kids has been all but dealt with when it comes to television and print advertising but it seems that some in the industry are going to fight for their right to advertise to kids to the very last”.

Nevertheless, I live in hope that transparency and greater recognition of what is deemed unethical will lead to changes in the way in which marketing and PR undertakes promotional activities.

Cars and green arguments

The next edition of the MIPAA members’ magazine, Revolve, (due to be published next week) contains an article on communicating environmental issues.

In particular, “carbon” has become shorthand, like “green” as a simple way of getting over a message rather  being able to engage stakeholders in more considered discussion over the issues.

This is underpinned by the launch of a new Department for Transport “green car web site” focusing on CO₂ emissions - www.dft.gov.uk/ActOnCO2. 

It is good to see more data provided to customers, but does it really help them make informed decisions when the actual issues are more complicated?  The site does include advice for motorists “to limit their carbon footprint in action, whatever vehicle they drive.”

Similarly, the SMMT’s Drive Green, Drive Safely initiative offers a guide to eco-safe driving from www.smmt.co.uk/sustainability.  Although websites and guides are helpful, do they actually motivate most drivers to change their behaviour? 

Eco-driving will be made part of the driving test for new drivers from next year.  The aim is to ensure skills that do not impact on the environment become part of learning to drive.  Perhaps a remedial test could be offered for more experienced drivers with a financial incentive - perhaps in association with one of the fuel companies.

Motivating “green” behaviour change though continues to be more complicated than carrot and stick.  Another story picks up on the impact of linking road tax to CO_2.

According to www.cleangreencars.co.uk, a new high road tax band is required as the current highest level is set at 225g/km, which does not motivate those who may have a vehicle emitting up to 450g/km CO₂ to trade down. 

Indeed, the press release argues data shows luxury car buyers are buying more “higher polluting cars in the first half of 2007 than they did in the equivalent period of 2006″.  Unfortunately percentages are used to make its point rather than absolute numbers, so it is hard to evaluate the real significance of such claims.

This might seem a largely symbolic argument, since anyone looking to buy a car that costs over £40,000, with a poor emissions rating (and low fuel economy), is unlikely to be affected by the cost of higher road tax.

Where there would be an impact is on resale values where a prohibitive tax band starts to bite.  That means people like me as I own a 5 year old Mercedes SLK - and that’s where the arguments about the impact of buying new versus maintaining an older car make decisions even more complicated. 

In simple terms, such cars have a higher level of carbon emissions - but that doesn’t take into account the fact that I don’t drive it all the time, keep it properly serviced and am conscious of my driving behaviour (not least because I pay for my own fuel).

However, we live in a world where simple messages are necessary and so I will probably have to face being unable to afford a sportscar. 

Until the day that vehicle manufacturers design eco-frendly vehicles with the same level of visual and driving appeal.  I think that would be a good strategy for motivating those who love motoring - but would it satisfy the “deep green” community?

Why are restaurant websites so bad?

We’re looking for a new venue for the MIPAA Christmas lunch in central London.  For the past three years we’ve had a great time at The Crypt - but it was felt to be time for a change.

We don’t want to charge members a fortune, but would like somewhere that provides a good sit-down meal in a seasonal atmosphere.

As well as using various contacts, I have been searching online - but have yet to find a decent website for any of the venues that I’ve been recommended or have found.  Why are they all so bad?

Most are over-designed and don’t provide the basic information regarding their function facilities, costs and menus.  Presumably most restaurants see a website as something to have like a glossy brochure - rather than being anything more engaging.

They also don’t seem to have grasped the power of the online rating systems - I have checked out several venues only to see very negative comments from diners on review sites about either service, cost or catering. 

Don’t restaurants recognise the value of good public relations?

Anyway, if you know of any really interesting venues for a Christmas lunch for around 80 people - please let me know. 

PR is not the Single Greatest Marketing Tool

This article on public relations from Forbes.com: The Single Greatest Marketing Tool, it is depressingly full of unsubstantiated criticism and misunderstandings about the nature of what PR actually is and can do.  This starts with a definition by its author, Lisa Lamotta:

“public relations”–the discipline of shedding a benevolent light on a person, company or cause, mainly by tapping the news media

She also writes about PR practitioners that “most aren’t very good at what they do” and “PR types often promise more than they can deliver”.  So her advice includes reference to DIY:

For starters, you’ll need a press kit. Most of that material will end up in reporters’ garbage bins, but a rare few might grab their attention.

or working with “interns looking to pad their résumés at rock-bottom rates”.

I would expect to see better consideration of public relations on any small marketing agency’s website, not on a website which claims to target the “world’s business leaders”.

Kryptonite manages criticism online

Interesting post from B.L. Ochman regarding the online strategy used by the PR professional at Kryptonite Lock to respond to negative comments on the company’s blog.

I know a lot of people are concerned about corporate blogs and especially how they can be hijacked, so it is interesting to see examples of how such real world challenges are being handled.

Influence isn’t easy

I’ve been pondering all the recent discussion about social media measurement and found that The Net-Savvy Executive highlights some of my concerns.  In particular, Nathan highlights the importance of being clear about what exactly you are trying to measure online.

One of the problems I have with the Social Media Index developed and promoted by Edelman is in this respect.  Whilst admitting that its methodology is flawed, it still attempts to evaluate online influence on the basis of usage of various social media platforms.  The linkage here between what is being measured and the method to do it is missing - which David Brain admits in the comment discussion. 

So is the index of value simply to determine activity in Social Media?  I presume one of the aims from a public relations perspective is to identify influencers that organisations can then target.  This reflects typical offline strategies that focus on journalists because the media is presumed to have an influence (cause and effect) on large numbers of people.

The idea of ranking online influence seems to be about looking for an easy route to mass audiences - but if we are in an era of fragmentation and individualisation, shouldn’t we be thinking of a more situational approach?

Over the past 50+ years marketing and public relations have sought to divide the public into easy categories on the basis of demographics, psychographics, media usage, lifestyle stages and other “clumps”.  The idea being to identify factors of similarity as predictors of attitude, opinion and behaviour.

One of the most interesting things about social media is that it involves active publics - people who come together around a particular issue of interest to them.  Their level of involvement is likely to be situational and can change depending on a number of factors.  Rather than someone being an influencer per se, isn’t it more likely that they may have some level of influence over some people at a particular time in relation to a particular situation? 

The situation is dynamic and those referencing an influencer are likely to be forming their opinions from a wide range of sources, and essentially, assessing these against existing attitudes and previous experiences.  People are complicit in being influenced - they are not passively affected as if by a magic wand. 

We decide who to trust, whose opinions are interesting enough to consider further or adopt, whether or not we will be influenced - consciously or not.

Another element of social media which seems missing from a rating index is that of engagement, interaction and mutuality.  This does not simply equate to numbers of friends or comments on blogposts.  Influence is dynamic and the value of social media is in the discussion where opinions can form, be tested, adapted, rejected and passed on for the process to continue in other platforms.

What is of interest and influence to me, may not be for someone else.  Of course, if we have some areas of agreement, shared trust, co-orientation of our views, you might like what I say and at some level I may influence you.

For my students, I have an assumed level of power as an influencer - a credible source of information to help them pass their assignments.  As someone with knowledge of motor industry PR, I may have some influence on this basis - or you may reject my opinions as being biased.

If you have visited my blog having Googled “high heels” - which is a regular search term - you may be disappointed with the context of Bulgarian pavements.  I’m not an influencer on  your purchase of shoes - although you might have been influenced in your opinions of walking in Sofia.

I think my level of influence in Facebook is even less meaningful.  It might be interesting to see what people I know are doing - but the link to being influenced seems as tenuous as counting the number of people in my Outlook contacts list.

It strikes me that online influence is much more personal, complex and situational than any simple measure or rating system will determine.  Is the search for Top Influencers relevant or helpful? 

This is a Six Degrees question - there may well be some people who have the ability to influence a key number of people who then influence others and so on.  But won’t those people depend on the issue and its context?  And what or who has influenced them?

It would certainly be interesting from a public relations viewpoint to see tracking of influence on particular issues or decisions - if anyone could deconstruct the web of factors that lead to the final outcome. 

As much as we might like to think that there are just a few trigger people we can reach and they can tip a topic into wider debate, I’m not sure that is universally true. 

Perhaps the PR search for the key influencers is similar to the belief of advertisers that they simply need to find the next big medium to stimulate sales.

The truth is much more interesting and complicated.  Surely it is time for those in PR to stop promoting the idea that we can target and control “endorsers”.  Let’s reflect on a future of more personal, individual and variable decisions made on the basis of a myriad of influential factors - how does that affect our work?

Of course it will be harder to sell on that basis and also more difficult for organisations to accept the lack of control when they want reassurance that investment in PR and marketing will deliver measurable results.

Corolla comes out of the closet

Jeremy Clarkson once said of the Toyota Corolla that 30 million people could be wrong (a reference to the cumulative volume of sales that was quoted in press releases).  So what would he make of this advert?

Revelations? Isn’t everyone a liar?

David Brain asks a good question about cheating in the context of the espionage issue in Formula One and the drug fiasco of the Tour de France.

Alongside the ongoing saga at the BBC over phony phone-in winners and last week’s “I Spartacus” political drug taking confessions, it makes you wonder about personal ethics today.

But, there seems to be an increasing public acceptance of such behaviour - if listeners of that beacon of middle England, the Terry Wogan Radio 2 show, which I heard last week, is any indication.

Is this a good thing?  Doesn’t it erode trust just a little bit further?  Or have we already reached the point of thinking everyone is a liar so what does it matter?

Call me cynical (I think it is genetic), but I can’t say that I’m surprised by any of these revelations.

The world of Formula One is incestuous and I’d expect a certain amount of knowledge to spread around the grapevine - although maybe not so overtly as was alleged. 

I’ve also driven regularly along some of the Tour de France route in the Pyrenees where my parents live - and don’t really understand how any human could endure the rigours of the event without drugs or blood transfusions (although I like to believe that Lance Armstrong did).

Having never called a television or radio phone-in, or taken any recreational drug (beyond alcohol), I don’t really understand the motivation.  But, given the easy money to be made in the first and the stupidity of many people to be considered cool for the second - I’m not surprised on either count.

Despite this cynicism, I am a half-glass full person and do like to think the best of people.  However, I suppose I live in expectation of being disappointed - which makes the genuine people even more precious.

That for me is the secret also of corporate reputation.  Most people have to enter into relationships with organisations - but probably expect to be let down most of the time.  So isn’t it great when you come across an organisation that is genuine?  No wonder real recommendations are such a powerful method of endorsement.

Automotive Management e-zine badly spun

Good to see Automotive Management magazine offering a new digital e-zine version with snazzy page turning animation.  I also like the way in which you can click to focus in on a particular story, move the page around the window, store clips and search easily the contents.

What I found irritating though was that the email advising of the launch of the digital e-zine from next week is linked to the Royal Mail strike and a claim that it will reduce AM’s carbon footprint.

There is no way that the technology has just been developed to respond to possible delivery delays - and it only has an environmental effect if it replaces printed versions. 

This is a poorly spun communications email from the Tom Nichols, Circulation and Marketing Manager.  The online e-zine deserves better promotion than that.

PR is a game of chess, not bluff

Michael Tangeman’s post What public relations can and cannot do … includes reference to a comment made by the vice-chairman of the ICAEW corporate finance faculty, Ian Leaman, that private equity had simply ‘failed at the PR game.’

This PR-blame comes on the back of the Gordon Brown-bounce denial of spin and the Cameron equivalent where he doesn’t defend PR in the face of criticism that he is ”concentrating on public relations ’stunts’ rather than developing policies.”

Although, we have an ever increasing public profile for public relations it is accompanied by greater and greater ignorance about what is actually involved. 

What all three of these examples really need is genuine public relations.  Instead, they (and the media) see only a need to manipulate the public via the media as being the role of PR.

I particularly object to the ignorance of people like Ian Leaman because his inane comment is picked up and communicated to those responsible for corporate budgets. 

He is apparently an expert in mergers and acquisitions on the basis of his experience as a chartered accountant.  I wonder what expertise he has in understanding corporate culture and its influence on whether such corporate marriages will be a success.  Or his knowledge of building relationships with publics, such as employees, suppliers, local communities, politicians and other influencers.  Or how about analysing issues and understanding risk management from a communications and relationship perspective?

All of these areas are vital in mergers and acquisitions - and require professional public relations skills and strategies.  He seems to think that PR is a game of bluff rather than involving the abilities of a chess master to be successful.

In Leaman’s view the role of investor relations is as follows:

In a listed company you would probably have a full-time professional or outside agency doing the investor relations role.  That is very squarely in the lap of the FD in a private equity-backed business, a key part of the model in private equity is the alignment of shareholder and management interests.

That’s the real problem with these vocal critics of public relations - if politicians and finance directors are so marvelous at co-orientation, and just need PR to tell the world how super they are (regardless of the reality), is it any wonder the public increasingly see they are wearing no clothes?