Illogical boycott plans

I am rather bemused by the public relations campaign launched by the union, Unite to boycott Lil-lets and Simple products.  Somehow, I can’t agree with the analysis that:

Unite believes a boycott of Lil-lets and Simple is the only way to make private equity company Electra change their mind and pay the 46 workers the full pension entitlement under the ‘consent rule’.

It seems unlikely that they will be successful in persuading women not to buy a particular brand of sanitary product on the basis of an argument about pension rights (virtuous though that might be). 

I can’t see the campaign appealing to women’s editors either - so where do they hope to gain media or public attention outside the specialist Union media.  Or maybe that is the point - this is about showing Union “strength” against private equity companies.

Because if the Union really sees its campaign as the “only” option - the campaign seems doomed to fail to me.  Surely a better approach could have been identified to engage key stakeholders with the issue of private equity and pension entitlement?

[Link via Judy Gombita]

Proving sponsorship return on investment

Global finance institution, ING proves the value of research in announcing that its F1 sponsorship has increased global brand visibility - and its release is published on the corporate website the day it is issued (hurrah!). 

The company says that its:

“partnership with the ING Renault F1 Team, together with our on-track branding activity, has increased ING’s global brand awareness and a created a clear and positive perception of the firm. This has also led to an increased willingness amongst existing and potential customers to increase their business with ING”.

Hence, Michel Tilmant, Chairman of the Executive Board of ING Group said:

“The affiliation between ING and Formula One has already proven its worth. Our research shows that the programme has improved ING’s global brand awareness and image. Heading into 2008, the ING F1 strategy will build upon the increase in awareness of ING to drive revenue returns.”   

Research was taken at the start and end of this year’s Formula One season across five key criteria, from which, the company says it achieved:

• 7% increase in perception of being a leading and global financial services firm
• 25 % increase in positive perception of ING
• 29% increase in willingness to do business with ING within the next 12 months     
• 100% increase in awareness of ING as being an F1 sponsor (across the 32 markets 1 in every 4 people was aware ING was an F1 sponsor)

It also says its logo was the second most visible F1 sponsor on during official television race coverage. 

As well as the fact that research has been used here to demonstrate return on investment, it is interesting to see that the first step was to increase knowledge and understanding, before seeking to use the sponsorship to build business revenue.

But, it is not clear the contribution that public relations played in the programme, or whether there was any attempt to evaluate which elements of communications had been most effective.  It can be difficult to separate out sources of influence in an integrated campaign of course, but it would be interesting to see whether it was primarily branding activities that led to this result and how PR will be used going forwards.

Check your press release links

I saw an interesting press release today from the Department for Transport regarding the National Business Travel Network (NBTN) which promotes sustainable travel plans for businesses.  It is holding a conference as reported by Government News Network today and claims over 100 businesses have signed up to the initiative (which apparently is free to do).

So, I thought I’d check this out and tried to follow the link to the website http://www.nbtn.org.uk/ - but it didn’t work - giving me an error 404 message, which is common if a page has been moved or deleted.

The contact emails at the end of the release show it was issued by an agency, Forster - which doesn’t have the release or link on its site.

A search on the Department for Transport site revealed only an event taking place next March.  There was nothing about NBTN on the government’s Act On CO2 site, either.  Reports of the conference story online simply repeat the web address that takes you to an error page. 

I appreciate that technical glitches happen - but PR practitioners need to check for any release they issue - and when a story is reported that links are live and more information can be widely found.

Get your CEO online - your PR depends on it

Fascinating post at Tom Glocer’s Blog : What Should A CEO Do With His Time? providing a credible argument of why those at the top need to explore online media for themselves.  If nothing else, it might stop them being bamboozled by agencies touting online solutions like the Emperor’s new clothes.  By experiencing for ourselves, we can only gain in confidence - so I’m all for executives, as well as their PR teams, engaging directly with online media.  This should also extend beyond the work context - how can you understand those who have an interest in your company if you don’t have an interest in other things yourself?

[link via Sacred Facts]

Public relations and chicken licken

The tale of Chicken Licken (also known as The sky is falling) comes to mind every time I read about about the death of something or the end of the world as we know it. 

Whilst agreeing with the premise of Brian Solis’ post The Pitch is Dead RIP (ie PR practitioners should develop personal contacts rather than adopt spam media relations) - I adore Phil Gomes’ cry that Saying stuff is dead is dead.

Like Chicken Licken, one way of gaining attention is to make cataclysmic claims: the sky is falling on my head being the extreme reaction to a knock from an acorn.

Every day, PR practitioners peddle dire warnings; fear appeals based on extrapolating horrendous consequences if the message isn’t followed.  If the PR campaign is successful, then we’ll attract followers; advocates of our claims who will pass it on.  The power of word of mouth propagating the need for action.

People are attracted by the flapping of wings - journalists amplify the cry and online, bloggers join the “conversation”, stimulating frenzied speculation of disastrous consequences.

Is it fair to cast the media as the unscrupulous fox who at the end of the tale manipulates the masses for his own benefit?  Or is the role of the PR practitioner who highlights the problem, but also claims to have the solution to the impeding disaster? 

Is Chicken Licken, PR Executive, also Foxy in disguise?  The world will end if you don’t buy my product, fund my cause, elect me?  Global warming is the sky falling - but you can hold it back by carbon offsetting or using low energy lightbulbs.

Fortunately - or unfortunately if you are a PR professional with an important message to communicate - the public is becoming more resistant to joining the gaggle of silly birds.  They may know the problem is really an acorn, or believe the sky won’t fall on them.

And then what will you do - little PR chicken?

PR should receive praise when it is due

It is interesting to see FT.com columnist, Michael Skapinker being dismissive of PR practitioners in his piece You can handle the web without an adviser - yet when he claims Scientists must learn to talk to the media, he supports the work of the Science Media Centre.  Of course, he fails to clarify that this independent venture, as a “press office for science”, is a public relations operation. 

This is one of the many challenges for the profession of PR.  When issues that are not our responsibility, but result from poor operational management, the media labels them as a PR disaster.  Or they pejoratively call corporate citizenship initiatives “PR exercises”.

Yet, the media remain silent when it comes to clarifying that PR does help organisations and their publics.  Could it be that journalists know they could not do their jobs without the support of PR professionals - and this belies the myth of the investigative, independent journalist?

Should PR gossips keep quiet?

Mark Borkowski argues in favour of tough action against any PR employee engaging in gossiping - reflecting the approach of Chicago based agency, Empower Public Relations.

This might seem odd when Public Relations itself is engaged in maximising word of mouth communications, which arguably is the essence of gossip.

Of course, the issue here is the corrosive type of gossiping that involves “vicious backbiting.”  Such negative behaviour generally takes place behind someone’s back and is designed to undermine and question those who are the topic of conversation.

Sometimes, however, critical gossip reveals a truth that isn’t spoken about through official communication channels.  In seeking to prevent expression of views, could the organisation miss out of valuable feedback - even when that might be perceived to question current operations?

In such cases, management needs to consider how it can use such reflection to improve the way the organisation runs.  Being able to critique and stimulate innovation is vital in a creative discipline like PR.

At the same time, positive gossip should be encouraged.  In many organisations the unofficial channel of communications can be the quickest and most efficient way of enabling information flow.  Understanding and linking into internal connections and networks is a vital component of PR communications.

Another consideration is the impact of those who prefer to “be honest” rather than talking about someone privately.  This is something we hear all the time via reality television - where confrontation is portrayed as more ethical than having a quiet moan.

Speaking your mind, openly and publicly, is not necessarily a better approach - and often resembles bullying.  I feel this is as destructive as snide bitching.  Such people are often just being rude.  There are times when diplomacy and tact are required rather than “in your face”, so called, honesty.

The best advice is that provided by Thumper to Bambi, citing the baby rabbit’s father:

If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.

Analysing corporate blogs

[I originally posted this in December last year - but it began to attract "unsavory" pingbacks owing to its original title - which was not smutty in any way.  As I don't like deleting posts, I amended the title, but of course, this doesn't change the actual URL heading - and the problem continued.  Hence I've decided to repost and delete the original - hoping this will keep the spambots away]

One of the most significant CEOs active in blogosphere is Bob Lutz of General Motors (currently the world’s largest  vehicle company - although projections from Toyota mean the Japanese giant may unseat the US goliath in 2007).

His blog has a warm, homely feel where he comments on issues of relevance to the company directly to the widest possible range of stakeholders. 

The blog has a named editor - and postings are made by a variety of GM managers, in addition to Lutz.  It does tend to present a particular perspective, few links or references to other sites/blogs and bloggers aren’t very active in response to comments.  Indeed the hundreds of responses tend to be rather “vanilla” (bland) and respectful (ie Mr Lutz as a salutation almost universally).

I should like to see some academic deconstruction of corporate blogs (clogs) from a semantic perspective, as I suspect few are reflective of genuine open communications, let alone conversations with publics. 

All praise to those executives who are recognising the value of blogging - albeit as a largely one way communications tool. 

Another interesting linguistic element I noted in Lutz’s Season’s Rantings post was the use of analogy.  Opposing government plans to increase the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by 4% per annum (this is a figure designed to improve fuel efficiency), Lutz compares “forcing automakers to sell smaller cars to improve fuel economy with fighting the nation’s obesity problem by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell garments in only small sizes”.

The beauty of such similes is that they create pictures in the mind - a very effective communications device.  However, we should look for the “tension” - how direct is the comparison (ie is it a relevant metaphor?)

No-one is actually forcing automakers to “sell smaller cars” - there is an objective which needs to be met, but there are a number of strategies that could be followed (eg use of hybrid fuel technology).  Indeed, it should be noted that the standard has not been increased since 1985 (it was actually reduced from 1986-9) and a different level is set for “light trucks” (which includes what we would call 4×4s).

There are many critics of the strategies used by the oil companies and US automakers (indeed, GM was an original client of Bernays) - one of the most interesting is the documentary “who killed the electric car?”  (Interestingly, Toyota has come out as a “character witness” for GM, the film’s prime suspect.)

When discussing environmental issues (the undoubted story of 2006), real pictures have dominated over cognitive ones.  Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth“  (now released on DVD) is said to have been a catalyst of Gordon Brown’s recent “green conversion” (ground that David Cameron also claimed this year - along with trendy blogging credentials).

Lutz’s comparison with “the nation’s obesity problem” has a couple of other interesting dimensions.  Firstly, if people are getting heavier and bigger, won’t they need larger vehicles - after all fat folk are said to be the fastest growing consumer segment in the US. 

Secondly, public relations strategies from governments around the world portray “panic scenarios” (solved only by authoritarian responses) regarding both “global warming” and “obesity”.  No wonder we’ve all been stocking up on electrical goodies and the calories this Christmas.  In communication terms, there is still a tendency to see the public as passive and needing a “nanny state” (and the assistance of big business) to prevent us behaving “badly”.  There is a movement to offer children - the “cotton wool” generation - more freedom to grow up as fully functioning independent beings - but clearly governments don’t trust those of us who have grown up - acting as “paranoid parents.  Frank Furedi states: “With no vision or strategy for developing the public sphere, political elites opt instead for the management of micro issues.”

From a PR perspective, we should consider his view that: “It is clear that the UK government is not simply concerned with providing information. It is in the business of behaviour modification. That is why government ministers are not interested in social research that helps to make sense of the world and points out the root causes of problems facing the nation. Instead, their concern is solely with research that can help them to influence and alter individual behaviour. Once upon a time, such research was characterised as propaganda and social marketing, a form of emotional manipulation. Today, emotional manipulation is depicted as an instrument for ‘raising awareness’.

Whilst at the same time, Blair is establishing “deliberative forums“, showing yet again how supposed consultation is actually more about how the Government can influence the public to do as it wishes.   

What is my conclusion from all this post-Christmas reflection?  We need to harness the new power of blogging and social media as public pressure and ensure that wider interests are considered beyond achieving the aims of powerful individuals (in government, business or the media).  We need to learn to listen more actively to what is being said to us (deconstructing its meaning more cynically) and be prepared to challenge the way communications are used to persuade and control.  Finally, the public should continue their “passive resistance” to attempts to manipulate their behaviour and learn to be independently informed, interdependent with contacts they trust personally.  This means demanding of government, business and the media to “doasyouwouldbedoneby”. 

Tech Tags: GM Lutz CAFE blogging linguistic analogy similie metaphor who_killed_the_electric_car al_gore inconvenient_truth gordon_brown david_cameron obesity environment authoritarian communications paranoid_parents frank_furedi propaganda deliberative_forums doasyouwouldbedoneby

Google and Vauxhall Fleet affects BusinessCar rating

BusinessCar has repeated its analysis of websites from the top 20 best selling car manufacturers in the UK.

Unfortunately, as I noted last year, aspects of social media, such as blogging, do not appear to have been considered and the focus is entirely on provision of information “to harassed fleet managers and time-poor company drivers”.

It would be useful to consider aspects of engagement - not least as I understand from editor-in-chief, Tristan Young that some manufacturers have expressed interest in improving their rankings.

BMW has moved up the ratings by one place to top the list.  Kia and SEAT are at the bottom.  The analysis is based on 10 criteria (each marked out of five):

• Google ranking – where a site is placed when entering a manufacturer’s name plus ‘fleet sales’ (all searches were carried out within the same time period);
• Ease of use;
• Design or dazzle factor;
• How accessible is business area – the number of clicks it takes to find the corporate part of the site;
• How good is the downloadable brochure;
• Tax calculator cleverness;
• Speed of response to emails;
• How accessible is a phone number;
• How good is the dealer search;
• Other useful tools that will keep you coming back to the site.

As you would appreciate, I am not over-impressed by the methodology here, which seems to be highly subjective.  But a Google search is pretty basic - and as Tristan observes in his blog post on the survey, the Vauxhall fleet team doesn’t appear to have grasped elementary search engine optimisation.

Indeed, just by writing this post with the term “Vauxhall fleet” in it, my site will be more readily found by Google than the official Vauxhall fleet site.

What could be considered odd is that both Vauxhall (in GM guise) and Kia have engaged with social media in the form of blogs.  But clearly, this has not been recognised as the more commercial end of the business.

It is of little value any company exploring social media solely in respect of its executives or public relations teams.  In respect of car manufacturers and UK fleet business, there is clearly a lot of potential for improvement in understanding and applying lessons on the benefits of online and social media.

Technorati Tags: Businesscar , Vauxhall fleet , website , ratings

Press release training lacks irony

I receive these regular emails inviting me to attend a Press Release Master Class.  I have no issue being emailed by this company (I can unsubscribe if I wish) - but the nature of the “sales pitch” drives me mad.

As an editor and journalist, I receive thousands of press releases a year. Hardly any of them make it into the magazine I edit or the stories I write for other publications. When I conducted a survey of 89 other editors, I found they’re also deluged with releases – sometimes as many as 1,000 a week.

The entire approach breaks my #1 rule for press releases - which is about targeting (as has been discussed endlessly online recently).  The sender clearly knows nothing about me - if they did, they’d realise I am unlikely to attend their course.

I also loathe being pitched by a journalist who insults my profession, whilst ironically showing the same lack of knowledge of his target audience by sending me irrelevant information.

The sender claims: “What makes the Master Class different from other PR events is that it draws heavily on the views and experience of the 89 editors in my research project.”

I’m not knocking this guy’s credentials - but I run very successful press release writing workshops and didn’t need to undertake specific research with 89 editors (or journalists) as a hook. 

There is certainly a need, and demand, for improving basic PR skills - but why take advice from someone who cannot even manage their own contact database?