Is there still a place for media exclusivity?

It is interesting to see journalists release a press release, especially one advocating two-way communications as in the Guild of Motoring Writers taking a stand on public access to the British Motor Show Press Day.

Obviously the Guild would seek to persuade the Show organisers to reverse their plans, making such “dialogue” of the asymmetric kind.  Would there be any benefit in having discussed or advised the media of any decision in a format other than a press release?  A release seems to imply journalists should simply report the news - which obviously they may be unlikely to do now many have expressed negative views and become active publics.

The move could be argued as part of the opening up of access to media material to the public, such as online newsrooms which are not password or otherwise restricted.

In the age of “consumer generated content”, the media’s role as a “gatekeeper” in providing public with information, insight and opinion is being challenged.  Although, in this case, the move to offer “exclusive” access to press day seems to be about generating media coverage and on the day buzz rather than to attract the type of public who will report their views through social media such as blogging.

[UPDATE: The Chartered Institute of Journalists has now issued a release claiming the plans (for 500 members of the public each paying £100 will "interfere with the work of the bona fide press" and make it difficult for journalists to find places at conferences and launches (see feature in MIPAA magazine on views on these).  The release also criticises the possibility the tickets will be taken by "citizen journalists" and some public who will "masquerade as journalists in order to obtain copies of expensive and 'collectable' press packs with a view to later selling them on Internet auction sites".  This misses the fact that most press info is now digital and any press packs on Amazon etc currently will have come from the "professional journalist" - who would otherwise bin said collectable.  Besides - don't they think the organisers will have a process for distinguishing the public - and aren't most of these journalists known to the PRs anyway?]

One of the roles that a press day at an exhibition offers is to create desire in the public, with some allure of the “glamour” of restricted access - which appeals to both media and the public who can’t gain access.  Whether opening this out to the public will add to the air of exclusivity, create word of mouth buzz, demystify the media machine or further reduce the relevance of a press day, only time may tell.

Ikea crisis over names rather than recall

An interesting public relations “crisis” story affecting Swedish furniture store, Ikea in respect of its product names offending the Danes. 

I’ve never quite understood why everything from a table to a doormat needs a name rather than a reference code, when Ikea has not really developed many as a recognisable brand.  So, a bit of a pointless faux pas enabling your Danish neighbours to indulge in a bit of Scandinavian muck-making over a possible national bias in the match of product to name.

I doubt this has caused much frantic crisis management at Ikea though as the media, at least in the UK and Australia, have reported the story in a light-hearted fashion.  Indeed, a quick Google news search shows far more reports of the Danish doormat drama than reported a more serious crisis, that of a product recall for a child’s highchair on safety grounds. 

I think this highlights the power of story-telling in a crisis scenario.  It is much easier to imagine people telling each other about the crazy catalogue naming story than reporting the recall of 930 “Gulliver” highchairs sold in 17 stores across the UK so far this year - plus several other European countries.

Of course, the recall affects relatively few people, and importantly, when children are involved, there have been no reports of injury.  So the PR approach follows the classic “play it straight” advice for issuing such information.  Allowing the media to have a lot more fun with allegations of “Swedish imperialism“.

How to stop your suspension bottoming, avoid speed bump damage and prevent an accident

That’s the title of a press release from Car Parts Direct - which appears to have been written by someone named Mark Cornwall, a director of the company.  The guy seems to be a bit of a self-publicist, with a confrontational approach to gaining press coverage in the style of Michael O’Leary of Ryanair fame.

I’m afraid that Mark’s ability to write a press release would undoubtedly fail if submitted for a CIPR qualification.  But, I’m still pondering whether that headline is one of the worse that I’ve ever seen, or maybe just so bad, it is intriguingly good.  It would definitely have been the latter if it stopped at the comma! 

Any views?

Is Edelman right about being authentic?

Global PR consultancy Edelman is merging its online “brands” with a mission of creating “authentic communications” - I quote:

Edelman Digital’s mission is to create authentic communications programs that enable conversation and collaboration between companies, brands and their audiences across an increasingly complex digital landscape.

A new Authenticities blog expands on The Principles of Authentic Communications:

Our USP / point-of-difference at Edelman Digital can be summed up in two words: Authentic Communications. Frankly, getting to those two words was the easy part; delivering on that promise is anything but. That said, it is what we will strive to acheive for every client, every day.

[Yes, the typo was in the original post]

Staking claim to the term was always a risk - not just for the consultancy, but its clients.  Already Wal-Mart’s latest online efforts, an employee blog (apparently not even created by Edelman this time) are being criticised for lacking authenticity.   

I find the concept of trying to “own” a word to be rather bizarre, but at least Edelman doesn’t appear to have tried to trademark “authentic”.  Nevertheless, Strumpette has already turned her wicked eye to the initiative - so I decided to check out this word: authentic.

Its etymology is from the Greek “to accomplish or master”, meaning authoritative, indicating a basis of fact, conforming to an original, trustworthy, not imitating.  Synonyms are genuine and bona fide - implying sincerity of intention.

Who could argue with an aim of mastery or authority?  If PR is to be respected, it needs to be trustworthy, genuine and have sincerity of intention. 

But authenticity is quite a claim for any form of communications - it seems to rule out any attempt at persuasion, unless you are open and honest about your motives.  Can you guarantee that every statement is 100% factual and accurate?  What about perspectives or interpretation?

Creating a “brand concept” is easy - but living any promise is harder, especially when it appears to be value driven.  It will be very hard to achieve a reputation for authentic communications.  So is Edelman right to even strive for this goal - are such mission statements of any use in reality?  Will staff be assessed on the authenticity of their communications - from the pitch process to every client statement?  Does that rule out gossip around the watercooler?

Authentic communications seems a worthy ambition (although very badly expressed in corporate gobblygook), but is it just a normative ideal or will Edelman be able to live up to their claims in reality.  That takes real authenticity.

Welcome to Terminal 5 - PR for a new gateway to Britain

It is no secret that I don’t like London (Dante’s) Heathrow airport and a recent experience with British Airways was both incredibly expensive and disappointing - indeed, as my father is still in intensive care in Toulouse, I’ve flown over three times in as many weeks, and the low-cost airlines are winning in price and customer service, hands-down.

So I was interested to receive a BA Club member email directing me to the website: Welcome to Terminal 5 as a preview of the facilities that will open on 27 March.

The imagery and language on this special site highlight an “amazing project” promising to make “connecting the world simple and pleasurable again”.  The rhetoric focuses on ease, convenience, smoothness, fun and joy.  A professional identity is conveyed, making a promise that brand “Terminal 5″ will deliver an “outstanding experience”. 

The launch planning is highly professional, including “trial runs” with a variety of stakeholders over the past months.  This is a mega-brand exercise - and not only for British Airways.  The new terminal offers shopping heaven (if that’s your sort of thing) with 112 stores contained in an area bigger than 50 football/soccer fields.  Brands have been briefed to offer exclusive products, such as the T-5 Krispy Kreme doughnut.  Then there’s over 500 advertising billboards and flat-screen television displays - ensuring passengers will see dozens of selling messages as part of the “outstanding experience”. 

With all this focus on marketing, what will be the role of public relations?  The views of media who had a preview last week convey all the key messages about passenger flow (80,000 people a day plus 13,000 bags an hour, double the security checkpoints…) and “interesting” narratives - such as rerouting local rivers.

But there is another side to the public relations strategy - particularly in relation to BAA, Heathrow’s owner.  Whilst the glitzy press sneaky-peaks were going on at T5, BAA fired its Chief Executive as the Spanish-owned company tries desperately to win over hostile publics, including government, investors and the serious media.  And that’s without the focus of savvy activists such as Greenpeace who are just the headline grabbing element of a coalition of active publics fighting against Heathrow’s expansion.

It is six months since BAA lost its heads of corporate affairs and media relations, and the Globe and Mail says its new chief executive (formerly of Severn Water and British Airways) will need his own “extraordinary PR skills”.

Both British Airways and BAA need to focus their public relations on long-term sustainability - which is where T-5 comes in.  But you can’t create a good reputation as easily as generating short-term sales in the upmarket retail outlets or in terminal advertising.   As John Dalton claims:

Reputation is the sum values that stakeholders attribute to a company, based on their perception and interpretation of the image that the company communicates over time.

A successful launch of T-5 is essential for British Airways, BAA - and the UK government as it gives a better first impression of Britain than existing gateways.  But to borrow Martin’s phrase, PR can’t simply put lipstick on a pig and make it kissable. 

Not even pretty pigs can fly.