Which? PR takes journalists for a ride

A press release from Which? that accuses car dealers of “taking customers for a ride” appears to do the same to journalists as it is hard to spot any real news or valid research here.

This is pure press agentry – which reflects that Which? is really promoting sales of its magazine with this story despite its loftier claim to be “the leading independent consumer champion in the UK”.

On the basis of 26 enquiries to car dealers, the release states 12 made “dubious or vague claims”.  You could say the same for the press release.

As it couldn’t find any actual evidence that the car dealers have broken new Consumer Protection (from Unfair Trading) Regulations, Which? whines that the new rules cannot be enforced effectively.

The entire release smacks of being written before any research was undertaken as there seems to be an aim to slate car dealers and deride the “misleading sales tactics”. 

Of course, it makes less of a story to identify that 14 (the majority) of the dealers were open and honest, or that 12 could have been clearer in their sales advice.  So, Martin Chapman (I presume he’s a press officer but he doesn’t specify a title) spins a release from a few phone calls and four visits into something akin to a Donal McIntyre “undercover investigation”.

I’m not sticking up for any car dealers using heavy handed sales tactics, as despite the pressures on them at the current time, a transparent approach is always the best way of ensuring customer satisfaction with any purchase.

But, phrases like “swimming with sharks” and “the ghost of Arthur Daley’s alive and kicking” (although there’s also no evidence of that fictional character’s demise) that are applied on the basis of a negative experience with a minority of a very small sample is pure rhetoric. 

This reflects as badly on the reputation of public relations as poor sales practices do on the image of car dealers.

Which? claims its “investigation was just a snapshot” – although it seems like a couple of hours to drum up a lazy feature and puffy press release.  That’s misleading PR in my book.

Celebs don’t need PR on Twitter

“My name is Heather and I’m addicted to following celebrities on Twitter”.  What a confession!

I’ve had a Twitter account for some time – http://twitter.com/greenbanana – and finally decided to begin to Tweet (much to Judy Gombita’s amusement  – okay, I’m also a hypocrite). 

My motivation was a conversation with a couple of students on Saturday and seeing Steven Fry on the Jonathan Ross show last Friday talking about his own involvement.

The celebrity use of Twitter is fascinating from a PR perspective because you get a sense of a real person without the “gatekeeper” of their publicist or other intermediary. 

Stephen Fry is a real aficionado with over 63,000 followers – Wossy has under 14k by comparison.  I’m also following Phillip Schofield (who was Twittering from his itouch at the ice rink on Sunday, the scene of the infamous, and hilarious, Todd Carty “exit” manoeuvre) – Schofe has also introduced Andi Peters to Twitter.

Through these, I’m now following Dragon Den’s Duncan Bannatyne and pucker celebrity chef, Jamie Oliver.  At a CIPR Wessex committee meeting tonight, someone told me to check out Lance Armstrong, so I’m following him too now.  (Do tell me of any other real celebs, I am that sad.)

I know it sounds a bit like stalking, but I honestly have a professional reason for my new celebrity fixation – that is, if the PR gatekeeper is being removed by these celebrities, what is the implication for companies? 

So far, I’ve only found one press office on Twitter – the Royal Society of Chemistry.  It (no person is identified) has been talking about the Italian Job competition which I also caught on the BBC Breakfast programme. 

Of course there are a lot of PR practitioners using Twitter – including to pitch journalists – but I’m less interested in their use of the medium.

It is the celebrity use that has caught my imagination as you get a real sense of their personalities and lives, much more so than with blogging or any other more considered or gate-keepered communications.

When companies, press offices, etc use Twitter, it can never quite have the same personal connection from the “brand” perspective.  Does this matter? 

The PR person who Twitters is a real person, but are they talking for and on behalf of themselves, or their company/client?  Either way, there are dangers and issues.

Of course, celebrities are real people as well as being a “brand” – unlike companies, their PR representatives, employees or senior executives.  So the celeb’s enthusiasm and use of Twitter is exactly the same as anyone else.  And that, for me, is what makes following them so interesting.

Anyone agree?

Who owns the BBC’s reputation?

The BBC’s decision to not broadcast the DEC charitable appeal for aid for Gaza is said by Mark Thompson, director general, to be about protecting its reputation for impartiality.

Thompson has communicated the decision to staff, whilst an increasing list of celebrities are publicly critical.  Politicians and plenty of other stakeholders have become active publics on the issue.  (More so than for Sky News which has made the same decision).

I like the definition that if brand is a promise, reputation is the delivery of that promise.  So, what does the BBC promise as its reputation?

That I think is the problem – the BBC tries to be all things to all stakeholders – which is pretty impossible in its position.

One of the fourth year PR students whose dissertation I am supervising this year is researching the BBC’s reputation in respect of trust, which is said by many academics to be the central premise of delivering the promise.

The key variable she is considering is whether there is a difference in opinion on the basis of age. Do those who grew up with a more commercial BBC, have an alternative view of the broadcaster compared to people who knew it primarily as a public service provider?  Is their level of trust – and consequently perception of its reputation, consequently affected?

In 1994, Sandra Oliver wrote:

The British people want to trust and believe in the BBC as one of the world’s most trusted and valued broadcasters’ (DG’s Comment in Annual Report 2001/2002) but a different BBC will create different long-term image and reputation issues to manage – issues which lie at the heart of its corporate strategy.

Oliver was quite right that the BBC has experienced a number of new image and reputation issues – from the Dr David Kelly tragedy, to phone voting scandals to more recent celebrity own goals and the current situation.

The BBC seems to struggle in developing an effective public relations strategy to address emerging issues or to demonstrate good crisis management.  Is this because the BBC isn’t clear about the promise it is making or that everyone has their own interpretation of the BBC’s reputation?

Jobs are made redundant, not people

It is pretty tough to lose your job, without carrying a label of being “redundant” – so shouldn’t PR practitioners involved in writing press releases announcing such bad news state that jobs are made redundant, not people?

The Telegraph wasn’t alone in reporting:

A record number of people are being made redundant in Britain as unemployment climbs towards two million, official figures show

The Mirror was even more brutal in stating “staff could be axed” – before clarifying “225,000 people were made redundant in the three months to November – the biggest jump since records began 13 years ago.”

Even one of the government’s website providing redundancy advice talks about what to do if you are made redundant.  But to be accurate, people are without jobs because their positions have been made redundant.

Direct.gov clearly states reasons for redundancy as:

• new technology or a new system has made your job unnecessary
• the job you were hired for no longer exists
• the need to cut costs means staff numbers must be reduced
• the business is closing down or moving

I believe the third point actually should state that the need to cut costs means the number of jobs must be reduced as the site goes on to state that although “bumping” (where someone else’s job disappears and they are moved into your job) may still be described as redundancy, “it may be difficult for your employer to justify as fair”.

I think this is an important distinction and not just semantics.  As a post at Fudzail advises “the first thing to remember in this situation is that the job is redundant and not the person” and someone should not feel ashamed if this happens.

So, could everyone in PR please ensure any bad news press releases clearly state their company has made positions redundant – and not insult the people involved.

A PR campaign too far?

Last week, seven members of Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) were jailed for undertaking a blackmail campaign against suppliers of the Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) in Cambridgeshire.

This campaign has been labelled as eco- or urban terrorism owing to the personal and violent nature of attacks on executives within HLS and its stakeholders (investors as well as employees, customers and suppliers). 

There is little resemblance to mainstream public relations techniques in the extreme actions of those convicted.  However, the use of online media is a key element of the activities used to persuade others to support the SHAC cause.  Indeed, it is claimed that similar extreme animal rights activism is on the rise outside the UK, particularly in the US. 

From a PR perspective, one of the reasons that HLS exists as a “contract research organisation” is that it undertakes the type of research that could be seen as reputation damaging for major pharmaceutical and chemical companies.

The work of HLS in testing animals has been robustly criticised by authorities such as the government Home Office in the past, although the company claimed it had addressed its problems and is fighting its corner using a combination of communications and legal redress.

Clearly the issue of animal testing is a hugely controversial one – where opposing sides have ideological underpinnings for their position that seem unlikely to be changed.  When there is no hope that dialogue between parties could be undertaken, let alone any win-win zone found, is the only alternative the use of intimidation (whether by legal or violent means)?  Or do such approaches merely entrench views and escalate the demands of both sides?

How do we help those new to social media?

Stuart Bruce asks whether “trade associations get social media“, which I think has linkage to the recent postings about becoming a social media expert. 

It is both ambitious and laudable to put together advice, such as the updated CIPR social media guidelines – however, it is impossible to cover all the eventualities that need to be considered, especially where legal regulations apply. 

Of course, anyone new to social media need to avoid falling into the pitfalls that those who’ve been before them have made.  So, guidelines and looking to those with a track record of practical experience and/or engagement in social media, are useful.

Undoubtedly, PR practitioners need to understand social media and how it impacts on their activities and organisations.  This is an exciting opportunity but one fraught with dangers.  A Twitter entry by James Andrews of Ketchum recently got him into trouble with client FedEx – showing how even someone with experience can become an immediate case study.

However, case studies themselves become simplified, taken out of context or exist as a myth to convey a particular message.  So you’ll hear people talk about Wallmart’s Fake Blog (flog) from 2006 as a cautionary tale, whilst last year’s Cadbury Wispa revival is touted as showing the power of social networks. 

These are the social media equivalent of Exxon Valdez and Tylenol – which is a dangerous learning methodology for PR practitioners.  Life in PR (or online) isn’t as simple as a couple of case studies or even a set of rules might imply.

PR practitioners not only need the guidance for themselves, but to produce policies for their organisations.  Intel publishes its social media guidelines within the legal information area of its site.  Based on principles and rules of engagement, there’s still a lot to take in here.

Craig Whitney, The New York Times’ assistant managing editor who oversees journalistic standards, has published a policy for social networking sites (via Judy Gombita), showing it isn’t just the PR world that is struggling with the emerging online scene.

Are such guidelines helpful to those new to social media?  In companies are they part of an education programme, or policies intended to prevent or catch those who reveal more than they should?

How do those PR practitioners who are new to social media best find out how to engage?  Is it enough for them to attend a training course or lurk around blogs like Greenbanana?  How can we help others to “get” social media?

Little Chef – big PR mistake

Back in December 2006, I asked “Could public relations could save Little Chef?” – after watching last night’s Channel 4 programme Big Chef takes on Little Chef, the answer is no.

Like celebrity chef, Heston Blumenthal, brought in to design a new menu, for me, the Little Chef brand is a faded childhood memory.

My own recommendations two years ago (which were available free of charge via this blog) included investing in core values by being much more family-friendly and accessible.  At present, even the “flagship restaurant” (what a misnomer) featured on the programme lacks soul.  Based on the A303 at Popham in Hampshire,  I drive past it at least twice a week – but I’ve only stopped there once some eight years ago.

Little Chef CEO, Ian Pegler’s interview with the Guardian reveals his belief that all the brand needs is media coverage.  This is what I said it did not need, until it had rebuilt a reputation based on a solid place in British cultural life.

Heston seemed to grasp my recommended strategy, although his initial menu choices clearly were designed to fit his own brand image (and the needs of dramatic television).  Pegler, slated this as not being sufficiently “outside the box” or “blue sky” to get him the “free publicity” that he understands public relations to be about.

Dehli Mix quite rightly observes:

…it doesn’t make for good PR when you call in a celebrity chef and know you’re being watched by millions of viewers on TV and then slam the phone down because the consultant you hired is asking you for gross profit figures because he needs to know how much you have to play around with!

Pegler is quoted by the Guardian as saying “I’m a great believer in PR-ing the business. It is cheaper than advertising.”  As I’ve muttered under my breath a zillion times in marketing meetings, PR IS NOT A VERB.

But Pegler is a 1990s man and it shows – he seems to believe that having worked for brands that were successful in that decade makes him a publicity expert.  Exploiting charity links with royalty might have generated headlines, but they are yesterday’s chip paper and didn’t alter public perceptions one bit.  I really doubt Pegler has ever worked with truly successful strategic public relations experts.

There is a great advert on television at the moment to celebrate 25 years of Virgin Atlantic.  It epitomises the spirit of the brand with a funny nostalgic look back to 1984.  Virgin clearly knows its values and these come over loud and clear.  Little Chef, like the Wimpy bar in the background of the Virgin ad, is lucky to still be around.

The Little Chef website is dated and doesn’t even acknowledge the new celebrity designed menu (so far as I can see).  Certainly, the company has a loyal customer base as the comments at Channel 4 reveal.  But what they are asking for – which will also appeal to new customers is tasty, inexpensive, British cooking in a clean and pleasant environment with staff who are friendly and helpful.

Little Chef dates back just over 50 years (to 1958), being launched at the same time as the first British motorway.  As I wrote back in 2006,

Little Chef epitomises Britain’s road-culture – we don’t speed silently along autobahns or stop enmass for Le Picnic as our French cousins.  Our long journeys still involve I-Spy and singing games, before the children cry “are we nearly there yet” and “I need a wee” (despite all the in-car entertainment systems).  At a time where there are demands for protecting British culture, surely it couldn’t be too late for strategic public relations to resuscitate the reputation of Little Chef?

Sadly, I don’t believe that the television show and its associated publicity, nor the efforts of Heston Blumenthal’s new menu will do that.  As with Woolworth’s, I think it is inevitable that Little Chef will be nothing more than a “do you remember” brand.

Now everybody knows your name

Less than a year ago, the name Barack Obama was new to most people around the world, but today, it will be on the lips of a large percentage of the global population.

I was born in the same year, 1961, and cannot imagine either wanting the top job in the US or ever having set out to achieve it.  He is portrayed as a young man, but I’m sure many of us reaching 50 in a couple of years would question having the energy or the enthusiasm for the big issues that undoubtedly lie ahead.

Google web has 122 million links to his name, 19.4 million under images and over 10 million in the blogs listing.  Within hours, these numbers can be expected to increase significantly, and every day from now on more online comment will be added to his “scrapbook”.

Obama and his team (including his family) must be masters of public relations.  Everything they do, everything they say and everything that others say about them will be recorded and scrutinised, thanks to the web to infinity and beyond.

Today’s inauguration speech is one of the most important pieces of rhetoric in modern history.  You can be sure his PR advisors have examined every word, every syllable, in the 17 minute script over and over again.  Each will have been carefully selected – and soundbites will have been crafted for the traditional media, as well as for downloads from YouTube, podcasts, etc etc.

Each element of the presentation and Obama’s delivery will be rehearsed, enough to make it appear totally natural.  This is the ultimate in PR planning – and every possible risk and crisis will have been considered, and ideally mitigated.

Can you imagine getting up this morning and knowing this is the biggest PR project of your life?  It is some job to co-ordinate the cast of thousands involved officially, and be prepared for the tens of thousands who want to share their own piece of the legacy in person in Washington, as satisfying the communication needs of the millions of individuals watching from around the planet.

Some days like 9th September 2001 unfold as significant in history, others like today we know are coming.  Everyone interested in public relations will have a case study to examine in minute detail. 

And thanks to the Internet, we’ll have an instant recording of it all to analyse for years to come.

360 degree learning

Bill Sledzik reminds us of how social media can be used to ridicule rather than support those who may know less than we do.  I often wonder why people would be rude to others using a public medium and whether this is better than talking about someone behind their back.

In general, I believe in a “doasyouwouldbedoneby” approach, taking Thumper rabbit’s advice (if you can’t say something nice…), but I do find myself thinking or saying things about other people, including if I think they don’t know something that I think is obvious.

There is a tendency for (some of) the young (and uninformed) to be arrogant, but hasn’t it ever been so?  My little niece aged two-and-a-half is at the stage of thinking she can do everything herself.  Would anyone ridicule her efforts to learn new things – even if she decides to “teach her grandmother to suck eggs“?

Many blogs and other online tools share knowledge,  a lot of which isn’t necessarily of the highest standard, and may seem blindingly obvious.

But that is how we learn.  I don’t really care how old someone is if they want to share their view of the world – even if I disagree, I can learn something, even if it is just that they are uninformed (in my humble opinion).

Last week, when reviewing campaigns in PR Week, I learned that the concept of the Football Pools is unfamiliar to many young people (taking my seminar groups as a sample).  This is good as it reminds me that something I take for granted maybe new to someone else.  I also learn from the undergrads as their life experiences are different from mine.  Likewise when yesterday I was running a brand/PR training session for members of Lions clubs who predominantly older than me, I benefit from understanding another perspective on things.

No-one knows everything – despite what some “gurus” might like us to believe.  And, anything we know has been derived from somewhere else – very few of us are either original thinkers or inventors.  Those who are new to online often understand better than the old hands what might be relevant advice for others who are newbies.

As the Queen tells Alice in Through the Looking Glass: “sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”.   Like her, I believe that practice is all that is needed to keep on learning.

The evolving world of work

I’ve just been asked to amend a job title for a vacancy at the MIPAA JobSearch site to Press and Communications Executive (previously the title was media relations executive). 

This isn’t a case of “job title inflation” (which I wrote about last April at PR Conversations), which apparently becomes more common during tougher times, when a new title replaces any financial reward.  Rather it was intended to appeal to more potential job seekers.

It is easy to understand how the use of a title that indicates level can make a role appear to have more value.  So being “head of…” might sound a bit more important.  But what about being an executive or a specialist – are these better than being an officer or an assistant, even if the job specification is exactly the same? 

Does communications, or indeed, corporate communications, in a job title catch the eye of recruits more readily than media relations?  Another title I saw recently was “media outreach co-ordinator” – although I thought “outreach” was mostly used for education or community relations roles.

Is new or social media the secret phrase to include in job titles for those looking to get ahead in modern communications?  I can’t see blogger relations as having an equivalent cachet, let alone more wacky titles such as social media jedi or Twitter ninja.

The renaming trend also happens to department titles. During a session of the CIPR Diploma on Saturday  we considered the renaming of some delegates’ departments to to add or remove marketing – but is that marketing communications or marketing and communications?  As these were primarily public sector organisations, I wonder whether is it appropriate to have marketing in the function title at all.

Likewise, do you work in internal communications or employee engagement?  Is public affairs better than public relations?  Which is the sub-set of the other, are they mutually exclusive or both part of a corporate communications function?  Is this important in ensuring survival in the latest round of downsizing and restructuring?

A similar semantic challenge is the word “training”.  Many people tell me that their training budgets have been cut or eliminated.  So is there a need for a repositioning into professional development for example?  Is it easier to attend workshops, conferences, symposia or masterclasses? 

Networking, especially “social networking” may be seen as wasting time (or not working), or are you simply managing – or is that “engaging” your connections. 

Are “away days” a thing of the past or can you still escape for strategy meetings?  Or, are you simply too important and busy to even take a toilet break away from your desk?