Penny for your PR

Chevrolet’s latest PR stunt, Penny pinchers (via Mischief PR) reminds me of Borkowski’s chocolate billboard work for Thornton’s from Easter 2007, but it does have an interesting creative element - and very nearly a direct connection to the car being promoted.

It involves a billboard displayed in the centre of London where the image of the car was overlaid with over 20,000 pennies which the public were encouraged to grab.  Not surprisingly, this drew a crowd in the style of the classic American PR stunts of the early 20th century.

The money message links to the current credit crunch agenda, but the penny connection doesn’t quite meet the aim of advertising “the 769,500-pence starting price of the new Chevrolet Aveo”.

This isn’t a very memorable price and I can’t see a strong association with the particular model in the stunt (yes, the image was there, but would even those grabbing some pennies remember what is was?)  Maybe if the deposit had been 20,000 pennies, there could have been a bit more of a connection in that this was all the money you needed to ‘ave an Aveo.

Autocar mistakenly added an extra zero into the number of pennies - headlining it the £2,000 publicity stunt (20,000 pennies is £200 by my maths though).  I couldn’t find any video of the public melee either on YouTube - and I really do feel that good publicity stunts today must consider the viral and online word of mouth opportunity.  An online photo diary could have been fun too rather than the press release images which look a little posed.

Mischief is definitely coming up with some cut through ideas - such as the “does my bum look big in this car” story from April. 

However, the problems in being creative in the car industry include ensuring a real connection with a particular model.  The story may be memorable, but could you recall the brand? 

A second issue is around credibility - and the idea that the car fitting room was seriously a trial for the concept to be rolled out more widely is simply not believable.  This was only every likely to be a one-off stunt.

The billboard initiative is a clear stunt.  Mind you, it is an idea Mischief have used before - last June it promoted the Captiva with a scratch car-d.

These stories certainly have the potential to gain media coverage - but whether that translates into greater awareness, enquiries or even purchases is debatable.  That may not be the direct aim, but having a PR stunt that is talked about is only one element of successful creativity. 

The same applies in advertising campaigns - if you can’t recall the product, let alone stimulate someone on the road to purchase, you’ll only reinforce that old adage that 50% of advertising works, we just don’t know which 50%.

Who is spinning the congestion charge story?

Although Porsche has claimed the victory in its legal challenge to the £25 “gas guzzler” London, congestion charge, it is not surprising that most of the coverage (outside the specialist motoring media) reports the story as a climb down by new Mayor Boris Johnson in deciding to scrap the levy.

Porsche has won legal damages, said to be £400,000 which, in an canny CSR gesture, it will donate to the charity, Skidz.

However, the potentially risky PR strategy by Porsche to contest the charge may not be over as there are still plenty of stakeholders unhappy at the Mayor’s move. 

Interesting to see that one of the main arguments against the charge was put forward by a report commissioned by LandRover from the Centre for Economics and Business Research. 

It is always difficult for such work to be seen as independently credible, as it is unlikely to be used if the findings run counter to the goals of the funders.  This is especially the case when the report is headed: “Green tax or white elephant?”, which doesn’t exactly present an objective impression.

Looking further at the report, its independence does not seem to mean undertaking a robust analysis of the case being examined.  It is clear from the use of language that a particular perspective is being supported.

Does this matter?  The rhetorical perspective of PR supports the view that organisations have a right to put forward their positions, and it is up to others (such as the former mayor, Ken Livingstone and environmental groups, in this case) to offer counter arguments in order for public opinion to reflect on these (often via the media and other channels of debate).

So it is not surprising that the language used to support a particular side in the debate will be carefully selected - and indeed, one of the skills of a PR practitioner lies in framing messages.

Porsche’s decision to support Kidz is framed as backing “a charity devoted to taking at-risk youths off the streets and a life of knife crime, and giving them training in mechanical skills and maintenance.”  Those are very topical messages giving the current media focus on stabbing incidents. 

PR materials (regardless of whether they are produced by businesses, charities or public bodies) do not present information in a truly neutral way.  But then neither does the media. 

To return to my opening point - there are many ways of telling this particularly story.  A triumph for Porsche, a disaster for the environment, Boris keeping his promises, another insult for Ken.  Each of these can be true and each involves some spinning.

Do PR freebies equal blogger relationships?

There are dozens of PR folk who now blog - but should they be a target for blogger outreach programmes?

Check out this post: Molson Gives A Crash Course In Relationship-Building (via Judy Gombita) - which is presented as a great example of the beer company’s PR team engaging with bloggers. 

For me it raises many of the questions raised by in-house PR practitioners regarding the investment of time compared to the benefits delivered. 

The cost of giving away beer to this blogger’s party is probably negligible - but was it really worth the time invested?  From a marketing perspective, did this tactic affect the future brand choice of the 20 or so people attending the party?  It seems like micro marketing, but is it a successful strategy to reach this number of people and are they really engaged with your product? 

Okay, the approach shows a willingness to engage in social media - and the follow up of BBQ booze via Twitter stimulated a post that getting the blogger to attend an event (reported on Molson’s own blog as involving “20 or so 2.0-savvy folks”) did not. 

Does either the event or the follow up really deliver the message Molson wanted?  Are PR bloggers any more influential in supporting the company in achieving its aims than anyone else - online or off - who could be courted in this way?

What is the point of the company seeking to build relationships with bloggers?  Indeed, has the PR person really has built a relationship with this blogger?  Are bloggers that cheap?

I’m not very clear what Molson was aiming to achieve.  By all means look at bloggers as important influencers, where that is really the case.  But having a blogger outreach initiative purely for the sake of it doesn’t seem like good return on investment. 

So why are PR bloggers the target for this type of programme?  Do readers really care what we think about different brands or companies that are outside our area of expertise?  Is my opinion any more valid than the guy you overhear on the train or in the pub? 

Just because I can leave a digital footprint, is that worthy of a company’s time in targeting me?  Is this really the future for PR online?

Chocolate pudding and M&S PR

Marks & Spencer is a favourite case study organisation for reflecting on public relations.  It is particularly interesting given that it had enjoyed a period of success that seemed to coincide with a change of strategy to a more open culture with stakeholders. 

It’s focus on the Plan A CSR strategy is often cited by students as evidence of an organisation engaged in pro-active issues management and engaging in dialogue with its publics.  This is contrasted with strategies in the 1990s when the company abandoned long held policies such as manufacturing in Britain.

Criticisms of the company back in 2001, highlighted the controlling manner of the then boss, Sir Richard Greenbury, drawing on a fascinating book by Judi Bevan. 

The current leader, Stuart Rose, had managed a PR turnaround being seen as charismatic and a good public communicator.  But there have been questions this year as a result of his decision to “flout normal corporate governance standards and combine the roles of chairman and chief executive”.

He is now said to be fighting for his job following a “shock profit warning” - so what role will PR play in determining the future of Rose, and M&S?

At the end of June, PR Week reported the company’s public affairs head was leaving.

Today the Telegraph reports: Chocolate pudding is the proof of Marks & Spencer crisis - identifying a number of management and marketing issues as problems.

Others criticise Plan A as being more about promises than a well thought out sustainability strategy.

A Google News search reveals hundreds of articles written today on the company - which hints at miles of print and broadcast coverage as the media vultures circle.  That is the really big challenge for the M&S team.  They will now find themselves on the back foot with the majority of their time spent being reactive and fighting large and small fires.

Then there’s the CEO PR issue as I wrote last May in respect of Lord Browne and BP.  The primary role of PR is to present the company perspective and implement effective communication strategies, especially in times of trouble.  But when the boss is in the firing line, at what point does he (or she) need expert counsel independent of the in-house team?

I’m not sure if Mr Rose has his own personal PR consultants, but his reputation is at threat - and impacting on the reputation of M&S as well.  At some point, Flic Howard-Allen, the company’s Award winning director of communications may need to decide if she is working for Rose, or M&S.  Having been with the company since 2002 (after 15 years at H&K), she’s a pretty smart operator (I recall meeting her at a WPP training event back in 2000), whose tenure predates that of Rose.

Another tough communications challenge will be justifying a focus on social responsibility when the food market is ever more price oriented - will the public really care about the environment and other ethical issues when forced to tighten their belts.

Although if the credit crunch continues, we’ll all be craving the chocolate pudding to escape the daily depressing news stories.

Calling students dumb is just dumb

I’ve just read one of those predictable articles claiming that today’s students are the “dumbest generation” (via Judy Gombita), with the blame placed on digital technology.

This time the story is generated by an author, Mark Bauerlein, promoting his book - so I suppose we should applaud the press agentry skills at work here. 

As Newsweek actually reminds us, Bauerlein’s allegation has been around since the time of the Ancient Greeks, when the equivalent grumpy old men were bemoaning young upstarts.

Having spent many hours marking first year undergraduate exam papers last month, I would certainly support criticism of writing abilities, as evidently many candidates have not been taught the basics of English (all together now, i before e, except after c).

But to label an entire generation as dumb, is just conspicuously unintelligent or stupid.  As Newsweek points out: “if dumb means lacking such fundamental cognitive capacities as the ability to think critically and logically, to analyze an argument, to learn and remember, to see analogies, to distinguish fact from opinion … well, here Bauerlein is on shakier ground.”

My disappointment in working with so called Digital Natives, is that those currently at University often haven’t grasped the real potential of technology to enhance their learning experience. 

We cannot blame the tools because users make poor use of them.  For example, the ability to read original journal articles online (from the comfort of your own PC) is a great advantage.  I consider those who use it to cut and paste or plagiarise are dumb - but they might argue they’re being smart if that enables them to pass courses easily.  In which case it is the tutors who facilitate this type of lazy studies who need to rethink how best to assess the skills expected and required of today’s generation.

With the focus on students as consumers, who pay a small fortune to gain qualifications, no wonder they want the quick and easy option for passing.  Why should they spend their time reading for the pleasure of expanding their knowledge or improving their writing abilities? 

Those who are able to make an intelligent argument, demonstrating real understanding, often struggle to do this in writing or within the constraints of a 60 minute exam, where their ability to recall facts can let them down.  But, shouldn’t those who are vocally articulate be rewarded over those who simply have a good memory?  Not if we continue to test them with exams.

Shifting to assignments carries the risk of “cut and paste” answers - but not if you devise an assessment that requires application of higher order skills. 

As so often proven in the modern world, the wrong measure encourages the wrong behaviour.  Until we fail candidates for poor use of English, too many will continue to enter the workforce unable to spell or write to an acceptable standard. 

At the same time, ensuring students are recognised and rewarded for wider reading, good writing and demonstrating contextual understanding, must be better than coaching them in a topic that is known to appear on an exam paper in order to guarantee 100% pass rate.

Talking and typing saves time

According to Microsoft, using a laptop in a meeting is “as much an element of business meetings today as any piece of equipment” - although the company does share some vital etiquette on avoiding being seen as discourteous when typing away.

Unlike in the US where it seems common for students to use laptops in class, I rarely see their use in the UK, and only know of one person who takes meeting notes on his PDA.

Away from all the discussion about whether people are really using their laptops for surfing the Internet or catching up on emails (which is unlikely in the UK where wifi access is woefully inadequate), I’ve decided it has to be more productive to type than write  (my typing speed is actually somewhat faster than 120wpm, where my shorthand was never better than 80wpm, when I trained as a secretary some decades ago). 

So a few weeks ago, I decided to use my laptop to make notes during a new media training workshop - only to be confronted by an attendee who found my typing to be distracting and asked me to stop.  This was really annoying - not least because the venue hadn’t even been able to provide online access, despite the subject matter of the day.

Whilst I took up my pen - and frankly began scribbling thoughts for a blogpost on how rude some people are - this woman’s mobile rang and she then proceeded to text, which struck me as much more distracting.

Anyway, not to be deterred, I have persevered with using my laptop in meetings - especially those where my role is to produce minutes.  In the last couple of weeks this has involved four PR meetings - and for each I have been able to produce and distribute minutes in a fraction of the time it took me previously to decipher my handwriting.  To be honest, part of the motivation was the fact that I’d been unable to get around to producing minutes from a number of meetings earlier in the year and found it nearly impossible to work out what had been discussed from my scrawled notes.

So far, no-one has complained about me typing in these meetings - although I confess that being able to touch type means I can lay the screen back and avoid hiding behind it.  And, of course, as a busy woman, I am adept in the multi-tasking required to listen, type, and contribute to the discussions (and eat biscuits of course)!!

In fact, everyone has commented favourably on the approach, recognising that it saves me considerable time and enables them to get the report of the meeting much more quickly.

Indeed, not only did I attend a MIPAA committee meeting this morning, but I’ve typed up and distributed the minutes, done my weekly shopping and found the time to write a blog post.  Can I count this as working smarter?

CIPR qualifications - another top result

The latest round of results have confirmed another impressive performance for the CIPR Advanced Certificate and Diploma candidates at Cambridge Marketing Colleges.  This quite an achievement as these committed professionals have needed to combine their studies with busy work and family lives.

Not only is it very satisfying to see a high pass rate, but a considerable percentage achieved merit or distinction grades.

At this point in their studies, we also see another measure of the value of taking a professional qualification - promotions or job changes.  Only last Saturday in a class of eight (who are only on their 2nd assignment out of three), one person reported she had just obtained a much better position, another was shortlisted for second interview and the CV (resume) of a third was circulating with top recruitment agencies.

At the start of the course, I always ask candidates to list their hopes and fears.  Top concern is the challenge of finding the time to study, whilst the main hope is to improve career prospects and/or recognition with bosses.  Without doubt, although involving considerable effort, the CIPR qualifications deliver on these aims.

Credit must go also to my team of tutors who provide invaluable support to the students - and the brilliant set of Greenbanana materials and online resource that I’ve developed.

Can you measure PR’s contribution to society?

Last week’s World PR Festival in London took as its theme: “The public benefit of public relations”.  I wasn’t able to attend (for cost and personal reasons), but caught up with the thoughts of Paul Mylrea (in PRWeek), Toni Muzi Falconi (at PR Conversations) and Liz Lewis-Jones (at PR Voice).

Sadly the papers from the Festival aren’t readily available, but I have requested a copy as I believe they should be a useful resource for my CIPR Diploma and Advanced Certificate students.

It is interesting to reflect on whether PR does provide a public benefit.  Toni recently summarised a US argument regarding media criticisms of the PR “profession” - with a link to a fascinating personal reflection from Harold Burson.  Burson refutes claims that all PR practitioners are liars, but argues “we are the paid advocates of clients who have a point of view that may be questioned by affected parties”.  He presents PR as “a neutral discipline that can be used for what’s good for society and, from time to time, what’s not so good.”

One of the problems with thinking about the public benefit of PR or its role for social good is one of perspective.  Do we need another movie?  Is society happy with the role of government in citizens’ lives or the power of companies simply in exchange for them paying taxes, providing jobs and CSR programmes?  Even when employed by charities, can we always say the motives of PR are for the benefit of all publics? 

Looking at the experience of PR through the eyes of a BBC reporter on the red carpet circuit, the view of PR as supporting advocacy or dialogue is questionable.  Of course, one can argue that in the case of film promotion, PR is simply seen as press agentry where supply and demand of the product (and its human components) are used to enforce a “command and control” approach to achieving positive media coverage.

The Independent noted a Media Evaluation & PR Benchmarking Report by Metrica (full report available on request) claiming that:

In daily national newspapers, 90 per cent of articles are designated “favourable” to the organisation mentioned, rising to 97 per cent for items on local radio and local television stations. On average, a UK organisation will enjoy 492 mentions across national and regional media in a typical month, reaching an audience of 16.6 million (35 per cent of the population). Metrica judges less than 8 per cent of all coverage to be “strongly unfavourable”.

Is this a result of PR’s increasing influence - the Flat Earth News syndrome?  Metrica reports:

the proportion of “unfavourable coverage” has doubled from 4.3 per cent in 2001 to 7.8 per cent in 2007 – a trend that Metrica assigns to “the increasing competitiveness of the media in the last few years”.

It may not really matter whether your view of PR is that it involves achieving positive press coverage, advocating a partisan viewpoint, or acting as a force for public good.  Indeed, to act as a force for public good, may well involve PR professionals in the advocate role seeking favourable reporting.  But not necessarily.

Here the question is one of motive and how PR is being used.  The focus on simply counting media mentions or otherwise assessing coverage does reflect a one-sided view to communications.  Has the PR person been successful in getting a message across?  Whether or not this message is beneficial to society is another matter.

If that is the aim of PR (rather than helping society benefit simply as a consequence of “good business” - see Harold Burson’s thoughts on CSR), then it must be defined as an objective to be measured.

Apparently, the media evaluation companies are (according the Independent article cited above) “challenging the traditional PR measure of advertising value equivalent (AVE), which compared a piece of editorial to the cost of a similarly-sized advertisement”.

That may be good news itself as only this month I’ve been told several times that AVE is a good way of measuring PR (although I don’t follow the logic since you don’t measure the effectiveness of advertising by what it costs).

But then I note that Claire O’Sullivan, Metrica’s associate director, says: “The appropriate way to measure PR is to assemble a dashboard of measures relevant to an organisation’s communications objectives – for example, which key messages are reaching which audience and how many times.”

Reaching people with your message is simply one step - but what do they do with that message, does it affect their knowledge, attitudes, or behaviour even.  Do they believe the message is genuine or self-motivated (and do they feel this matters)?  Are they motivated to engage in the dialogue that some claim is the goal of PR?

Or if we are looking at PR as a force for social good - have we considered measures to reflect this?  If we take Burson’s argument that PR is simply a neutral tool, should we look at a balance sheet of effect and assess if the sum of PR activities makes a positive or negative contribution?  How well are we doing as an industry on this measure and should we take action if we fail to live up to our claim to be a force for good?

Is it enough to focus on the case studies where PR has been shown to reflect the role of a good corporate citizen?  What about those examples where PR plays a role in harming the public or wider society?  Or where its effect is of little social or public value, good or bad?

What about individual PR practitioners?  Can we truly say that our actions contribute to the benefit of society?  And, if they don’t - for example, if we work for legal concerns that may be socially unacceptable (and that may include my colleagues in the motor industry), what does that say for our role in the PR fraternity?

PR job that doesn’t mention PR

One of my CIPR students has just circulated details of a job vacancy with the Visit Surrey Partnership.  What’s interesting about the position is that it doesn’t mention PR at all, but is clearly a role that is all about public relations (although the job description title is sub-regional manager).

The focus is entirely on developing successful relationships with a “diverse range of stakeholders” and skills include “excellent diplomacy, persuasion and presentation skills”.

If you think PR is all about media relations, you might not see this as a relevant career move - but I believe PR is more about promotion within a relationship perspective.  So this is a PR job - just a shame it doesn’t say so.

Orange balloons target bloggers

When writing about Motor Play, I noticed the Racoon logo from the Orange phone company appeared on the blog.  I wasn’t clear if it was simply sponsorship, but when you click on the logo, you are taken to a site for the world’s first internet balloon race. 

This appears to have nothing to do with Motor Play - but a bit of digging found Laura’s Useful and Funny Stuff blog where it was revealed that blogs can sign up to the week long race and feature the animal logos.  The race then involves participants following the balloon across signed up blogs/sites.  This is an interesting concept as self-interest re the possibility of more traffic and new readers, encourages bloggers and site-owners to get involved.

I expect it cost a fortune, and I found the set up rather complex - I couldn’t get the logo onto this site at all (but I’m not very good with widgets).  It also seems to rely on participants having lots of time to fly about www - when most of us struggle with the sites we do wish to read (I haven’t visited my bloglines account in months now).

Would be interesting to see what Orange expect the initiative to achieve - although I presume it is part of the ongoing marketing experimentation with new media.  I felt it could perhaps be or more useful or engaging than simply a race, but worth knowing about anyway.