pr-media-blog.co.uk

Football fans were devastated by rumours appearing on Twitter last weekend that football star John Barnes had died of a heart attack. Thankfully, the former midfielder is alive and well; no doubt blissfully unaware of the thousands of die-hard football fans lamenting the sad loss of a legend.   

As the news first reached me on the way home from a party on Saturday night, Twitter users were already tweeting “John Barnes died tonight, just a rumour at the mo” and “you heard about John Barnes rumour? Heart attack? Someone at Arrow Park leaked”, even a local journalist at the Liverpool Echo was tweeting for clarification.  

Naturally, those first to hear the whispers spent Sunday morning checking online and broadcast media for official news. As Twitter emerged as the sole online source of the rumour, Liverpool Supporters’ Twitter feed Empire of the Kop quite rightly tweeted to its 57,000 followers: “The John Barnes rumour first appeared 4 hours ago, if it was true it would be all over the media by now.”

The tweet: “John Barnes is fine. Heard from someone who has spoken 2 him this morning. Whoever started the rumour should b ashamed” put the final nail in the coffin for the rumours. Empire of the Kop confirmed on Twitter: “John Barnes dead rumour started by a Leeds fan” and identified his user name for all football fans who had been duped to vent their anger directly.

Although Twitter can be a fantastic source of breaking news, the micro-blogging site can be used by anyone and is not always accurate. To say someone is dead may not be defamatory but if inaccurate reports such as these were published in a newspaper, there would be a clear breach of the PCC Code of Conduct. 

Twitter is not devoid of defamation and privacy laws but if the ‘tw-eath’ of John Barnes proves one thing, it’s the frightening speed at which inaccurate rumours can spread online, whether they’re about people, businesses or organisations.

Another reason why brands need to be more aware than ever of what is being said about them online. Mis-information needs to be identified and corrected at the earliest opportunity, before people begin to treat what they read as fact, by which time, the damage to company reputation is already done.

Long live John Barnes!   

At the risk of turning this into booze week on PR Media Blog, it’s hard to find a better example of “heritage marketing” than Jack Daniels.

Its sepia-photo-laden advertising, depicting a tradition of distilling going back more than a century imbues the brand with an authenticity and sense of quality that has stood the test of time. And, importantly for the brand maintaining its backstory, its founder was a real person called Jack Daniel. So far, so good, if you conveniently set aside its reputation as rock stars’ ruin for a moment.

But how crucial for a brand is having a genuine history? Or, conversely, how damaging is a hokey heritage?

A recent BBC story , investigated by its consumer affairs programme, “You and Yours”, revealed that the US fashion brand, Hollister - currently expanding its UK presence and which claims a history stretching back to 1922 - was in fact founded only in the Noughties.

If not suspicious enough, add to that a character called John Hollister - “adventurous traveller” and supposed company founder - branded “fictitious” by the BBC and a curt comment from the company itself when approached to explain its claims: “Due to our policies regarding press, we choose not to provide any comment on your questions.”

Despite the stubborn secrecy of the company and the aura of exposé in the BBC’s story, its vox pop of “teenage shoppers” found they really didn’t give a damn about Hollister’s historical fabrication.

Friend of PR Media Blog and marketing consultant at Goldsbrough Consulting, Matthew Goldsbrough, is phlegmatic about the issue: “When establishing a brand, it’s more about what it does and what it delivers rather than whether you can take it back through a lineage. Do you really care if there was, or wasn’t a “Mr.Volvo”?

He adds: “Any brand that underestimates the buyer is a fool. But I don’t think that a fake history matters greatly as the brand is not making a promise which it then breaks. At the younger end of the customer spectrum, people are much less reliant on complete provenance with a brand. Overall, the real test is ‘does it deliver?’”

Orson Welles once put together a film about the nature of authenticity called “F for Fake”. But for the modern shopper, is it more “C for couldn’t care less”?

Retro is big, there is certainly no denying that. Whether it is aviator sunglasses, leg warmers or a Casio digital watch, you don’t need Gok-Wan to tell you that the latest fashion was probably the latest fashion at some point in the past as well. This trend has also moved to food with the return of the likes of Monster Munch and Wispa.

Now ad execs have caught the bug with recent examples including Persil, Milky Way chocolate bars and Toys ‘R’ Us. It seems that in adland, retro is now, but why the resurgence?

Stephen Foley talked of this trend on American television earlier in the year on the Independent’s website. With regards to a McDonalds’ retro ad campaign, he comments: ‘It is meant to raise a familiar smile, a warm glow inside, the perfect antidote to the sub-prime nightmares and job-shearing chaos of the modern world’.

In the article Barnardo Revello, an editor at New York based post-production house Cosmo Street, comments: ‘It normally happens in times of economic trouble, when people reach for unifying values and marketers adopt an attitude of pulling together…when the economic difficulties give way to something better, then this style will no doubt give way to something with a bit more energy.”

Rune Gustafson, Chief Exec of Interbrand endorses these views and believes they hold just as true on this side of the pond: “In changing times people fall back on the brands they consumed earlier in their lives, when times were less uncertain. You could argue that the Seventies were hardly a golden age of security. But if you remember feeling secure and protected within the family from what was going on in the world, the past will certainly seem easier, more secure, safe. There’s certainly an element of escapism in all of this.”

So rather than there simply being a chronic lack of cash to develop new advertising creatives, ad execs are pandering to consumers desire to take comfort in something that is certain – the past. It is also rather convenient that retro ads cost nothing develop.

But in an age when the likes of Honda have been concentrating on producing technically astonishing and painfully cool ad campaigns, it is nice that something as simple as a cartoon with a catchy jingle can generate just as much buzz.

Of course there is a saturation point where people will begin to tire of the recycling of classic adverts, but until that point, we can all enjoy a bit of nostalgia and who knows, perhaps in 20 years we will see a Honda ad from the ‘noughties’ and revel in its simplicity and purity of approach.

Who still hates social media?

Some have been vocal in suggesting that the principles are right but the execution is worth only throwing out and replacing with “something real”.

In Jeremiah Owyang’s recent blog post following the Forbes CMO summit in Florida, the former Forrester analyst and now strategist for the Altimeter Group claimed that this group of chief marketing officers had “elevated” the social media discussion.  Despite the prospect of shrinking marketing spend, he says, the marketeers had seen opportunities to “innovate with inexpensive channels” and not a moment too soon, as they were facing something new: a loss of power to the empowered consumer.

Owyang points out that social media in particular was “on the lips of nearly everyone”, with a focus on how it could apply to changes in influence, reputation management and be integrated with existing activity.  One example he cites from the companies represented at the event is that of Ritz-Carlton hotels, whose hotel managers apparently review online chatter about their hotel before doing anything else of a morning.

Overall, 70% of CMOs polled by Forbes said they’d be doing more work in social media next year, now comfortable that it offers real value, though measurement was still in its infancy.

So how does the picture look in the UK?  There is some caution but big organsiations have been listening and in some cases joining the conversations too.   Retail is one sector where business understands the need for customer dialogue.  It was more of an old fashioned PR stunt but Debenhams used social media to good effect with a twitter assistants day in September.   Habitat was an early adopter but got off to a false start with the hashtags debacle, in which they attempted to piggyback serious stories like the Iran election protests in order to flog lampshades.  ASDA’s new Aisle Spy and Your ASDA blogs are examples of a much more considered approach to long term engagement.

Twelve months ago the attitude of big business to social media ranged from cautious interest to total disregard.  Now, in the UK too, the sound of consumer chatter is gaining an audience in the board room.

After several years of doing my best to ignore it, about a month ago I was forced to watch an episode of X-Factor. When two adorable little girls ask if you will watch their favourite show with them, who can say no? An hour later, I was already looking forward to next Saturday.

Seems my conversion came at the right time, because never has the show attracted as many column inches, courted as much controversy or polarised viewers as much as it is right now.

So is this due to the higher quality of contestants? Being a newby to the show it is hard for me to say, but no one this year seems to be another Alexandra or Leona. No, this year it is not extraordinary talent that is pulling viewers in, but an extraordinary lack thereof in the form of John and Edward.

Now if we were to take a reality check on this, the only thing this pair should ever win is a Vanilla Ice look-a-like competition, but their gallant efforts and apparently unrelenting resilience to booing and criticism has captured the public’s hearts. Jedward are a draw, pure and simple, and it is perhaps because of the conspicuous lack of talent elsewhere in the X-Factor camp this year that these two provide a welcome distraction.

Simon Cowell, the proverbial Don Corleone of the X-Factor franchise, knows a thing or two about pulling in viewers and this year Jedward has provided him with a dream ticket. He needs to be a bit careful though – when it suited the papers for him to say so, he would proclaim they were terrible, awful, that they should have not come this far. But when he actually got his chance to vote them off….well he couldn’t do that could he, not with viewing figures up 1.8 million on this time last year and the value of advertising slots going through the roof.

Perhaps what Cowell didn’t expect, however, was that last week they would be in the bottom two against, arguably, the most talented singer on the show. If they were up against Lloyd, it would have been wrong to have kept them in, but at least justifiable. Against Lucie, however, it simply demonstrated that the show is no longer about talent.

In the short term, keeping them in was perhaps a shrewd move. The British public see and hear talented singers all day long on the radio, on the TV and on their Ipod. They don’t get to see a couple of lunatics making fools out of themselves every week. It isn’t all that hard to see their appeal.

But Cowell needs to remember what the show is meant to be about. It is meant to be, after all, a talent competition and as it begins to value novelty over talent, it will begin to lose its credibility. Once that happens, any show can begin to go downhill.

It may be hard to imagine that one day the X-Factor may be struggling for viewers, but remember how popular Big Brother was once upon a time?

If the show is to maintain its long-term future it needs to stick to its simple yet brilliant premise of turning an unknown into an international singing superstar, because talent does not go out of fashion nor is it a novelty. And while the papers are lapping this up at the moment, they could easily turn against the show if that suits their agenda.

Could the days of the traditional 30 second TV be limited?

As time-shift viewing increases with the penetration of digital hard disc video recorders (DVR), such as Sky+ and Virgin V+, it seems as if the commercials are being viewed less. According to the specialist research arm at TIVO, the US-based DVR manufacturer, the most popular TV programmes have the least watched commercials.

It seems as if viewers watching popular programme are so wrapped up in the programme they race through the ads to continue the watching the programme. By contrast, those watching the programme care less about the commercials as they are “Some commercials come on, you maybe a little distracted, they roll.”

This is a real issue for TV companies to overcome. I know that if I have used Sky + to record a programme that I can watch an hour’s programme in 45 minutes simply because I can skip the ads. With Sky having around 7 milllion households with Sky+ the potential to skip commercials that is a large proportion of the viewing public.

With the most popular programmes TV companies have of course been able to charge premium advertising rates but are they being noticed?

There just maybe some salvation with the recent announcement that product placement is to be allowed in programmes. Alternatively we could end up with a strategy like NBC in the US who, during the popular ‘30 Rock’ are blending advertisements in the show so it seems as if they are part of the programme.

The nation’s sweetheart, Cheryl Cole, has landed a global advertising deal with L’Oreal Paris making her the first British woman to be signed by the company since Kate Moss in 1998.

The Girls Aloud singer and X Factor judge will appear in a major TV campaign this month following the launch of a new range, Elvive Full Restore 5, in the UK.

It’s reported that L’Oreal tested a number of UK celebrities and unsurprisingly, Cheryl was the clear favourite, held in great affection by the British public.

But what is it that makes this Geordie lass a national treasure? From humble beginnings on a Newcastle council estate to gracing the cover of UK Vogue, Cheryl Cole has well and truly been through the public mill (remember the incident with the toilet attendant?). But since winning public sympathy when husband Ashley Cole allegedly cheated on her, and replacing Sharon Osbourne as a judge on X Factor, she has been the crush of many girls, boys, men and women.

In fact, over the last couple of years there appears to be a distinct lack of criticism for Cheryl generally. The press love her, girls want to be her and we know what boys want to do…

In a recent interview with The Sunday Times, she talks candidly about her life in the media glare, often referencing her Geordie roots and admitting that she “doesn’t trust anyone except her mother and her dogs”.

The interview also reports how, on set of the L’Oreal TV ad, she humbly admits that she can’t quite believe she’s been given the opportunity to say those iconic words “because you’re worth it” and, in other recent press interviews, when asked how she feels about being involved in the campaign, she’s a PR dream: “I have always loved the brand, to be given this opportunity is amazing.”

Cheryl Cole has cleverly managed to position herself as a fashionista, a songstress and a TV favourite whilst retaining an air of openness, accessibility and honesty unseen in the likes of Victoria Beckham and Kate Moss.

Love or loath her (unlikely the latter) with a deal rumoured to be worth half a million pounds, L’Oreal clearly think she’s worth it….

With a hefty £60m marketing budget being dangled by Disney like a diamond encrusted carrot, it’s clear why Boris Johnson has taken the unprecedented decision to turn on London’s West End Christmas lights earlier than ever.

Traditionalists, I’m sure, will be up in arms about the early switch on - up to nine days earlier than previous years - but if this means London’s economy gets a much needed boost by playing host to the world premiere of A Christmas Carol, surely Johnson can be excused.

Opinion however, appears to be torn with certain commentators suggesting it’s a rather sad state of affairs when a “venerable city becomes a marketing tool.”

The problem is, the West End lights are famous and have always featured their own distinct theme. This year though, they will follow the theme of A Christmas Carol, boasting Disney’s Scrooge related decorations from Leicester Square to Oxford Street, Regent Street and the city.

From a PR perspective this is an incredible coup; a total dream to dress a city head to toe in branding but this is Disney after all, who apparently gave London little choice as to when they switched the lights on saying: “It has to be the 3^rd November as that is when the cast are going to be in London.”

With Jim Carrey and Colin Firth in town, at least this year, London won’t be stumping up public appearance fees for the likes of Kelly Brook.

A recent tweet from journalist and blogger, Sally Whittle, went like this: “Dear PR: I’m not sure it’s a viral campaign if you have to send a press release telling me it’s viral…”

In other words, something has either the quintessence of being viral or it doesn’t; no amount of trying to talk it up or publicise it as viral will make it so. 

Not only did it make me laugh, it seemed to sum up what Starbucks is trying to do to reverse its coffee retailing fortunes.

As the Independent reports, Starbucks wants its outlets to look “less corporate” and give each one something more “locally relevant”.

Well, a shop is either local or it’s not. And like the problem with viral, trying to dress it up as something it isn’t will be immediately obvious. And with 750 stores in the UK under the familar brand name and identity of Starbucks, how authentic is any attempt at being “local” going to be? That’s the territory independent coffee shops should inhabit, and embody much better than Starbucks ever could.

What this Guardian report refers to as the “carefully selected authenticity cues” Starbucks plans to deploy makes it sound even worse. It’s either authentic, or it’s fake.

And if Costa Coffee, with more outlets than Starbucks, and Caffe Nero, with fewer, don’t see the need to tamper with their identity, what is Starbucks thinking?

Rather than trying to be something it’s not, shouldn’t the company face up to the fact that it’s no longer the province of a few cool people in Seattle? It is a corporate entity and there’s a customer base out there that’s quite happy with that: something the coffee customer can readily recognise and rely on to deliver exactly the same product wherever they go.

Perhaps the focus should fall on the core product: the coffee. As this ex-Starbucks employee comments, the coffee still beats most of what you’ll find on the high street, and the company prides itself on the quality of the java on offer.

Leave being local to the locals. And being a “local shop for local people” isn’t always something to shout about. 

A famous global PR company used to give clients three pieces of advice on press conferences…”don’t do them, don’t do them and don’t do them”.  They are hard to get right, open to risk and in the digital age what is the point of a press conference? Well, it is the same as it always was - to fuel the buzz.  I don’t think anyone today does it better than Apple.In fact Apple, which has a conference scheduled for tomorrow, 9 September, has achieved what most companies can only dream of, a flood of coverage before they have announced a thing.  They can do this because they have great products and a charismatic head honcho in Steve Jobs.  They also succeed in creating drama and intrigue.  So what is the buzz about this time?  There is so much speculation that it hurts but here is a quick summary of the hum on the wires:

• Will Steve Jobs host?  He is recovering from a liver transplant but back at work. Will tech’s greatest showman be hosting the show?
• Is the much talked about tablet ready to roll? The keyboard free netbook, the love child of the iphone and the macbook is hotly tipped.
• The Beatles are going on iTunes.  Spotify has seized all the headlines lately and Apple must be keen to get its download service back in the spotlight.
• Time for a new Touch?  The iPod touch is set for a facelift but it has the capacity to be big news.  If as is rumored there is a microphone on board plus an app for VOIP phone calls the big phone operators might finally start to flinch in the face of web based calls.

Whatever is waiting in the wings one thing is certain; the press conference is a core part of the Apple PR strategy and it will be rewarded with a media deluge.