pr-media-blog.co.uk

For once, it was something on BBC Question Time that Britain’s three main political parties could agree on - they can’t stand Nick Griffin and the BNP.

Between them, some points were scored; but the true dissection of the country’s favourite political bogeyman came not from politicians, but from cultural commentator, Bonnie Greer.

Claiming to know nothing about politics, let’s call her, for a moment, the “product reviewer” of the BNP. And in that, she set about discrediting the most fundamental claims about the party’s “product”. Was she providing a critique of policy or the things Griffin has said in the past (many of which he now denies or claims he no longer believes)? No, she was concerned with the BNP’s apparent inability to get basic facts right about the origins of “the British”, which they seek to represent.

And with a predominantly calm demeanour, she was subtly raising the question: “If you can’t get your own story straight, how can you expect us to want you to govern?” And could be it be any more humiliating for Griffin to be invited to the British Library to sort out his knowledge?

And the basis of her “product review” came from - yes - that most ubiquitous of marketing tools, the party’s website. 

If Nick Griffin felt it was a PR coup speaking for his party on the BBC’s flagship political panel programme, he might think again. No PR can make up for a fundamentally flawed product.

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 unlikely twitterer, Hugh Hefner, set off an avalanche of retweets and made many of us smile with an announcement a few weeks ago that Marge Simpson will grace the front cover of Playboy’s November issue. 

The first ever cartoon Playboy bunny, Marge, can indeed be seen stripped of her green dress in the magazine out this week. She has also bared her soul in an interview and donned sexy lingerie in a three-page spread to mark the 20^th anniversary of the show. 

The two American institutions have joined forces in a smart PR move and so far the campaign has been well-executed. Nude celebrity pictures are a proven method of getting coverage and the story was cleverly leaked to the online community via Twitter, causing it to spread like wildfire from Perez Hilton to The Guardian.  

But is it all great news for both brands? Most people seem to think it’s either funny or weird. Perhaps funny and cute for The Simpson’s, but weird and desperate for Playboy? 

The Simpson’s is well know for edginess and breaking taboos (remember the episode where Homer attempts to keep Bart ‘straight’ by taking him to the steel mill which turns out to be a gay disco?). I think putting Marge on the cover of Playboy will hardly shock fans of The Simpsons.  

It’s a trickier move, however, for Playboy. Playboy Enterprises has suffered significant losses in the past two years and share price is now cheaper than an issue of the magazine itself. Its flagship brand is in dire need of a turnaround and takeover rumours are circulating. 

Will this move be too late for the company and more importantly, is it the right one? The new chief executive, ironically called Scott Flanders (Flanders being the Simpsons’ uptight neighbour) has said that the stunt is part of a plan to appeal to a younger generation of readers.  

The November issue is sure to be a sell-out and may even become a collectable, but everything else inside has to be spot on and relevant to audiences old and new if Playboy wants to ensure that the readers return to the magazine stand for upcoming issues in months to come.  

Update: Talking of super-injunctions, The Guardian’s Alan Rusbridger takes us through the Trafigura document, clause by press-gagging clause…

Trying to talk about about super-injunctions, press freedom and PR this week feels like walking into an overcrowded lift and attempting to make yourself heard above a dozen, City hedge fund traders who’ve just made a few million quid.

You can’t move for the acres of copy filling paper and digital pages about super-injunctions - the meaning of which, just over a week ago, was unknown outside the offices of lawyers, Carter-Ruck, and remains unclarified today on Wikipedia.

The background, in short - and with the help of the New Law Journal - is: ”Law firm Carter-Ruck, representing oil trading firm Trafigura, had insisted that an injunction obtained against the Guardian prevented it from reporting a question tabled by Paul Farrelly MP. However, details of the question were posted on the social networking site Twitter, leading Carter-Ruck to withdraw its gagging attempt.”

Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, celebrated the victory for free speech in his editorial late last week, with no faint praise for the role of Twitter and the blogosphere in helping the reversal of the court order, which threatened to trounce the media’s unassailable privilege of reporting what’s said in the UK Parliament.

Unsurprisingly, the Guardian is working overtime on this story, with pieces from Emily Bell, Index on Censorship boss, John Kampfner, and acerbic wit from Charlie Brooker, who describes Trafigura’s corporate PR as “about as effective as appearing on the GMTV sofa to carve your brand name on the face of a live baby”. The Daily Mash is also revelling in the absurdity of it all.

But one of the more serious issues emerging is the one highlighted by Kampfner, who notes the powers of the Human Rights Act being abused by companies to achieve privacy (for that, read secrecy) originally intended for members of the public.

Learning the laws of libel and slander is a mainstay of journalism courses (I did it myself - the law paper we dubbed the “Mother of all exams”). But Kampfner’s point is that the legal imbalance between investigative journalism and the right not to be defamed has made English law “the enemy of free expression”.

Co-incidentally, the latest changes to the Press Complaints Commission’s Editors’ Code of Practice are said to swing power in favour of the PR profession at the expense of journalists. But Porter Novelli director of media Laurence Lee is quoted in PR Week’s piece as saying: ”There will be plenty of PR people who would welcome greater restrictions on journalistic practices…PR people rely on a free press as much as anyone else so it’s no good saying journalists are the enemy.”

Ironically, this is nothing new. Describing his trips to London’s law courts while editor of The Sunday Times, the great Harold Evans, writes in his book “Good Times, Bad Times” - now 26 years old: ”I went before the judges because Government or corporations or individuals tried to find reasons in law for preventing The Sunday Times printing what it knew to be true…it was not abstract or remote power, but the power that is capable of building an airliner knowing it will fall out of the skies, or of cheating small savers…or selling a deforming drug and refusing to compensate reasonably for the shattered lives…”

Evans’ words should remain humbling, today, for anyone setting out to trample on the truth. The Guardian’s victory in the Trafigura case - with the help of ”the people” empowered by social media - suggests there is a still a premium placed on that abstract noun, truth.
 

Update: Efforts to rebuild trust are clearly striking a chord with businesses by the look of this PR Week case study.

If business leaders breathed a sigh of relief that they weren’t politicians when the UK Parliamentary expenses scandal blew up, they should beware of feeling smug.

A recent poll by Ipsos Mori revealed the public’s distrust is not reserved for our political class, but business people too.

Net trust in business leaders - according to the poll - has fallen to its lowest level since the research began in 1983 and placed business fourth from bottom among 16 groups in terms of truthfulness.

In that context, it seems strange that the leading business organisations were unwilling to mount a defence of commerce and industry, with the Confederation of British Industry telling The Observer:  ”We are just not going to comment on the survey” and the Institute of Directors not replying. Why the reluctance to fight business’ corner? After all, not everyone in business works in banking.

In last week’s conference staged by the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) entitled, “Emerging from recession”, the issue of trust was very much on the agenda, with the BBC’s director of communications, Ed Williams, running a session on rebuilding trust and posing the question: “How do we restore public confidence in organisations and rebuild reputations to emerge stronger in the future?”

Among the Tweets from the conference quoting Williams, helpfully supplied by Orchid Communications, the Mori poll’s point was reiterated: people trust companies a lot less than they did a year ago. And, thanks to David McNamara’s tweet, we learned what Ed Williams feels is the best strategy to deliver trust: ”openness”.

The credit crunch, the banking crisis, the fall of Lehmann Bros and Fred Goodwin’s pension package have done little to warm the cockles of the public’s heart towards business people. And that’s terribly sad, as those enterprises which go about their business providing employment, behaving ethically and responsibly, creating things of value for their customers and occupying a meaningful place in their communities have nothing to be ashamed of. Yet they are lumped in with the rest of them in a skip marked “untrustworthy”.

And that’s where business needs to come out fighting. If public opinion has decided business is unprincipled, it’s not going to change on its own; it needs to be persuaded otherwise. And that’s where openness comes in. It’s not about revealing your competitive advantage or the details of boardroom arguments, but being able to communicate effectively across the landscape of what you do and why it’s important. That means recognising it’s not always possible to tell a happy story each time your organisation speaks. In fact, it could include having to apologise when your business has messed up. But being proud and vocal about your achievements - while maintaining transparency about your shortcomings - is all part of building trust.

A more recent, and critical, development in this problem for business is the advent of social media: online, peer-to-peer sharing of knowledge, information and opinions about a myriad of subjects. And that could include your business. Chris Brogan, a veteran of using social media for business, warns how communications around a company are no longer within the organisation’s exclusive control. But social media presents an opportunity also, to show greater transparency and enhance reputation and trust. 

I’m pleased to say Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce has been willing to participate in the debate and its deputy chief executive, Chris Fletcher, told PR Media Blog:

“It’s natural for the public to be suspicious of large corporations and this can be a positive thing in ensuring that businesses are held accountable for their actions. However, I think a big problem is that business leaders equate to bankers in most people’s minds and this carries connotations of huge profits, big bonuses and inflated salaries. Actually, the vast majority of UK businesses are small to medium and are struggling in the current climate. These businesses play a huge part in driving us out of a recession and need all the support they can get. It’s the Chamber’s role to provide this support and to fight their corner by taking their concerns to the right people for action.”

Whether the present government succeeds in winning a further term in office, or not, it is right to ensure that public trust in politicians of any hue is clawed back by drawing a line under the expenses debacle. And even MPs unscathed by the scandal will have to justify their party political peers on the doorsteps come election time.

And the same goes for business. You might be doing great things and be great people; just don’t assume that anyone beyond the factory gates or the web portal believes you are.

I recently came across Jezebel, a blog which, as the raunchy name suggests, is aimed at women and focuses on celebrity, sex and fashion, ‘without airbrushing’. 

My first thought was – hmm, another feminist website. Turns out it’s much more than that. Churned out by Gawker Media since 2007, it’s clocking up on average nearly 1 million visits per day and has an impressive following on social networking sites and other blogs. Yesterday I noticed a twitter conversation about an intern position at the site, which went something like this, “Dear Jezebel, I will sell you my soul for an internship.” 

Why all the hype? I decided to monitor the blog to find out and have to say I’ve been very impressed. Most blogs aimed specifically at women have never appealed to me as they seem to focus on recipes or similar, not particularly exciting subjects. Jezebel, on the other hand, with a fiercely direct and analytical attitude, takes on not only women’s mags, but also newspapers (Daily Fail, as they call it, being one of the most favourite whipping boys) and offers tens of witty articles every day on pretty much every subject a modern woman might be interested in. How about: Daily Mail Finds Rare Childless Woman Who Is Not Miserable? 

The blog positions itself as the rebel, sick of the lies perpetuated by the women’s media, from airbrushing and shallow predictable celebrity interviews, to must-have products that journalist’s themselves don’t believe in.  

For this reason, from a PR perspective, however, Jezebel is almost an impossible win – they simply won’t read PR pitches and seem to have a grudge against the PR industry as such. Having said that, if you come up with a spectacular idea, perfect for the audience, I think you can chance it. Also, their FAQ section offers a very interesting insight into how a professional blog is run. 

A more general realisation though is that in today’s world where citizen journalism is on the rise, getting your news story printed is not the end of the story. Increasingly, it is then taken apart and analysed by ever more powerful and media savvy groups and blogs all over the world.  

All in all, Jezebel is a much-needed breath of fresh air in the tired space of women’s websites and magazines, which at the moment still follow the same traditional format – Wednesday’s launch of the Stylist is a prime example.  

“Black goes with everything and you probably don’t need any more assistance going broke!” shout Jezebel’s editors in unison. And the reason Jezebel is on the rise with an army of active commentators, whilst many women’s magazines are dying out – passion and edginess!   

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….

Need media coverage - then hire your own reporter. That is what is happening in the US where newspapers are increasingly in the position where they can no longer to afford to send reporters to cover professional sports.

The New York Times this week highlighted the growing trend in baseball and hockey for teams to hire journalists who have previously covered their teams.

Newspapers have increasingly been using copy from news agencies, which tends to focus only on the winning team. It doesn’t necessarily tell the full story of the game and misses details that a newspaper’s dedicated reporter can bring to the story - particularly if his team has lost.  However, it is not just the match day coverage that has disappeared but the profile provided by non-match day stories and interviews.

To combat this, the hockey team the Los Angeles Kings have hired journalist Rich Hammond, who used to cover the team for the Los Angeles Daily News. He will travel to all the games and provide copy for the team’s local newspapers.

It immediately throws up issues of impartiality and potential conflict with the Kings’ PR team. Hammond has been quick to dispel concerns on his blog. He says that that his output will not need approval or interviews supervision and that his role is not PR.

He will be working as an independent reporter but can he? It is hard to believe that that the PR team will be totally comfortable with this as, in theory, he can write stories about the conflict within the club or how the manager may be about to lose his job. Compromise will happen somewhere along the line.

Could something like this happen with professional sport in the UK? Unlikely at national newspaper level but with the cuts being made in the regional media and the number of journalists that have been made redundant it is not beyond the realms of possibility. A media owner could jump at the idea to have a flow of stories about a football club without the cost of employing the journalist. But the nagging question would be how much input has the PR team really had?

Recent blog posts on social media here at PR Media Blog seem to have had people reaching for the boxing gloves.

Whether it be the use of social media in politics or in business, there seems to be sharp divide between those who think it’s the earthly paradise of Shangri-la and those who feel, like in the old days of the witch hunt, it deserves to be strapped in the ducking stool to see if it floats or sinks.

Not wishing to see people fall out about it, I did the conciliatory thing and started an argument on LinkedIn where, naturally, people are known for their reasoned responses.

And it raised some interesting points.   

Simultaneously, another LinkedIn question was asking: “When you run into someone that tells you that Social Media is going to rule the world…what’s your funniest response?”

Social media ruling the world? Be careful what you wish for…

The Labour Party’s final conference before the next General Election - and perhaps its last as Government for the next few years - begins on Monday. How will the party hope to engage with the electorate and stave off what looks now like an inevitable defeat? PR Media Blog spoke to Kerry McCarthy, recently appointed new media campaigns spokeswoman about how the social media sphere is influencing Labour’s communications.

If New Labour will be forever associated with anything in the English language, it will be the phrase “on message” and the word “spin”.

Tight, centralised control of communications and an unfortunate habit of using the ugly face of public relations to manipulate the truth has peppered much of New Labour’s time in power.

And while US congressman, Joe Wilson, recently caused a furore when he shouted “You lie!” at President Obama mid-speech, such an outburst against Tony Blair - if it had happened - following the exposure as fiction of the Iraq “dodgy dossier” would probably have been roundly applauded in the Commons.

This year’s Labour “Smeargate” scandal and the ensuing departure of government advisers, Damien McBride and Derek Draper, raised questions about Labour’s relationship with dirty tricks in the communications department.

But the party’s new media campaigns spokeswoman, Kerry McCarthy - or “Twitter Tsar” - believes that by embracing social media, Labour is making itself both more transparent and accountable.

Speaking of Smeargate, she says: “It was a tricky period. It was wrong, the ideas that were being kicked around - we don’t need to stoop to that level.”

But she also laments the growth of what she describes as “right wing blogs”: “I would be quite depressed if we had need for a Guido Fawkes on our side. The difficulty with blogs like that, and Iain Dale’s, is that they are not elected politicians and they would be held up to certain standards if they were. We haven’t got sites spreading smears about people.” 

Yet the idea that Labour might lean on a Labour blogger who was writing scandalous copy is not the case, says McCarthy: “If it was a keen, young activist we wouldn’t have any control over it. But I don’t think it’s a control freak thing to say we think it’s wrong and unprincipled. We don’t want the Labour Party tarnished with this.”

But how does a party with a history of autocratic control over communications relinquish its rule? “You can’t control it in the way Labour controlled the message in 1997 and afterwards. The news agenda has changed,” she says. “News is so much more rapid and also there is the commentary from a myriad of voices. The issues are all over the blogosphere and Twitter and it would be obvious if politicians are parroting soundbites. If you have got lots of different media outlets there is more chance that truth will come out. Stories get another life online.

“And [social media] is also about how [politicians] respond to people when they are challenged. Getting into debates [online] there is no way you can dictate that from the behind the scenes.”

But at a time when Labour is trailing in the polls and needs clarity about why people should vote for them, isn’t the idea of  MPs having countless, public conversations in social networks counter productive? McCarthy says: “Though politicians might have differing views on things, what comes through are the underlying principles and values.”

She draws a comparion between Labour’s immersion in social media and what she sees as the Tories’ reluctance: “I think it will be difficult for the Tories as it will be the maverick voices and the wilder elements of the party that will stand out”.

Labour is experimenting with different social media activities, including a way of using Twitter to make grass roots activists feel more included in debates at party conferences.

But is there a risk that Labour positioning itself as the “social media party” will detract from the real issues the public care about? “We’ve been careful about this,” says McCarthy, “as there’s nothing worse than politicians trying to be trendy. Authenticity is important and people will see if we are using it as a gimmick.

“Twitter is a two-way thing and it’s done in public, reaching a much wider audience. Politicians can be held more accountable so it is a useful tool.”

But how significant will social media be in helping Labour to victory in 2010? “It’s not the magic bullet that will win the election; it’s a small part of getting across the message but will help in getting activists enthused.” She notes that the need for door step campaigning and getting face-to-face with voters has not gone away.

And how does she juggle social media with the day job? “I’ve got 101 ideas for blog posts but it’s having the time to sit down and do them. With Twitter you can do it in a couple of minutes while you’re in the middle of something else.”