Author: Lindsey Davies

Has ‘STOP PRESS’ taken on a totally new meaning?

Posted on June 29, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

Having worked in the PR industry for more than a decade I have been some significant changes, not least the move to more online mediums and methods of communication. There was once a time when you would draft, approve and print a press release before spending hours at a fax machine – not any more.

Digital technology and new ways of working mean you can have a press release drafted and out of the door in a matter of hours. It isn’t just ways of working that have changed however with more newspapers featuring online content that can be viewed and then shared with millions of people around the globe at the touch of a button.

Despite how easy it is to go online I can’t help but feel a little sad that we are losing the tangible benefit to having a paper and more importantly, in my opinion, the experience that print media delivers; getting a cup of coffee, opening a paper, looking at the supplements, smelling the print, turning the pages, cutting pieces out for reference. It all adds to the whole experience of buying and reading the news.

There will be many people in the PR and marketing industry who will be shouting that I’m in the dark ages and to get with the times, after all you can bookmark or share articles in the same way you could cut out clippings and its simple and easy to turn on an iPad or even access the media through a smart phone while having a coffee but that’s not my point.

We still find that when given the choice a client would rather see a full page printed piece in a regional or national newspaper, rather than a URL to a piece online. This may well change over time as people become more receptive to online news, who knows?

One piece which caught my eye recently featured in The Drum, a trade publication for the marketing industry. The headline read ‘The Guardian moves to deny ‘absurd’ rumours that it will go online only next year.’ Despite moves by the paper to contradict this suggestion, it would seem to me there is no smoke without fire and that perhaps their plan was to implement their five year strategy sooner.

It’s a shame that the print industry is in decline. Not only because of the process that I feel is so heart-warming when you buy a newspaper but also because there is a whole industry reliant on that income – beyond the sale of the papers themselves.

If we consider printers who have spent years in the same role, machinists who are professionals and passionate about their work, maintenance technicians who know the presses inside and out, designers who set the copy and imagery and then let’s not forget the paper boys / girls it paints a very gloomy picture to consider that all of these people will be without work.

I don’t personally want to see printed papers become a memory of times gone by and I hope that others feel the same way. The problem is that being a time poor society, trying to make ends meet during difficult economic conditions, for many of us the choice is made – free online publications at your fingertips in seconds, or a paid for printed version, which requires you to go to the shops or take out a subscription.

Long live print is what I say! However I get the impression that ‘stop press’ is going to take on a very new meaning over the next few years.

Nike – Just do it, unless the ASA says no!

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

For some time now there has been an on-going debate about who ‘owns’ social media; digital or PR agencies. The problem being that while one can be engaging visually, creating games, competitions and advertising which attract attention, the other provides consistent content, with an appropriate tone of voice to encourage two way communication and increase ‘organic’ engagement with consumers.

The line is blurred to say the least, but as a PR agency we find that sticking to the words means that we are able to offer clients the content, while we leave the digital aspects and design to other third parties that we work with.

We don’t find this to be problematic as when each digital campaign finishes we simply take control of the content and engage with consumers to provide a sustainable level of conversation. There’s nothing worse than brands that push out big campaigns and then have nothing in place to support the aftermath. The outcome being you engage with thousands of people who become brand ambassadors, are willing to listen to the messages being pushed to them, only for the brand to turn their back on them once their budgets run dry – not good.

Another interesting dilemma to come out of social engagement has been the line between advertising and editorial. As social media is often positioned as a direct interpretation or opinion of a person or a brand it would be perceived to be editorial – however as platforms such as twitter have evolved is has become increasingly difficult to ascertain whether a comment or opinion has been influenced by a third party.

The problem has arisen from celebrities who have used their personal twitter accounts to ‘tweet’ about brands that either pay them or sponsor them to do so. The ASA have challenged two high profile cases; Snickers and Nike.

Now despite the fact that I work in editorial I’m not sure that I agree that the ASA should be in a position to demand that people delete the content that they choose to have on their personal twitter feeds – promotional or otherwise.

What’s even more baffling is that within the most recent case involving Wayne Rooney and Jack Wilshere the hashtag #makeitcount.gonike.me.makeitcount was clearly visible. Surely any idiot can recognise that this is a promotional tweet?

I expect that this situation will only get worse, with the ASA monitoring social media more closely than ever – but there has to be a balance. If I suddenly become a high profile multi-millionaire (unlikely but you never know!) and I decide to tweet that I love a particular brand then is that considered advertising?

Equally is it wrong for celebrities to thank brands for sending them free products? Isn’t it just polite? I am interested to see what others think about this. I don’t think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer but I do think we need to be careful to ensure that social media platforms are able to be used as a platform for people to engage, interact and use their rights to free speech, whether that be about a brand or not.

Food for thought

Posted on June 14, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

There was a fantastic survey featured in the Yorkshire Post today reporting that fewer than half of young adults know that butter comes from a dairy cow and less than a third understood that eggs come from hens.

Better still, more than a third don’t know that bacon comes from pigs and four in 10 failed to link milk with an image of a cow.

One sentence: What is the world coming to?

I want to know where these people think produce comes from – now that would be a survey. As I was born and raised on a farm in the Yorkshire Dales, I am particularly passionate about good, quality food and more so about teaching children where produce comes from.

These people need a shake. I think it’s embarrassing that we are reporting statistics like this and although on the surface they appear funny and quirky it just goes to show what is wrong with this country.

I bet many of the people questioned said that milk comes from ASDA and eggs from Tesco. What chance have we for the youth of today when their parents are getting it so wrong? I know that many people will be asking does it really matter and do we need to know – yes, and yes!

The future of farmers relies on people understanding what time, commitment and energy they put into their produce in order for them to sell it at a price beyond commodity. We need to stop spending so much time deliberating over the small stuff (wearing safety goggles to play conkers in the playground as an example) and get the basics right.

For those who aren’t aware; dairy cows make milk, eggs come from hens, pigs are pork and sheep are mutton (or lamb depending on age). For those who think that educating their children about where produce comes from is cruel or upsetting – seriously, get over it.

Let’s be honest, they’re going to look pretty daft when they start blubbering at Sunday Lunch after finally realising at 30 that Peppa Pig is the dish of the day!

The Dragon’s Den Effect

Posted on June 13, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

Dragon’s Den is one of few business ‘reality’ television programmes that I have continued to enjoy watching. It is informative and although I often feel some of the comments are unfair and a little insensitive it does give the viewer an insight into how it is to own a business – people don’t walk around on egg shells and they don’t give you ‘owt for nowt’.

I quite like the mix of Dragon’s in the Den now and I really admire and respect most of them, particularly as they have come from nothing. What always gets me is that the people who choose to feature on the show know what it is all about and they understand their product or service inside out.

They have real passion, energy and excitement by what they are doing, selling or making. Then they stand in front of these entrepreneurs – who have a wealth of knowledge that you could tap into – and ask for a hand out. Now here’s the bit… how many times have you heard people ask for money to support marketing?

It is almost always the case. If it isn’t suggested as the reason that the whole sum is required, it is in there somewhere. So why do people struggle with marketing budgets so much? What makes them think that marketing is so expensive in the first place? And why go to a leading entrepreneur so that they can pass you on to their preferred PR or marketing agency?

There is no doubt that marketing and effective communication are an essential element to a business strategy and the two should be absolutely aligned with objectives, but why do these entrepreneurs find it so difficult? I have decided to call it the ‘Dragon’s Den Effect’.

It’s a nasty heritage of stories which include bad advice and burnt fingers.

Business ‘A’ goes to big agency ‘B’, they are blown away with pretty pictures, they receive a catchy ‘logo’ and perhaps a quirky strap line, they then receive a big bill and that’s that. Job done. No questions asked. No further forward with a strategy – but you have a nice logo!

Now I genuinely think that times have changed, particularly since the last recession. It almost seems that it is becoming the trend to rely on smaller agencies that are genuinely doing great things. Not only are they often more cost effective but they also (in my experience) care more about their clients – irrelevant of size or budget.

You don’t have to work in a ‘full service’ agency to get the best – just choose them. You get to handpick the very best designers, copy writers, PR people and brand managers. Some agencies will tell you this takes time and is difficult to manage but I disagree – better to have a collective of the best, who can work together, than the internal politics that come from a big agency; who gets what budgets, who is first point of contact for the client and who takes the glory when it goes well or handles the fall out when things go wrong?

So next time you come across a business who is going through the ‘Dragon’s Den Effect’ just ask them what they are doing about it. If the answer is keeping their head down and hoping for the best then I’m afraid to say that ‘I’m out’.

However if they want to chat about how to get excited by their business and put in place some excellent PR and communication campaigns, which meet with objectives and manage reputation – well, that’s a different story altogether. I’m not just in, I’m here and waiting in the den.

Football fever kicks off

Posted on June 12, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

I am not a fan of the football. I don’t care that I don’t know the off–side rule (irrelevant of the number of times it’s been explained to me – once using a 50p coin!) and my life is no less meaningful because I absolutely do not – and never would want to be – a W.A.G, nor will I ever follow their latest fashion choices even if I was a size zero and had the budgets to do so.

What I do admit to having is a secret love of the camaraderie that comes with the Euros and the World Cup. I like that people get together and spend 90 minutes cheering and chatting, cursing and collectively deciding that when things don’t go to plan the team could be better managed by a pack of rabid wolves.

I also enjoy the way that brands and businesses get behind the teams that they support. Suddenly there is a realisation that everyone in the workplace isn’t necessarily supporting England (shock horror and gasps from each corner of the office) and so the fun begins. Some businesses allow their employees to take the time off to watch the game, while others put it on the TV and radio.

Shouts and calls, boos and hisses are suddenly heard from departments you didn’t even know existed and even though some people don’t want anything to do with whatever match is on, it’s difficult not to ask when the final whistle goes – just so you feel a part of it.

For the next few weeks brands will be announcing quirky ways that they have used some tenuous association to the sporting fun to push their latest red, white and blue products to the masses, and despite many of these seemingly being hair sprays, shower gels and razors it does get you in the spirit.

What did make me smile was to see in the Metro that following the supposed psychic powers of Paul the Octopus, there has been a definite increase in the number of animals which can apparently predict the outcomes of each match including a cow, a pig and a seal – I kid you not. There are even a few elephants and the now deceased Heidi the Opossum with the same claim to fame.

What we want to know is why aren’t the people of Wakefield all over this? We should be supporting the Euro’s and getting this great city on the map and what better way than jumping on the bandwagon?

We have our very own famous, talking sheep literally on the doorstep. Come on people, Curly could predict which teams will or won’t win. We can’t believe a local brand isn’t all over this. We wait with anticipation – there has to be someone who will use this gift of a PR stunt and simply ask Curly – ‘who do ewe think will win the Euros?’.

GIVE HANNAH A HAND

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

There was lots of clapping and whooping going on this morning at the Open Comms offices – and for once it wasn’t because we had landed coverage for a client or nailed a major campaign. This time it was all about us!

Well, it wasn’t actually, it was all about Hannah, who has been shortlisted for the Employee of the Year Award in the Wakefield District Business Awards. After just 18 months in her role at Open Communications Hannah has gone from office administrator to Senior Account Executive.

This is no simple task. In fact it takes hard work, commitment, patience and often a very thick skin. With no prior experience of working within the ‘dark world’ of PR, Hannah has always got on with our clients, suppliers and friends extremely well and that is why we are asking for YOU to get involved in our ‘Give Hannah a Hand’ campaign.

All you have to do is buy a copy of this week’s Wakefield Express or Pontefract and Castleford Express and send the entry slip shown in the Business Awards coverage to the following address:

Employee of the Year, Editorial, Express House, Southgate, Wakefield WF1 1TE.

We know that everyone is busy and that it will take a little effort but we also know that you will support Hannah to get the recognition that she deserves. So come on people – take a five minute break, have a walk to your local newsagents, put your hand in your pocket and pay the 68p that will make our day.

We will of course update with the success of our campaign later in the month and with any luck we will be giving Hannah another hand, only this time it will be a huge cheer!

The dark art of social media – influencers or informers?

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

I was reading the Sunday Times recently and came across an article which I found quite baffling. As a PR agency we work with brands to raise their profile across social media platforms including blogs, facebook and twitter through engagement and interaction. As a result, I know only too well that this process is not a simple one, nor is it a ‘quick win’.

In my opinion it is quite simply an opportunity for someone who has credibility within their network to talk about your product or service and to provide their personal comments and opinions about it. These are not always positive and that is the risk that you take when working with social media channels – or it is, unless you are McDonalds.

The article I was reading was titled ‘McDonalds recruit blogger to super-size its allure’ and was written by Mark Harris. I immediately thought that would mean that McDonalds were recruiting an internal team, or a social media champion, for each of its geographies. No. McDonalds have ‘recruited’ more than 400 bloggers who are known as the McDonald’s Family Arches Community. This community receive benefits as a result of blogging favourably about the brand.

This isn’t too dissimilar to the approach taken by many brands. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it seems to work and there’s no harm in offering free samples for review, after all you want the person to interact with the brand and to understand the products in order to give an informed view.

The line does however stop at offering stays in hotels, exclusive trips away and benefits based on the number of favourable comments or posts you provide for a brand. That isn’t social media, that’s social advertising. It’s not informed, nor is it factual, it’s biased and unbalanced.

If I was engaging with a blogger and found that they were receiving all-expenses paid trips as a result of posting favourable comments about a company, product or service I wouldn’t consider them credible. In fact, quite the opposite.

The article goes on to state that McDonalds wants ‘its own private network over which it could exert more control’. I think they are massively missing the point here. It’s not about control, it’s about comment and opinion. It’s about believing so strongly in your product that by association you encourage others to love it too. You want people to want to talk about your brand favourable and yes, there are times when that isn’t going to be the case – after all you can’t please everyone – but you manage that process by interacting.

Communication isn’t about telling someone what to say, it’s about a dialogue. Putting words into someone’s mouth will not drive genuine value for the brand, it will discourage people from believing anything the company chooses to say in the future.

A quote which appears in the article states ‘And if they start doing stuff we don’t want, we are going to take action’. It seems to me that McDonalds have got this very wrong. It’s not so much super-size as super silly.

My advice, for what it’s worth, would be for McDonalds to review this strategy and to review it quickly. You cannot buy brand values and if the case is that the business cannot and do not genuinely believe in what they are offering then the seriousness of this situation goes far beyond social communication.

It’s fair to say that the McDonalds business model is used as an example of best practice. When you go into a McDonalds you know where you are, you know what you’re getting and every establishment is run in exactly the same way – you cannot do the same with a social network of communicators.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Family of Arches is rolled out in Britain. I only hope the bloggers that are chosen see past the benefits and consider what getting involved will do to their credibility and reputation.

When close is just too close!

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

There is no doubt that social media has its benefits for businesses who choose to use the tools available to them correctly. That doesn’t mean knowing how to post discussions on LinkedIn or understanding a hashtag from an @ sign on twitter – what I mean is that you have to take the rough with the smooth.

At Open Communications we always explain to our clients that if you want to engage with customers using social channels and you feel that it forms a part of your business communications strategy to do so, then the first and most important point is that you have to take the good with the bad.

You cannot engage with people taking the benefits from positive reviews, product endorsements and exposure across multiple channels to a mass (often global) audience, then when faced with a complaint or negative remark choose not to communicate at all. Not only is it bad practice but it sends out a clear message to customers both current and prospective that a business cannot appropriately handle complaints.

One of the best examples I have seen in recent times was the case between Tatty Devine and Claire’s Accessories. It’s fair to say that I had never heard of Tatty Devine before the brand started to trend on twitter. I was then quickly brought up to speed via a number of blog posts and comments informing me that some of the designs launched throughout Claire’s Accessories bore a striking resemblance to those originally created by Tatty Devine.

Admittedly the prices of the products were very different and the quality was clearly poles apart, however the principle remained the same – a massive national business had a frighteningly similar portfolio of products to a boutique designer. Not good.

You would think that the first thing a national business like Claire’s would do is call upon a PR agency to put in place and manage what was likely to become a serious communications crisis for the brand. No, apparently the first thing you do when you are Claire’s is shut everything down and issue a no comment! Not just to the media – but across all platforms including social media.

Tatty Devine however went into over drive; providing customers with updates, images and a statement which was issued to all press – including the nationals. They didn’t go out and use the opportunity to air their feelings about Claire’s, as such – they instead turned the situation on its head and used it to deliver the best and most cost effective PR campaign they are ever likely to have. It was nothing short of superb, great communications and a glimpse of the business acumen behind that company. It’s also fair to say that Claire’s were quickly losing their way and turning a bad situation into a disaster, so all Tatty really had to do was sit back and watch.

This story has died down over recent months with other things taking the spot light – as is always the case in the media – although I did see Liza Tarbuck wearing what I think was a Tatty Devine necklace on TV the other day. Once upon a time I wouldn’t have known my Tatty from my Claire’s but thanks to their excellent and strategic use of social media, I may have a look and see if there’s something that would go with my new outfit.

The upshot is, remember, if you are going to engage with social media channels then be aware and prepared to deal with the good AND the bad. There is no doubt social media delivers benefits to business but it can be a tricky platform to manage when things go wrong and companies should have the infrastructure and contingency in place to handle it correctly should that happen.

A tale of two very different headlines

Posted on May 15, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

There have been two very different stories which have hit the headlines recently yet both have led me to ask some questions about their positioning within the media. Both seem somehow, in some way, to have missed the point.

The first is the Leveson inquiry. Unless you have been living in a hole for the past six months plus, you will know that phone hacking, ‘close’ relationships, text messages and Christmas / office parties have all been discussed at length during this trial, leading to days of coverage across all media.

The inquiry itself is enough to shock and presumably has led many to question what has been going on and how the media machine ever thought it would be possible to carry on regardless, knowing how information was being ‘researched’.

It isn’t the political element to this story that shocked me most – but the fact that the presenters on the news on Friday morning were questioning how Rebekah Brooke would cope when asked direct and ‘difficult’ questions.

No one seemed to realise that as former editor of the News of the World she is one of the best trained people to handle this situation. She was surrounded by high profile comments and good and bad practice to call upon, while also being media trained to within an inch of her life. If there was anyone who was perfectly capable of dealing with this fall out it was her. People who work in the media are perfectly aware of the way it works and there was never any doubt she would provide very factual comments, which would go into as little detail as possible, while ensuring she ‘answered the question’.

The second story to catch my eye was the final of Britain’s Got Talent. I have to admit that this show is my guilty pleasure. I think the auditions are simply hilarious and the talent is something that we should all be proud of. Although I thought all of the final acts were deserving of being there – I don’t believe that dancing dog Pudsey should have won.

Before you get cross and ask what I’m talking about – of course a performing pouch and their adoring owner should take first place – what got me was the way that a reference to animal abuse was used not once but twice during the judging.

Although I find animal cruelty abhorrent, I didn’t think the reference was necessary and would go as far as to say that as a result more votes were generated for that reason than for the talent itself. In my opinion Charlotte and Jonathan were outstanding, a true celebration of British talent and two young people who for all the right reasons deserve to be rewarded for their efforts and their amazing performance.

So what do you think? Is there news value in questioning a former editor’s ability to cope with serious but direct questioning and what about that dancing dog – it will be interesting to see how both stories continue to hit the headlines and what angles are taken forward from here.

There will be little doubt that Rebekah Brooks will trend again across social media today as she finds out if she will face charges but what about that dog. One suggestion is that as a result of half a million Pudsey will finally drop his owner and take to the circuit as a solo act. Hey, it can’t be any more bizarre than some of things that are currently hitting the headlines!

Author: Lindsey Davies

Has ‘STOP PRESS’ taken on a totally new meaning?

Food for thought

Football fever kicks off

GIVE HANNAH A HAND

Recent Posts

Categories

Archive