Put Simply

And it was a daydream if anyone really believed that the Olympic Torch Procession would get around the world without encountering demonstrations given the current activity in Tibet.

But it was a ‘dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t’ PR situation wasn’t it?

The whole point of the Torch Procession is to raise the profile of the Olympics and bring out the crowds.  The trouble is, in the West if you want a crowd you have to take what comes and in the UK we are more Flashmob than Rentacrowd.

It could have been a PR disaster. With the snow and cold wind nobody might have turned up to see Paula, Sir Steve, Dames Kelly and Ellen et al do their bit. At least the streets were lined with people rather than empty, even if they were the ‘wrong’ people.

We PRs know that you have to be grateful if anybody turns-up to an event and it certainly generated publicity.

No this isn’t a homage to the hat wearing clown from Jamiroquai - it’s about the madness being marketed at today’s ‘yoofs’ to entice them into a ‘better’ video game experience.

I admit I’m a bit behind the times as this technology was unveiled at CES in Las Vegas back in January but an article on Gizmodo today caught my eye and I just had to flag it.

Apparently, excitable gamers will soon be able to buy the catchy titled ‘virtual impact, 3rd space FPS vest’ in the UK. Imagine a flack jacket which has been embedded with lots of little pneumatic cells so that when you’re playing your war game and your character gets shot, the vest kicks in to action and administers what the manufacturers term ‘a mild punch’ to the approximate part of your torso.

Now although I’m old enough to remember Pong and the ZX Spectrum, I am also still with it enough to care that GTA IV is released later this month and have an active interest in the latest gaming technology, but this all seems a bit masochistic and unnecessary to me.

Gaming has come a long way since I was a kid - the constantly evolving graphics, sound and game play never cease to amaze me, but since when did we need to indulge in light self abuse to enjoy a good shoot-em up?

I can confirm I won’t be in the queue at my local Game store to get one and if I catch anyone I know actually buying one I’ll happily offer to stand there whilst they play and punch them myself.

One of my colleagues alerted me to a Daily Telegraph piece last week on another brain tumour caused by mobile phones study. What - another one I thought, is there another grant up for grabs? It turned out to be a reasonably balanced piece of journalism by Robert Uhlig highlighting a study from Sweden published by the European Journal of Cancer Prevention.

Once upon a time when mobiles were the size of blenders, an analogue cellular standard called NMT was used in Sweden (among other places). Some remote parts of Africa still use NMT but the rest of us use unrelated digital technology and have done since the 90s. Two points struck me about this story – The European Journal of Cancer Prevention, as Mr Uhlig quite rightly says, published the study - it’s a web-based publisher of material, that’s all it does - more librarian than interested informed commentator. And the study’s leader is a well-known serial-researcher in this surprisingly lucrative part of the research market. It’s a shame when a respected national paper makes headline news again from the research money-go-round, raising the anxiety levels of ordinary people in the process.

So, not quite in the same league as a piece The Times was once duped in to writing - about a person ‘allergic to technology’ who could only shop in establishments with manual tills and could watch black and white TV but not colour TV - (sorry I can’t find a link but at the time I wrote to The Editor in alarm at the time) – but sadly not a million miles away.

When wannabe EMLers come in for an interview they’re often asked to give a presentation on a PR disaster of their choice. Over the years we’ve had them all including the likes of Exxon Valdez, Nestle baby milk, Ratner and the Millennium Dome to name a few. Given the antics at Heathrow Terminal 5 over the last few days it’s a sure fire bet that this fine specimen of a case study joins the list before too long.

In dissecting this disaster, it’s obvious that by far the biggest mistake the BAA and British Airways made was over hyping the launch and setting expectations sky high. Had they just been a little bit more humble about it all then I think the press and more importantly passengers might have given them a little bit of leeway whilst they iron out teething troubles in the first few weeks. The thing is we’ve had propaganda about Heathrow Terminal 5 coming at as from all angles for weeks, months, and years. Right up to the opening day Willie Walsh, BA’s chief executive was waxing lyrical about how ABSOLUTELY AMAZING everything was and how T5 was the best thing since sliced bread. With this arrogance they were always putting themselves up for a fall if anything did go wrong.

The next mistake came when they refused to come out and hold their hands up when things did start to go wrong and acknowledge there had been mistakes. Even when BA’s director of operations Gareth Kirkwood eventually came out to face the band of press and angry customers he issued a bland, emotionless statement that was far from convincing and then disappeared without taking questions. I’m sure Mr. Kirkwood must have been on countless media training courses during his career but he probably needs to go on some more!

After issuing this statement they then pretty much shut up shop in terms of dealing with the media for a long time. This only served to irritate people and left the press no option but to fill their bulletins or newspaper pages with accounts from disgruntled passengers.

I, like many millions of other potential T5 users/BA customers watched GMTV on Friday morning and heard the presenters telling over and over again how BA/BAA had refused to respond to their invitation to participate in an interview as they showed live accounts from numerous passengers all telling the same story - either there was no communication at all or where there was communication people were being given wrong or contradictory information.

My fellow PutSimply blogger Juliet was actually one of the merry band of volunteers who helped test out all the facilities and processes a few weeks ago. Perhaps she should have given them a crash course in handling PR during a crisis whilst she was at it.

I read a really depressing story in the news on Thursday. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), 45% of British marriages are now ending in divorce. It’s not that I’m particularly worried about the state of the country’s moral or social wellbeing. No, mine is a far more selfish despair; I’m getting married this year. And so are two of my EML colleagues and one of my relatives (not to each other I might add, that’s how rumours are spread). So by those figures at least one if not two of our happy couples are destined for failure. I suppose the good news is that we EMLers are doing our part to boost the falling numbers of people getting married in the first place – as statistics from Wednesday also revealed.

I started wondering what could be done to help improve these figures? Maybe marriage needs a PR-job? What do we know about marriage from the press – well, if we look at the Pop world the Paul McCartney/ Heather Mills mess doesn’t speak well for wedded bliss. Neither do the well-publicised recent antics of footballer, Ashley Cole (his alleged affair, not his ref-bashing).

Are there any positive role models for a long and happy married life in the UK? How about the Queen and Prince Phillip? On second thoughts, maybe the royals aren’t the best place to go for marriage guidance…. they have something of a history, what with great great great great (etc) Grandad ‘inventing’ divorce in the UK and chopping off the heads of anyone else he lost interest in…

OK, how about in the land of TV? The soaps are a hotbed of scandal, affairs, abuse and bodies under the patios. In sitcoms, One Foot in The Grave or Keeping Up Appearances, the couples seem to have been married forever, but I’m not sure that’s the kind of married life I want to look forward to. Newly weds Gavin and Stacey don’t look like they’re in for an easy ride either.

Best not even get started on Hollywood…

Surely there must be one positive example of marriage in the public eye? One that represents all the good things like love and respect and support, and that has managed to get past the magical 10-year point at which, the ONS informs us, we stand a chance of remaining together till death us do part (preferably in the long distant future and of natural causes rather than some melodramatic plane crash/dumping in rivers/pushing down stairs or off cliff). The only instance I can think of is Lenny Henry and Dawn French and even that has come under suspicion since Lenny started those dreadful hotel adverts (why does he need to spend so much time in hotels all of a sudden?).

Why don’t the registrars (who must surely be losing stacks of money if the number of weddings is dropping) get working on a PR campaign to demonstrate the benefits of a good marriage? There must be stats to show that a happy marriage is good for our wellbeing? What about financial benefits? Oh! I’ve got it!

My hubby and me are going to move to Surbiton and be Tom and Barbara from the good life. I’ll keep doing my PR job, but from September onwards, all press releases will have to be written using home made inks on parchment made from hand-woven parchment. Fresh eggs for breakfast every morning and a pig shed to send Mr Jo to when he doesn’t wash up. Bliss!

Look at the front of any newspaper over the past week and you would think that the next great slump is nigh and we are heading for a 1930s-style depression. Last week’s PR Week even headlined with the news that PR’s could be in the firing line if predictions come to fruition.

Well, we all know that the first budget to be cut in times of hardship is the PR and marketing spend (though some would say that surely this is the time to keep your profile high) and many of us remember the technology PR culls of the early naughties – but I do wonder if it was necessary for our industry magazine to point out this fact so readily.

I am a firm believer that a bit more “out of sight out of mind” could be employed these days, more circumspect reporting rather than jumping off at the deep end and taking a story to a sorry conclusion on day one.

This can, of course, be applied to many topics the press are focusing on at the moment, not just financial ones. I was particularly hit by a headline in the London Metro last week highlighting the fact that it was cheaper to score a line of cocaine in many pubs than it was to buy a pint of bitter. Did we need to know this? Did the vulnerable need to know this? Did it mean that people, who might never have thought of taking drugs, went out and had a line rather than a pint?

Is part of the booze culture being fuelled by every paper and broadcast programme implying to youngsters that if they are not out there getting a skinful every weekend they are not doing what their peers do?

I am not suggesting that these topics should not be reported, or that important items be brushed under the carpet, but suggesting that perhaps the time has come to think that less is more – the press did it with Prince Harry in Afghanistan so perhaps they could employ discretion in other areas.

It seems like 2008 has been conference after event after exhibition so far for those of us working with the electronics or telecoms industries. I’m looking at my diary and trying to find a month when there’s nothing happening. December is looking quite good…..

Whilst attending and preparing for the many tradeshows over the course of the year so far I’ve had a couple of odd experiences with the media. For instance, whilst working on setting up interviews for yet another exhibition I had made my pitch to the press and swiftly received a reply from one journalist to say that they only attend briefings if they are paid for them. This, we are assured, ensures that the company really wants to brief the journalist in question with some important news.

‘Well’, i thought, ‘hold on a minute’. I was under the impression (perhaps naively?) the basic idea was that the press attended these events in order to meet companies who have something new and interesting to say - to generate news and copy for their publications (and maybe push the occasional sales pitch?). If you only take a briefing from companies with pockets deep enough to pay, I would think that will result in some pretty biased information being received?

I had two initial thoughts about this request for payment. Firstly - heaven help us all if the idea catches on and secondly - perhaps we should reverse the idea and start charging journo’s for the time with our clients and watch the coverage roll in? 

Alternatively maybe we should all live and let live - we’ll accept that sometimes we won’t get the coverage we wanted if our lovely journalist friends don’t mind that sometimes the story wasn’t quite what they had expected! 

I’m going to go canvassing (read: bothering) my press contacts in the next week to see why they go to tradeshows. Watch this space for the result, but in the mean time, tell me: Would you be willing to give or receive payment for an interview at an event?

 

A recent article in Marketing Week about the Home Office search for an agency to create a marketing and advertising campaign for the proposed ID card scheme made me think about what campaigns a PR agency would actively shy away from rather than be tarred with a tainted brush.

There was the famous occasion a good few years ago when an EML director took a call from a major tobacco conglomerate asking if we would like to pitch to run its PR function. £ signs flashed before his eyes before reality set in and we decided that a) it was not our area of expertise and b) we did not wish to be associated with tobacco products.

However it did beg the question - why would a large tobacco company contact a technology PR company to ask them to pitch for a campaign? Was it that they had run out of PR companies that were prepared to take on the role?

Now we all know that most PRs have a fairly lamentable reputation at the best of times (courtesy of Max Clifford et al) but they must draw the line somewhere. So, question of the day - what PR campaign area would you rather not be associated with? For me, although not a veggie, I would find raising awareness of abattoirs difficult.

I’ve been shaken back in to the blogsphere by (poor old) journalist and broadcaster Jeremy Clarkson, and the various news items related to him being photographed by some fame-seeking do-gooder while he was driving and using his mobile phone – at the same time, imagine that? I’ll admit I was once involved, on behalf of a client, in campaigning to have the mobiles-while-driving legislation eased, to allow business users of mobile radio equipment a level of exemption - but on the whole it’s a good law.

I’m not agitated by the current adverts either – good strong messaging – drive while you are on the phone and you risk death - you can’t argue with that. What bugs me is that Clarkson, just because he’s recognised, potentially gets prosecuted, not because he’s naughty, but because he’s famous and naughty.

Every day I see dozens of idiots on the phone (and driving) but I don’t know who they are and neither does anyone else so they escape. What’s next? Photos of celebrities driving in bus-lanes? Photos of celebrities dropping litter being emailed to local councils? I predict Clarkson gets off, and he gets some extra press-clippings this month.

I see in the news today that gaming mega-bohemoth monster Electronic Arts has made a hostile bid of $2 billion for Take-Two Interactive Software.

Now, I’m sure Take-Two has plenty of other worthwhile games in the offing, though I can’t think of any offhand. But let’s not beat about the bush; EA is bidding for one computer games franchise; Grand Theft Auto, and nothing else.

Like most guys who’ve been anywhere near the GTA games, I’m a big fan. Few people like shooting up San Andreas quite as much as I do. People frequently declaim GTA, saying that it sets a bad example. On the contrary, gun crime and car theft is dealt with most efficiently in GTA. Stealing a car in real life is never as simple as pressing ‘triangle’ and - hey presto - Audi TT.

But £1 billion for a computer game? Does this not seem a little extreme to anyone else? I still remember the days when games cost £2.99 and came on cassette tape. Back in the eighties you wouldn’t see companies offering the GDP of a small African nation for ‘Treasure Island Dizzy’. At that point Codemasters, then two guys in a bedroom, probably would’ve accepted two bob and a packet of Revels for their entire back-catalogue.

These big mergers are happening all over the gaming industry. Last year Activision bought up Vivendi for the even more amazing sum of $18 billion. Huge development costs - routinely pushing $20 million - are the driving force behind such acquisitions. But the costs are amazing when you think that virtually every such game is a first-person shooter, looks more-or-less the same as the last one, and only slightly tweaks its particle effects and ragdoll physics.

And what we’re seeing here is a continuation of the ‘bigger is better’ mentality that has done so much harm to the Playstation 3. The Nintendo Wii has proven that all you need is a good idea and some old(ish) technology. Buying up the market just seems a little, well… unimaginative.