Last week’s Chartered Institute of PR (CIPR) East Anglia conference reminded me of much of the good – and the bad – about the profession. For a start the half day event brought together a really diverse group of PR practitioners, all enthusiastic about their profession and what it could achieve for businesses. And the overall theme of the conference – why PR needs to step up, embrace new skills and demonstrate the value it creates – is immensely important in a world where digital is transforming the marketing, and business, landscape
But – and it is a big but – I can remember going to events debating these issues five or possibly ten years ago. And even some of the presenters admitted that they still find it hard to persuade clients that measurement needs to go beyond counting the number of clippings or the advertising value equivalent of coverage. Perhaps most damning of all there is still a huge gender pay gap, of an average of over £8,000 between women and men doing comparable jobs, and a relative shortage of females in the higher echelons of the PR profession. In a sector where 70% of the workforce is female, this is nothing short of a disgrace. Essentially much of this comes down to PR not being taken seriously – we’re expected to either be Patsy from Absolutely Fabulous or Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It. While I’d relish the chance to drink as much as the former while working or swear as much as the latter without attracting disciplinary action, it is far from the truth.
So PR needs to change, and the first step, like Patsy attending Alcoholics Anonymous, is recognising the need to do things differently. While there was a lot of repetition in the different presentations, there was also a lot to pick up and learn from. I’d distil it into four points:
1. This is a great time to work in PR
Corporate reputation matters: to sales, to the share price, to recruitment, and to overall business success. Customer relationships are vital to build loyalty and revenues. Given its background, PR is the profession best placed to manage both of these, but to do so it needs to change, digitise and talk the language of business. As Sarah Pinch, the current CIPR president, pointed out, “Strategic counsel can’t be provided by a robot.” Only by upping its game will PR avoid being automated.
2. PR needs to integrate
While it is best placed to help companies improve their reputation and relationships, PR can’t do it alone. It has to work with every other department of the business, from finance and sales to customer service and IT, to create a cohesive approach that focuses on the overall reputation of the organisation. It needs to adopt a team of teams approach, working with colleagues with different skills to achieve results.
3. Measurement, measurement, measurement
There was a lot of talk about the need for measurement and why it was important, but fewer examples of how PR could be measured in a way that linked directly to business KPIs. As I’ve said the industry has been talking for years about the need to move from outputs (the number of clips or readers) to outcomes (changes to perception or behaviour that can be directly credited to PR). There are plenty of apocryphal stories of how reading that one article led effortlessly to a sale, or a campaign enabled a company to shift its market positioning, but one of the major issues is measuring this on a consistent, reliable basis. One of the key issues, particularly for smaller agencies and businesses, is that measurement costs money – and often clients are unwilling to pay for it or don’t see its value. That means it has to come out of budget that would otherwise be spent on PR programmes, lessening what can be done, and meaning agencies may well lose out in beauty parades to rivals that promise more.
4. Think like the board
As Denise Kaufmann of Ketchum said, quoting W. Edward Deming, “In God we trust, everyone else bring data.” PR needs to understand what senior management is looking for and ensure it is talking the same language. And that means ensuring PR targets directly map to corporate objectives, and are presented in a clear, business language. Think like an MBA and speak data, rather than discussing size and number of clips. This requires a change of mindset, but the potential rewards are enormous in terms of prestige, preserving/growing budgets and being recognised as crucial to the business. Hugh Davies, until recently the corporate affairs director of 3, gave his advice on advancing your PR career: be a team player, be confident, build business understanding, and create a body of evidence to support your ideas if you want to be taken seriously.
And by building trust with the board, the job of PR could also become slightly easier. We’ve all seen PR wonderful campaigns that are quickly undermined by a corporate scandal or cock-up that no-one thought to tell the communications department about until it became a crisis. I’d hate to be a PR person for VW at the moment for example. By stepping up to senior management, PR will at the very least have earlier warning of such issues, rather than having to deal with the aftermath.
It is easy to see PR as a profession that just provides window dressing to an organisation – and in the past PRs have not helped themselves with their behaviour or attitude. But the CIPR East Anglia Conference showed that attitudes are changing, and finally we may be solving our own reputational problems.
November 25, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Cambridge, PR, Social Media | 3, Absolutely Fabulous, Chartered Institute of Public Relations, East Anglia, Malcolm Tucker, Measures Consulting, PR, Public Relations, reputation, Sarah Pinch, The Thick of It | Leave a comment
In an age of social media and always-on news, every brand can feel that it is constantly under attack, even if it is for what seems like trivial reasons. Surly barista serve you coffee? Unclean hotel room? Consumers can share their thoughts and views with the world in seconds, and quite often the resulting viral storm will be intense, but fade as quickly as it came into being.
In contrast, the world of sport, or more specifically its administration, is facing an unprecedented attack from both media and the public. FIFA has now been joined in the dock by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), with senior figures alleged to have taken bribes to ensure that failed drugs tests never saw the light of day. A report published by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) points the finger at doping on a massive scale by Russian athletes, implicating senior figures in its government, while French prosecutors have arrested Lamine Diack, the ex-head of the IAAF, who is accused of receiving bribes of over €1 million to cover up failed tests. And it isn’t that long ago that the International Olympic Committee (IoC) had to confess that cities had ‘bought’ the right to host the games, while the close links between the then senior leadership at cycling’s governing body the UCI and drug cheat Lance Armstrong have also been highlighted.
On the outside it seems like all these organisations have a culture where too much power and a sense of entitlement mix with control over major decisions that have big political or financial impacts. As the head of UK Athletics pointed out, the leader of the IAAF is referred to as Mr President, inflating the holder’s ego as a matter of course.
Essentially sports administrators are in the spotlight, and need to rebuild their credibility. I’d see five areas to focus on:
1.Look wider for staff
Administrators seem to be either ex-athletes, those that have served their time in country federations or people attracted by the glamour of working for sporting organisations. Often promotion relies on who you know, rather than how good you are at your job. It is time to change this by recruiting capable figures from outside sport to lead administrations. They obviously need to know about the sport they are leading, and have an enthusiasm for it, but they don’t necessarily have to have spent their life in it. By bringing in outside managers, with the right skills (and no links of patronage), it will send a clear message that administrations want to change.
2.End culture of entitlement
The IoC is widely seen to have cleaned up its act, yet its bureaucrats still expect the world to revolve around them. The sell-out London Olympics saw gaps in the venues as “members of the Olympic family” decided not to bother going to certain events, while one of the reasons that Norway pulled out of bidding for the next Winter Olympics were demands for free booze for bureaucrats at the stadium and a cocktail party with the King. No one is against hard-working administrators having access to events as part of their roles, but it should be a privilege, not a right.
I’ve said it before about voting for the World Cup, but every major decision being taken needs to be transparent and auditable. So no secret ballots – the results of who voted for who should be public at the time and open to the widest possible constituency to avoid any allegations of impropriety. All activities, particularly those involving potentially controversial subjects such as drug testing and financial matters, should be audited independently by consultancies that actually understand them, rather than treating the whole thing as a tick box exercise. The same applies to new hires, who should have to declare any business interests to links to particular countries/teams/companies.
The IAAF probably has strong tax reasons for being based in Monaco, while FIFA and the UCI (amongst others) have headquarters in neutral, but secretive, Switzerland. At a time when credibility is tenuous, location matters, so associations need to look at moving to more ‘normal’ jurisdictions where they can be subject to proper scrutiny. It should also help with recruiting from a wider talent pool.
5.Be more independent from political control
As the Russian doping scandal (and winning Russian bid for the World Cup) both show, it is easy for administrations to become subject to outside political influences. This is true not just in Russia, but other countries where sport is seen as a tool of soft power, irrespective of the rules. Therefore all local administrations need to be independent of government, without members of ruling families or parties running them to avoid any allegations of bias.
Sport has the ability to bring people around the world together – a fact that administrators and their marketers are always reminding us of. This cuts both ways – not only do fans join together to salute outstanding athletic achievements, but they can equally unite to condemn the administrators that are destroying the sports that they love.
November 11, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Marketing, PR, Social Media | athletics, Cycling, FIFA, football, IAAF, IoC, Lamine Diack, Lance Armstrong, Norway, Olympics, Russia, WADA, World Anti-Doping Agency, World Cup | Leave a comment
I read recently that government ministers spend over a quarter of their time on public relations or similar activities. That’s not surprising given they face a combination of an ever more cynical electorate, lobbyists, pressure groups, opposition MPs and, of course, their own backbenchers.
Obviously everyone thinks they have an idea about the bad side of government spin, with its mixture of cunning, bullying and calling in favours (as exemplified by Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It). But increasingly PR is necessary to try to educate and convince the press and public about the merits of a decision, in order to gain the support it needs.
The perfect case in point is the current debate on the Investigatory Powers Bill, a draft of which is being published this week. This aims to strengthen the capabilities of the security services to detect and foil crime. However in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations concerning the scale of current surveillance technology, and how it is used, there is widespread worry about what new legislation will enable the security services to do.
In the balance between privacy and law enforcement, where do you draw the line? For example, the draft bill will compel Internet Service Providers to retain a full record of your online activity for 12 months, in case they are needed for investigations. The vast majority of us would support their use against terrorists, paedophiles and organised crime, but the fact that a record of all of our surfing is stored and can potentially be accessed by law enforcement officers does scare and worry people.
Because of this, there has been an unprecedented campaign to win over the public. The Times was given high level access to Britain’s spy agencies, from GCHQ to MI5 and MI6, for example. This enabled those backing the bill to get their message across that they are foiling plots aimed at the UK on a regular basis and that without changes to the law it is only a matter of time before something slips through the net.
At the same time the anti-campaign has received backing from an unlikely corner – James Bond himself. The latest Bond movie, Spectre, features the normal array of international bad guys plotting to take over the world. But the key twist (spoiler alert) is that they want to do this by gaining access to the surveillance systems of the security services around the world – even to the extent of bankrolling a new UK security service building. Of course, in the end their evil plot is defeated, but the interesting point is that C, the new head of British joint intelligence, is a bad guy, in league with the chief villain himself. Hardly the ringing endorsement of increased surveillance that the public would expect – and perhaps politicians backing the bill were hoping for.
With the bill itself just published, expect the debate to rage on – with public relations a key tactic used by both sides to put their case. Though what the government and security services can do to top James Bond will be an interesting challenge……
November 4, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Marketing, PR, Social Media | C, Edward Snowden, GCHQ, Internet service provider, Investigative Powers, James Bond, Malcolm Tucker, Measures Consulting, MI5, MI6, Public Relations, Spectre, The Thick of It, The Times | Leave a comment
Last week’s announcement from Talk Talk that its website had been hacked and customer details (including bank account information) had potentially been stolen has turned into a disaster for the company. The stock price slumped by over 10% and MPs have called for an inquiry into whether the firm’s failure to encrypt data put customer information at risk.
Could things have been handled differently – and would they have changed the reaction of both the public and the media?
Firstly, it is worth re-stating that Talk Talk has been the victim of a crime. Initial fanciful rumours that the perpetrators were Russian Jihadis now look wide of the mark, with the police instead arresting a 15 year old boy from Northern Ireland, but the fact remains that its site was hacked. Additionally some of the press coverage has been incredibly sensationalist, with lurid stories of customers having their bank accounts cleared out by fraudsters, even though they were not necessarily linked to the hack itself.
However there are two questions that any business involved in crisis management needs to answer – did it meet the expected standards before the incident, and did it then deal with the situation in a way that reassured customers and other stakeholders?
I’d say that the response to both of these is a No. For a start, failure to encrypt customer details (at a time when people like Apple encrypt everything) is a glaring security hole that should have been filled. But as a PR person I’d point out five ways they’ve not managed the crisis well:
1 Telling press before customers
The first thing most customers knew about the hack was when they turned on the news or listened to the radio. The reason given by chief executive Dido Harding for making contact through the media, as opposed to directly speaking to customers, was that the sheer number of subscribers made this impossible. Talk Talk should have done both – customers wanted a direct response rather than just hearing about it on Radio 4.
2 Incomplete information
You can’t blame Talk Talk for initially overstating the scale of the attack – it obviously needed to get the announcement of the hack out as quickly as possible, rather than laboriously go through all its account details to see what had been compromised. And the story about the afore-mentioned Russian Jihadis came from other sources. However it didn’t provide a full picture to its customers early enough. I’m an ex-Talk Talk customer, and left six months ago – yet nowhere on its FAQ did it say anything about whether my details were at risk. Much later on Talk Talk admitted that ex-customer information could also have been hacked, but it demonstrates that the entire response was not well thought through.
3 Failure to stay on top of the story
After its initial apology, the story seemed to be going Talk Talk’s way, with pundits talking about the growing threat of cyber crime, and the company’s clear advice to change passwords being repeated across all media. But then the story changed, with the initial hack being downplayed and the press focusing on the failure to encrypt data. As Jacques de Cock of the London School of Marketing pointed out, it seemed to share its customers’ panic, rather than taking decisive action. The agenda shifted against Talk Talk, positioning it as culpable in its own downfall and not having a handle on what was going on.
4 Poor reputation
As I mentioned, I’m an ex-Talk Talk customer, and I found it a frustrating and unhelpful organisation to deal with. I kept getting regular sales calls, with agents trying to upsell me from my basic package and when I moved home it made me honour a month’s notice period on my contract – even though it said it couldn’t provide service at my new address. The impression I got was of an organisation that didn’t care about its customers, except for the money it could make from them, and that cut corners where it could to save a pound or two. Indeed I remember hearing Dido Harding on the Media Show on Radio 4, likening the firm to a clapped-out car being driven over the speed limit down the motorway, hanging onto the competition. Very few telecoms firms deliver good customer service, but I’m convinced Talk Talk’s poor reputation meant that commentators and customers automatically assumed the worst had happened.
5 Lack of empathy
Compounding customer annoyance, Talk Talk yesterday said that it would charge a termination fee to any customers looking to leave, unless they could prove that money had been stolen from their accounts due to the hack. Now, Talk Talk is obviously a business, and releasing all its customers from their contractual obligations could cause a huge dent in revenues – particularly given how badly the crisis has been handled. But the way the message has been delivered smacks of weakness and arrogance – it is almost as if it believes that customers would seize any excuse to leave, yet are stupid enough to forget the whole hack happened when it comes to contract renewal time. The company should have worked out some sort of half way house, allowing customers to shorten contracts or pay a reduced termination fee as a goodwill gesture. It may have cost it more in the short term, but would have been a valuable first step in rebuilding the company’s reputation – and any good publicity would be welcome at this stage in the process.
Handling a crisis in today’s real-time world is difficult. The combination of continuous news, social media and a desire for instant scapegoats means it is impossible to control the story in the same way as in the past. However Talk Talk should have done better – and is now facing the prospect of real damage to its reputation and bottom line by failing to take decisive action or appearing to care about its customers. Every company should take note and update crisis management plans so that they don’t fall into the same trap.
October 28, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Marketing, PR, Social Media | crisis, crisis management, customer service, cyber crime, Dido Harding, encryption, hack, PR, Talk Talk, telecoms | Leave a comment
We live in a world where the skills needed to thrive are changing fast. A combination of the rise of digital, artificial intelligence and the move to a global economy means that many previously ‘safe’ middle-income administrative jobs have either been offshored or computerised. Consequently commentators predict a hollowing out of the economy, with a greater number of low wage, low skill roles at the bottom and a smaller number of highly paid jobs at the top of the pyramid. This growing imbalance – and the potential social issues it brings – has been analysed and written about by a number of leading economists, such as Thomas Piketty, in his surprise bestseller, Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
Despite what the nostalgic might think, this process is irreversible. Globalisation is accelerating and we can’t put the genie of artificial intelligence back into the box. So, how do we ensure that the UK workforce, and UK companies, are able to cope?
Go.On and On?
The key start point is to understand that the traditional model of learning a particular trade or profession and then spending your entire life working at it is no longer valid. Kids at school today will have multiple jobs during their careers, many of which may not even have been invented yet. Given that you can’t teach someone about a profession that doesn’t exist, the best approach is to provide the skills for lifelong, independent learning, such as self-reliance, adaptability, collaboration and other thinking skills.
The other vital element is to have an understanding, and mastery of, technology. To be fair, most children are miles ahead of their parents in this regard, and initiatives such as re-introducing programming to the school curriculum and low cost machines such as the Raspberry Pi are helping to drive these digital skills.
But the risk is that the current adult generation is falling behind. Research by charity Go.On UK has found that 12 million people (roughly a quarter of the adult population), lack the basic digital skills required today. 23% of small businesses also don’t have these skills. Go.On defines these skills in 5 areas:
- Managing information (finding, storing and managing online information)
- Communicating (communicating digitally, interacting online)
- Transacting (shopping/selling online, managing finances digitally, registering for government services)
- Problem-solving (using online resources to learn and solve problems)
- Creating (basic content creation, such as writing a social media post)
For many of us, these are not particularly complex or challenging, but failure to learn them not only hurts the chance of a good job, but also financially impoverishes people. If they aren’t able to buy goods online, they may well end up paying more, while they will be increasingly cut off from family and friends. At the same time a significant number of people are being held back, such as by slow internet access speeds, poverty and a lack of technology.
To show the scale of the problem Go.On has created a digital heatmap of the country, which combines local factors (infrastructure, education, demographics), with the percentage of those with digital skills. This shows the areas that are at risk of being left behind – “digitally excluded” – in the future. What is stark when looking at the map is how few regions and local authorities are safe – the vast majority have a medium to high likelihood of exclusion.
The Go.On findings must act as a wake-up call and a way of focusing efforts on increasing digital skills. My concern is that there doesn’t seem to be one body responsible for this – it is left to a combination of local authorities, central/regional government, schools, colleges, charities and even the BBC. While everyone should be responsible for learning basic digital skills, it needs a co-ordinated effort to level the playing field. Otherwise the imbalance shown in the Go.On map will actually widen, rather than shrink, hurting both individual prospects and the overall economy. It is time for rapid government-led action, and it needs to happen quickly.
I’ve been in business for five years now, and things are going well. I’ve seen revenues for my PR agency grow every year, thanks to loyal clients and (if I say so myself) some wonderful work. Yet it was only when I saw how much corporation tax Facebook paid last year in the UK, that I realised exactly how well I was doing. Comparing our two tax bills, I’ve paid considerably more than the £4,327 Facebook shelled out in 2014. Therefore it stands to reason I must have made much more money than the social network, even if globally its profits were $2.9 billion. Its UK business must just be lagging behind the rest of operations – after all very few people use Facebook in this country.
Obviously this isn’t the case, and like companies from Starbucks to Google, Facebook has engineered its operations to minimise its tax bill. As a businessman myself I can understand this – but what I can’t understand is that it doesn’t take into account the reputational damage that results. After all, company filings are public documents that anyone can access, and there are enough people out there who know how to read a balance sheet and can therefore spot holes in a company’s story without needing to spend too much time investigating.
I even felt sorry for the poor PR spokesperson delegated to read out the anodyne statement that Facebook was compliant with UK law, and all staff paid income tax (how gracious!). Then I realised that the spokesperson was one of the 362 people that shared the £35.4m in bonuses that pushed Facebook’s corporation tax bill down so close to zero, and any sympathy evaporated.
On one hand companies talk about how important their brand, and brand values, are to their success, yet cheerfully spend their time undermining these very same values from within. Why? I think much of this comes from a fundamental disconnect between senior management and those responsible for public relations or brand reputation. They aren’t involved in senior-level decision making, meaning that no-one is pointing out the potential pitfalls of being seen as a poor corporate citizen. In an age of consumer power, the lack of a check on potential corporate skulduggery can prove fatal to a brand.
Ever since I’ve been in public relations, which is over 20 years, there have been calls for PR to have a seat on the board and to be more involved in setting strategy, rather than just delivering it. So why hasn’t it happened yet? Partly it comes down to PR’s own reputation, with the discipline seen as more Ab Fab than strategic, and limited in what it can achieve. The rise of digital and the increase in the importance of corporate reputation should have changed that, but my impression is that the overwhelming number of FTSE 100 companies still don’t have or seek senior level PR counsel until too late in the process.
It is therefore time for PR people to take a step up and build the business understanding that they need to communicate with other senior management. Talk their language, link campaigns and messages to business goals and objectives, and if necessary, scare the bejesus out of people by explaining the financial (and even judicial) consequences of not thinking through decisions or ignoring dubious practices. While Facebook’s tax policies haven’t hit its share price, just look at Volkswagen’s financial woes for an illustration of what happens when you cover up bad behaviour. Despite its US head admitting he was briefed on how the car maker could fool emissions tests in spring 2014, nothing was done to remedy the problem or to come clean.
Looking at the PR implications of business decisions shouldn’t just be limited to big companies with expensive communications departments. Every company has the potential to be caught out if it transgresses the brand values that it trumpets to the world. So whether you are an international social network or a local plumber, think through the PR consequences of your strategy, before you implement it, if you want to avoid potential long-lasting reputational damage.
October 14, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, PR, Social Media | corporate reputation, corporation tax, Facebook, FTSE 100 Index, Google, Measures Consulting, PR, Public Relations, Starbucks, tax, Volkswagen | Leave a comment
Amidst all the column inches written about the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, there are a couple of factors that people seem to be forgetting. True, he is probably now the most famous Jeremy in the country (according to an unscientific Google search I just carried out, links to stories about him outrank Clarkson and Kyle), but he is actually part of a wider protest movement across the Western world. Far left Greek party Syriza has just been re-elected, despite backtracking on its promises to free Greece from onerous bail-out terms. Spanish left wingers Podemos have also shown well in opinion polls while Catalan nationalists won a majority, albeit a slim one, in this week’s regional elections. Going back to the UK, look at the success of the Scottish Nationalists at the election and the continued high profile of Nigel Farage.
Across the pond, non-politicians such as Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina have been leading polls amongst Republicans, while Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as “the only elected socialist in Congress”, is keeping Hillary Clinton honest in the Democratic contest.
So why are voters across Europe and the United States supporting mavericks on the right and left, even if in many cases there is little chance that they will be able to carry out their policies?
No dead pig bounce
The easy answer is that they are sick of career politicians who seem keener on hanging onto power than actually connecting with voters. Many people think politics itself is broken. Even David Cameron’s alleged assignation with a dead pig just makes us shrug and doesn’t really impact his ratings either way. At the same time many people still don’t see the good times coming back after the recession – real wages in the UK are still below those of before the crash for many people, hurting confidence. Globalisation and the rise of ever-more intelligent computers is eating into traditional middle class occupations, causing uncertainty for those with skills that can be potentially automated or offshored.
Obviously, any alternative to this combination of depression and drabness has a chance to stand out from the crowd. And challenger politicians can get away with half-baked policies or even, as in the case of Donald Trump, a promise that he’ll come up with some “really good ideas” when he is elected.
But I think there is a more fundamental force at work – the internet and social media has completely changed how we consume our news and form our opinions. We live in Andy Warhol’s era of everyone being famous for 15 minutes, from a man captured on camera abusing a motorcyclist to celebrities reciting music lyrics with a Shakespearean twist.
What the likes of Corbyn and Trump share, despite their radically different views, share is a combination of solidity, outsider status and an ability to come up with inspiring (or eyecatching) soundbites that suit social media. They don’t appear stage managed but at the same time are reassuring while not being part of the establishment.
In many ways they are the start-ups of the political world, promising radical change to shake up a traditional market, in the same way that the likes of Google, Amazon and Uber have changed the industries they operate in. Perhaps voters believe that politics can be re-invented, just like retail and telecoms.
What will be interesting to see is how traditional politicians respond – will they continue to operate as before, like many of the companies that digital start-ups displaced, or can they re-invent themselves successfully and build a brand that fits with the internet electorate? Or will we see a new generation of less radical, but more social media savvy, politicians come through to replace the likes of Corbyn and Trump? One thing is for certain, in politics as in every other sector, those that cope best with today’s social, mobile world will be those that engage with voters and ultimately win their loyalty and power.
September 30, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | Amazon, Andy Warhol, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Catalonia, Clarkson, David Cameron, Donald Trump, Google, Jeremy Corbyn, Kyle, Podemos, Scottish Nationalists, social media, start up, Syriza, twitter | 1 Comment
Last week Facebook announced that on Monday 24th August 1 billion people logged into the social network. That’s 15% (almost one in seven) of the world’s population using Facebook in a 24 hour period. And given that over half of the globe still isn’t online, the percentage of actual versus potential users is actually much higher – closer to 33% of the 3.195 billion internet users.
The announcement begs three big questions:
1.Is it a good thing?
It is difficult to find a parallel in history for a single entity being used by so many people across the world. There have been monopolies in the past of course, particularly in telecoms before deregulation, but these operated at a country level, and you didn’t have a choice. You wanted to make a phone call and you had to use BT or AT&T. When it comes to control over how people communicate the only example that comes to mind is organised religion, such as the pre-Reformation Catholic Church where all of Europe was subservient to the Pope. As yet, Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t branded any Twitter users as heretics, for which we should obviously be grateful.
Critics will argue that having one company central to how we communicate with friends and family, find our news and even shop is a bad thing. On the other hand, Facebook fans will point out that you have a choice – other social networks are available and the past is littered with previously successful companies (such as MySpace) that failed to evolve. This does ignore the impact of the network effect – as more and more people are on Facebook, it becomes increasingly necessary to be on there if you don’t want to miss out. Technically it is very easy for anyone to create a new social network, what is difficult is enticing enough people to join to make it necessary for their friends to also jump aboard.
What is definitely true is that Facebook, like other international online giants, does need to scrutiny that matches its power and reach. I’m not talking about regulation per se, but any organisation that has Facebook’s combination of personal demographic data and ability to analyse it on a grand scale has to meet the highest standards of behaviour.
2.What about the other 85%?
The obvious point that many people have made is that if 1 billion people were on Facebook on a single day, the remainder of the world (85% in fact), were doing something different. As we’ve seen, Facebook has captured a large percentage of the online population, which is why the company’s efforts are being put into increasing the number of people with access to the internet in some form. Its main vehicle for getting people online is Internet.org, which provides free basic internet services in areas where it is either non-existent or unaffordable. Some of the ways Internet.org is looking to extend coverage include high altitude planes beaming a signal to a particular area, lasers and satellite technologies. However Internet.org has attracted criticism for only providing access to a walled garden of services, including (surprise surprise) Facebook itself.
Clearly if Facebook is to grow it is easier to expand the pie of internet users and reach the currently unconnected, rather than target the refuseniks in countries where it already enjoys high penetration rates. Expect more efforts to extend internet access – probably not just within developing countries but also within ‘notspots’ inside existing markets, thereby encouraging people to use the service even more.
3.Where next for Facebook?
Facebook has already overcome two major hurdles that have defeated its rivals. It has successfully transitioned to a mobile-first world (87% of access is from mobile devices), and is generating growing profits. As well as extending its reach to new victims (sorry, consumers), it also needs to increase engagement – i.e. ensure people still log on and use the service, and do it more often and for longer. The big bet that Zuckerberg has made here is on virtual reality, with the $2 billion purchase of Oculus VR expected to spawn headsets that deepen the experience of using Facebook and interacting with your friends. This, for me, is where things start to get more than a little creepy – if people are addicted to Facebook now, just imagine the time they’ll spend online if they can essentially experience reality without leaving their screen. Plus, with the current size and design of headsets, everyone will look like they are part of Daft Punk.
So, to answer my three questions, I’d say we should be wary about Facebook’s might, keep an eye on its efforts to reach the other 85% to ensure there is a level playing field when it comes to access, and be sceptical about the advantages virtual reality can actually bring us. After all, you could just pick up the phone and talk or, heaven forbid, chat to someone down the pub……
September 2, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, Social Media | BT, Daft Punk, Facebook, Internet.org, Mark Zuckerberg, Measures Consulting, MySpace, Oculus, Oculus Rift, social media, Social network, twitter, Virtual reality | 1 Comment
Like anything, buying a new car has positive and negative parts to the journey. The excitement of choosing and test driving a shiny new vehicle has to be balanced with haggling with a salesman in a dealership and painfully avoiding the add-ons and extra warranties that they want to burden you with (and co-incidentally give them a bigger commission than on the car itself).
Yet, the internet was meant to remove middlemen and enable us to deal direct with the producer. It has worked in industries such as travel, where package holiday companies have had to reinvent themselves in an era of cheap flights, AirBnB and TripAdvisor. But for bigger ticket purchases we still rely on car dealers and estate agents rather than dealing directly with manufacturers or those selling their house.
The end of middlemen?
So why are these middlemen still here and will they survive for much longer? After all, most buyers now read car reviews online, check manufacturer videos on YouTube, get information on options from websites, and can arrange finance quickly at the click of a mouse. No wonder that the average number of dealers that buyers visit when purchasing a new car has dropped from 5 to 1.6 in the US over the last ten years. As in a lot of fields, more and more research is carried out online without needing to interact with anyone, let alone a sweaty dealer in an ill-fitting suit.
Illustrating this trend, upstart electric car company Tesla is looking to go direct to customers in the US, cutting out dealers altogether. Other manufacturers are trying more limited experiments with special editions sold online only or dealerships remodelled to be more like the Apple Store, with advisors providing information and help, but no hard sell.
The pace of technology change within the car also threatens to make the dealer obsolete. Modern cars are computers on wheels, streaming data back to the manufacturer and able to refresh their operating system remotely without human (or mechanic) intervention. Tesla regularly updates the software on its car over the air– with an upgrade in January 2015 improving the performance of its Model S, meaning it can match the acceleration of a McLaren MP4-12C.
However as a recent piece in The Economist points out, changing the system will be difficult. Dealers are a powerful lobby, and while they don’t make much money on each new car they sell, the ancillary products and ongoing servicing relationship can be extremely lucrative. It also provides buyers with the opportunity to get a better deal by haggling between rival garages – if you have the inclination to do so.
I think that there are more basic reasons for any middleman, whether a car dealer or travel agent, to survive – adding value, trust and ease. These are important concepts for any company in the digital age to embrace and it is worth looking at your business with these in mind.
1. Adding value
With the vast majority of information now a Google search away on the internet, and prices displayed for everyone to see, do you really add value or are you a hindrance to the process? Again, the Apple Store is a good example to follow. You can buy your iPad from one of a hundred shops or websites, but the help you receive and the ability to get your questions answered in a positive, unpatronising way naturally leads people to the Apple Store.
Do consumers trust you? Or more to the point, do they trust you more than the manufacturer you represent? One of the factors I think will hold back the demise of dealerships is that consumers trust car makers less. You only have to look at botched recalls and unreported faults to see why. Car makers are also much more distant than your local dealership, making it difficult to build a relationship of trust. That’s not to say dealers are safe – they regularly top polls of least trustworthy occupations, but in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
People have to do more and more with less and less time. In many ways the internet has made us more time-poor. Whereas before a holiday could be booked by marching into the travel agency and asking what they had available, it now takes hours of internet research, comparing the relative locations of villas on Google Maps and poring over TripAdvisor reviews. Those middlemen that still have a place recognise that they need to make things easy, providing a helpful service that cuts down the time you need to spend and removes roadblocks from the customer journey, without charging the earth.
Looking at your own business, do you meet these three criteria? If not, it is time to change, before pressure from consumers and manufacturers squeezes you out of the market.
August 26, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Marketing, Social Media, Startup | Apple, Apple Store, car dealer, Google, Google Search, McLaren, Measures Consulting, middlemen, Tesla, TripAdvisor, YouTube | Leave a comment
Why Revolutionary Measures?
Marketing is undergoing a revolution. The advent of social media provides the opportunity for one-to-one communication for the first time since the move to an industrial society. This blog will look at what this means for B2B PR and marketing, incorporating my own thoughts/rants and interests. Do let me know your feedback!
About meI'm Chris Measures and I've spent the last 18 years creating and implementing PR and marketing campaigns for technology companies. I've worked with everyone from large quoted companies to fast growth start-ups, giving me unrivalled experience and ideas. I'm now director of Measures Consulting, an agency that uses this expertise to deliver PR and marketing success for technology businesses.
- @beckyhall210 It is a clear case of the cobbler's children - too busy doing PR for other people than to do it for ourselves! 1 day ago
- @beckyhall210 @CIPR_EastAnglia My pleasure! 1 day ago
- Is PR changing at last? - my blog on the @CIPR_EastAnglia conference via @LinkedIn linkedin.com/pulse/pr-chang… 1 day ago
- RT @TheDukeOfYork: Congratulations to @Raspberry_Pi on the launch of #PiZero - The Duke has been Patron of The Foundation since 2014 https… 2 days ago
- Is PR finally changing? My blog on the @CIPR_EastAnglia conference measuresconsulting.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/is-… #AdvancingPR 3 days ago
advertising Amazon Android Apple ARM Artificial intelligence Autonomy Barack Obama BBC BBC Micro big data BT Business Cambridge Cambridge Judge Business School Cambridge University CfEL Chris Measures Creativity Daily Mail David Cameron Digital Ed Miliband Education Edward Snowden Entrepreneur European Union Facebook FIFA Google government IBM Idea Transform innovation Intel internet Internet of Things iPad IPhone Journalism Journalist LinkedIn London Malcolm Tucker marketing Mark Zuckerberg Measures Consulting Microsoft mobile MySpace Nick Clegg Nokia Norwich PayPal PR Privacy Public Relations Raspberry Pi Silicon Fen Silicon Valley Smartphone social media Social network Starbucks startup Tech City Technology The Economist twitter United States University of Cambridge WhatsApp World Cup YouTube ZX Spectrum