Revolutionary Measures

Marketing in the rental economy

When I was growing up it was common to rent a TV – they were expensive items and not everyone could afford to pay for one up front. But as prices dropped renting became the preserve of students and then seemed to disappear.

However the whole idea of a rental economy is back, just rebranded to on-demand. Take TVs again – given the price of a high end one, and the speed at which new innovations are coming through, renting provides the flexibility to always have access to the latest model without spending thousands. Why amass a collection of CDs when you can essentially rent them via Spotify or other streaming services? Looking at transport, many cars are now bought on credit deals that essentially mean you are paying a monthly rental to the manufacturer – and that’s before you look at the likes of Uber and Lyft. There are even websites in the US that let you rent high end furniture for your house or office.

512px-For-rent-sign

Speaking as a hoarder that wants to have that physical CD or book and to know they are mine (even if they then sit on the shelf after being digitised or read), I see limits to the rental economy. But I know I’m increasingly in a minority and a combination of the flexibility of on-demand and the fact that major purchases such as cars and TVs are often outside the budgets of many people mean rental is here to stay.

So what does this mean for marketing? I think there are three main things to focus on:

1.Need to keep customers loyal
Brands know that customers are now more demanding and less loyal than in the past. But the on-demand economy means that rather than simply switching supermarket or type of toothpaste they can equally change every brand that they deal with. Therefore you need to continually focus on keeping customers satisfied and consequently loyal – otherwise they will simply head to the competition.

2.Use the data to innovate
Digitisation means that brands in the on-demand economy have an enormous amount of data about their customers. Whether that is Uber knowing where you have taken cabs or Netflix having a record of what you watched, this information is all available. Rightly customers are wary about what brands do with this data, but surveys show that if it is used to improve the service and products they receive in ways that benefit them, it makes them more loyal to a company or service. So analyse this big data and use it to innovate and differentiate against competitors.

3.Brand is key
There are many factors that affect why consumers choose particular brands, including price and the choice of products that they offer. However in the on-demand economy, where the majority of interactions are digital, brand is a key part of the decision. For a start if they’ve not heard of your company they aren’t going to consider buying from you – and more importantly still if your brand gains a poor reputation sales will suffer. Uber is the perfect example of this – well-publicised scandals at the company led many users to switch to rivals, hitting its market share and revenues. Such is the pace of the on-demand economy that pretty much every company has a rival, often selling similar services at similar prices, meaning that building and safeguarding your brand is crucial to long-term success.

Digitisation is radically changing how we buy and consume products and services, with many moving away from outright ownership to a rental model. Brands must change how they focus their marketing efforts if they want to win, and more importantly retain, customers – or they risk being left behind by on-demand competitors.

August 23, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Artificial Intelligence kill creativity?

Listening to the news recently, one of Microsoft’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers was extolling the virtues of the technology, and how it could help humans. Many of the examples mentioned – such as using machine learning to analyse millions of medical cases to alert doctors to symptoms they might have missed and describing the world around them to the blind, all have a clear benefit to society, as does the ability to understand conversations and use the knowledge to improve customer experience.

Artificial Intelligence Programming Robot Ai Ki

However, the interview then turned to how AI is being incorporated into Microsoft Office, where it will be used to help ‘improve’ the documents that we write, and the presentations that we create. And that’s where I began to get worried. Everyone has a personal style when it comes to writing, and while some mistakes are obvious (such as spelling and punctuation), ‘correcting’ what we write so that it fits with what is seen as good by an algorithm worries me a lot. I do a lot of writing for clients and each one has its own, individual style, dependent on who it is aimed at, the message I’m trying to get across and the medium being used. How can a machine understand this? I’ve already switched off the grammar checker on Word as it always seems to recommend using shorter words and shorter sentences, even if they don’t give the impact I’m looking for.

It also made me think of the impact on overall creativity. Through the ages writers have developed their own unique styles, often going against the current orthodoxy to stand out from the crowd. Imagine e.e. cummings poems with all the words capitalised, or Marcel Proust sentences shortened so that they don’t stretch over multiple pages. Or the fact that computers don’t seem to yet understand puns and double entendres, removing the humour from documents.

In short, the risk is that we end up with bland, homogeneous copy produced by everyone. It may be understandable by a 10 year old, and meet all SEO requirements but it doesn’t have real impact, and the good doesn’t stand out from the average. To my mind that doesn’t help anyone – amidst all the worries about AI and robots taking over the world, I think we need to start with its effect on creativity. Perhaps it is time to go back to pen and paper?

Photo via Max Pixel http://maxpixel.freegreatpicture.com/Artificial-Intelligence-Programming-Robot-Ai-Ki-2167835

July 19, 2017 Posted by | Creative, Marketing | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If a tree falls on Twitter……

The launch of CNN, back in 1980, ushered in the era of the 24 hour rolling news cycle. No longer did people have to wait for their morning papers or the 10pm TV news to find out what was happening in the world. And this had an impact on the news itself – rather than having to schedule events and press conferences to fit around journalists’ schedules, organisations could be confident that reporters would be available (and coverage would result) pretty much throughout the day. On the flipside unscrupulous PRs couldn’t try and sneak out bad news, knowing that it was just too late for print deadlines and would be out of date 24 hours later.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The internet obviously accelerated the news cycle, making it even faster and more constant. You didn’t need to be watching CNN or other 24 hours news channels to see the latest stories, opening up access to everyone with a smartphone. It also allowed a wider range of media to reach people – you didn’t need to be a TV station or a major newspaper to break a story, you could be a citizen journalist or simply someone who was in the same place as a breaking news story. Essentially this democratised the reporting process. It became difficult for governments and corporations to spike negative stories as, hydra-headed, they simply popped up elsewhere.

We’re now in the midst of the next news cycle, focused on social media. As soon as something happens it is pored over on Twitter and Facebook, with both the public and experts giving their views. If previous news cycles were one reporter/media outlet to many readers or viewers this is essentially any to any – going beyond democracy to the text book definition of anarchy (‘without a ruler’).

In many ways this is a good thing, as it opens up the debate to multiple voices, many of whom have traditionally not been heard. But it drives three big issues that I believe threaten the integrity of how we get the information that shapes our world view and actions:

1. Who do you trust?
Major news organisations have a brand that their readers/viewers trust. They know what to expect when reading a story on The Sun compared to the Daily Mirror or the New York Times compared to Fox News. However, in the anarchic world of social media anyone can post ‘news’ or comments that are inaccurate or knowingly untrue. This fake news can be mischievous, misleading or designed to push a specific agenda, and is very hard to stamp out in the instant world of the internet. And the rise of fake news risks people tarring every news organisation with the same brush – we’ve all seen politicians describing as ‘fake’ stories that they simply disagree with.

2. Who shouts loudest, gets heard
Whether it is the distance that social media provides, polarisation of views or simply that the world is getting nastier, the amount of abuse and trolling on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook seems to be ever-increasing. Just this week Viscount St. Davids was found guilty of making menacing communications against Gina Miller, who led a legal challenge that forced the government to consult Parliament on Brexit. Amongst other abuse he offered £5,000 in a Facebook post to anyone that would run over Ms Miller. Parliament itself is holding a debate on the abuse suffered by MPs and candidates of both parties in the recent election campaign.

What seems to typify all of these communications is that people appear happy to say things online that they wouldn’t to someone’s face, and that very often it involves men abusing women, often in sexual terms, for daring to disagree with their views. The sheer weight of such trolling stifles honest debate and ultimately puts people off sharing their thoughts and opinions, or even self-censoring what they write.

3. Knee jerk reactions lead to instant actions
When stories break the true facts are often unclear. Whereas traditional news organisations would then take the time to research events and wouldn’t jump to conclusions the opposite is true on social media. People make immediate judgements and share them with the world, and the sheer force of tweets and messages can then shape the news agenda. A case in point is the recent disqualification of cyclist Peter Sagan from the Tour de France, for his involvement in a crash that forced Mark Cavendish out of the race. The race jury first gave him a lesser punishment, but then seemed to be swayed by the force of anti-Sagan anger on social media, changing their minds and throwing him out of the race. Taking time to study events in more detail would have led to a less knee jerk reaction, but it often feels that people believe they have to react instantly, without the full facts, leading to decisions that don’t necessarily stand up to future scrutiny.

The social media news cycle has undoubtedly delivered major benefits – it helped drive the Arab Spring for example. But its sheer anarchy means that everyone, from politicians and PRs to the general public, needs to think before they tweet if we are to have a fair, honest and unbiased discussion of news on social media.

Photo: By Tiia Monto (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

July 12, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Royal PR should be a model for us all

A few weeks ago I talked about the breakdown of trust between the public and traditional institutions, be they the media, government or business. Yet arguably the most traditional institution of all – the British monarchy – is actually bucking the trend and engaging and resonating with the public more than ever. From the Queen visiting those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire to Princes William and Harry talking openly about mental illness, the Royals are increasingly seen as understanding, and empathising with, the mood of the country. This is in stark contrast to current political turmoil where the Prime Minister seems too scared to engage, while her cabinet squabbles around her. The Queen even seemingly managed to get a cheeky shot in about Brexit, wearing an EU blue hat with flowers resembling stars to open parliament.Queen Elizabeth

It is worth noting that it hasn’t always been like this. At the time of Princess Diana’s death the Royal family, particularly the Queen and Prince Philip, was seen as outdated and out of touch, hidebound by protocol and simply unable to understand the mood of the country and the wider world. That led to a major change around in how the Windsors approached PR, which has evolved into the machine that we see today, which is driven by four key factors:

1. Trust
We are in an age where there is a breakdown in trust, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t want to believe in someone or something. In fact, many are desperate to find somewhere to put their trust that isn’t going to let them down. The monarchy fills this space admirably, seen as working hard while taking the time to listen and engage with people’s concerns.

2. Range
The sheer size of the Royal family, and the number of generations it contains, mean that there are a range of characters and ages for different people to identify with. From the Queen and Prince Philip through Charles and Camilla down to Harry, William, Kate and their children there is someone for everyone to support, trust and relate to, dependent on their views and age.

3. Impartiality
I’m not comparing the Queen to Donald Trump, but in the same way that he has a multimillion dollar fortune to fall back on, so has she. That means she is seen as generally impartial, without an agenda or wider policies to push. I think many in the US see Trump in the same way, even if he definitely does have an agenda/ego driving his actions. This ability to be independent means the Queen is above politics and doesn’t get drawn into a blame game around events such as Grenfell.

4. Vulnerability
In the past the monarchy was seen as aloof and simply not affected by outside events. Since Diana’s death that has changed and it has opened up, demonstrating that the Royals are human too. The younger princes have discussed their mother’s death and the impact on their own mental health, while the continued illnesses of the Duke of Edinburgh has led to widespread sympathy for the Queen, who, after all, is 91 herself. We empathise with humans, and the Royal family continues to show that despite their wealth and power they are human too.

What lessons can communicators draw from this? I think the biggest is to take a long-term view. The reputation of the British monarchy was at an all-time low after the death of Diana, with many questioning their continued role. Rather than a knee-jerk reaction, the institution has changed how it operates, and in particular how it communicates, giving individuals more freedom to talk about the topics that they feel passionate about, all within an overarching framework that demonstrates empathy, authenticity and value for their audience. It may not be perfect, but other communicators looking to build genuine trust should see what they can learn from the Royal family’s success.

 

Photo Nasa/Bill Ingalls via Wikipedia http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/queen_egress_8.html

July 5, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why technology companies have to play by different rules now

In the 1970s and 1980s the business world was dominated by big oil companies, with energy giants becoming the largest corporations in terms of market capitalisation. These were followed by banks and financial services in the 1990s and early 2000s. All of this has changed – the world’s five largest public companies are now Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook, with upstarts such as Uber leading the way when it comes to unlisted businesses.

pexels-photo-239898

As they’ve grown these tech giants have expanded dramatically in what they do and the range of services they offer, demonstrated recently by Amazon buying offline upmarket grocery retailer Whole Foods. Essentially they’ve gone from being niche players, albeit in particular sectors such as search or retailing, to offering a panoply of interconnected services that constantly affect our daily lives – and in many markets they are essentially a monopoly, due to the power of network effects.

Much of what they do is invisible to the consumers that use their services – for example the majority of people don’t question why they are served particular search results, ads or news on Google or Facebook. Hence this week’s record $2.7bn fine imposed by the EU on Google for promoting its shopping comparison service to the top of search results.

Is fast too fast?
They’ve also often operated independently of existing rules, working to the Silicon Valley mantra “move fast and break things”. This has driven a huge amount of innovation, but has also led to behaviour that many find either reprehensible or even illegal. In 2014 Facebook’s UK operation paid considerably less corporation tax than my two person PR consultancy, for example.

Uber is a perfect case in point, with many countries banning its operations as its drivers don’t meet local taxi licensing regulations, set up to protect the public. Add in ongoing scandals around sexual harassment that have led to the departure of CEO Travis Kalanick and the overriding impression is of a company culture that focused on aggressive expansion at the expense of its people or the wider world. And Uber isn’t alone – the low number of Silicon Valley founders and VCs that are female or from ethnic minorities has raised eyebrows about the ethos behind the world’s largest tech firms.

Why does this matter now? Simply that the power of tech firms has increased dramatically at the same time as the complexity of their operations has deepened. At the same time, many people around the world feel left behind by the pace of technology and digital disruption, whether it is in the work or home lives, leading to a potential polarisation between the tech savvy and the tech illiterate. These worries haven’t driven people to populist politicians like Donald Trump on their own, but have added to a mood of not being in control amongst many citizens around the world.

Reading the papers, the number of bad things happening on the internet, from simple fraud to terrorist plotting, seems to be increasing exponentially, although whether this is true or is just the result of better reporting is a matter for debate. Whatever the cause it has led to calls for greater regulation and control by national governments over cyberspace.

Altogether this means that tech companies are facing an existential threat. While they are delivering record profits and driving ever-greater innovation they are now central to everyone’s lives and are therefore under ever increasing scrutiny, from governments and the public. Hence the call from Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn for the tech community to sign a Decency Pledge, looking to stamp out sexist behaviour and sexual harassment, particularly amongst venture capitalists in relation to the founders of businesses that they fund. It is a start, but I think any Decency Pledge needs to go a lot further and cover all behaviour, and how it is communicated. Tech giants can’t hide behind complexity any more – they need to communicate openly and operate transparently if they want to win back public trust. Time for the old Google motto “Do no evil” to be resurrected…………

 

June 28, 2017 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why PR needs to turn around its reputation

13911715043_e32a972f78_zPublic relations has never had a higher profile, but not necessarily for positive reasons. Whether seen as aiming to control the image of celebrities, trying to keep corporate misdeeds out of the press or using political spin to get a particular message across, I’d say that public perception of the industry is actually worsening.

Given that PR people have always been focused on controlling the message why is the profession’s reputation deteriorating? I think there are three key reasons:

1. Chaos is growing
As I say PR is about portraying your company/client/celebrity in a positive light. The problem is that this revolves around people – and people are inherently random and chaotic. So PRs have to constantly balance on a tightrope, trying to plan and control the message in a world where things fall apart. The advent of social media has simply increased this chaos – it is easy for anyone to start a rumour or undermine your story through Twitter and Facebook. Witness the fact that just this week a fake Daily Mail front cover calling for Theresa May to resign went viral on social media, despite the fact that it was an obvious forgery shared by a Twitter user called Lying Tory Media.

PR people feel that they have to be constantly on their guard. And this naturally means that they focus on control and defence rather than positive engagement. After all, it is technically safer to turn down an interview opportunity, even with a high profile media outlet, if there is any risk of it going wrong. This isn’t a long-term strategy, but the speed of the communications landscape can mean people don’t have the time to think long-term.

2. Trust is diminishing
We’ve all seen the figures that show that people trust the organisations around them – be they politicians, the media, companies or other authority figures less and less. The latest Edelman Trust Barometer, which came out in January 2017, found that government was the least trusted institution in 14 countries, and CEO credibility had dropped to an all-time low of 37 percent. It wouldn’t surprise me if trust has fallen even further since then.

There is a widespread belief amongst many groups that the system has failed people and that the sheer pace of technological and social change is not benefiting everyone equally. This lack of trust means that PR people have to go the extra mile in order to build credibility with ever-more sceptical audiences. And again, it is easier to plan to be defensive – why risk Theresa May meeting real people on her election campaign when you can organise a backdrop of supporters to get your message across?

3. We’re becoming more tribal
I’ve mentioned this before, but populations are polarising into self-contained segments. If you live in a community that is made up of people like you, interact online with the same group and don’t talk to those with different views it is easy to build up a biased world view. Throughout history leaders have focused their tribes or countries by uniting them against an Other, whether that is a rival monarch, country or religion. A similar thing is happening now online, but generally without clear leaders, Donald Trump being an obvious exception.

PR people, particularly on the political side, are becoming focused on appealing to their segment – essentially they feel they don’t need to worry about the Other. Whatever they do opponents will criticise them, so why bother with trying to reach out to them? This does put some PRs on a slippery slope towards propaganda and fake news. No wonder that 73% of public relations professionals polled in a recent survey said that the current White House communications team is negatively impacting the industry’s public perception. But even here tribal loyalties seem to be in play – 15.1% of the sample identified themselves as conservatives, and a similar percentage (15.7%) said the White House comms team “is treated unfairly by the media”.

Public relations finds itself at a crossroads. On one hand the communications, writing and content distribution skills it is centred on have never been more important to business. Yet, the risk is that the sheer pace of change means they retreat into a defensive, safe mode that undermines their credibility. For everyone’s sake, now is the time for PR people to become more strategic, counselling clients to see the bigger picture in order to rebuild trust and unite their audiences for the greater good.

Image Jeff Eaton via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/nckbcV licensed under Creative Commons

June 21, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why good communication starts with listening

What do Theresa May and British Airways have in common? Obviously they’ve both recently been in the news, for the PM’s failed election gamble and the airline’s IT outage that ruined Bank Holiday flights for thousands of people.

Theresa May

But what really links them in my mind is their poor approach to communications, specifically failing to listen before trying to launch their message to their audiences. In the case of Theresa May she persisted with meaningless slogans such as “strong and stable government”, despite feedback from the public that it was sick to death of hearing it – and indeed was fed up of the election more generally. And when she did U-turn on areas such as the dementia tax she failed to acknowledge that she’d made a mistake. In their crisis, British Airways took too long to respond fully or demonstrate any empathy with its stranded passengers.

Neither of these are alone in their mistakes, and they all come from a fundamentally old-fashioned approach to communications. This is that whatever they say (or don’t say) people will listen and automatically believe them, giving them the benefit of the doubt and feeling that they are putting them first. While this may have worked in the past, it treats the public as fools, ignoring both their growing scepticism and the fact that they can easily share their views on channels such as social media.

The balance of power has shifted between companies/politicians and the public – it is becoming much more equal. This means that communicators need to do three things:

1.Test messages first
When you come up with a new idea, you need to see how it resonates with the people that will be on the receiving end. Don’t just sit in a bubble full of those that support you or your policies. Test it with your actual audiences – whether voters, passengers or the general public. Plan for everything that can go wrong. The idea of the Devil’s Advocate – someone who will cross-check and aim to pick holes in an argument is a good one. By listening you can find any gaps in your strategy and plug them before it is too late. I can’t believe that BA tested its crisis plan on any passengers before it had to use it for example or that May’s Dementia Tax was run past anyone outside a small inner circle before making it into the Tory manifesto.

2. Listen to feedback
People want a dialogue, not to be preached at. So you need to show you are open to listening to their views and engaging with them, even after a plan or policy has been officially launched. The era of one way communications is over – you have to listen to feedback and use it constructively if you want to build relationships.

3. Be honest
One of the biggest issues with the Tory U-turn on the dementia tax and even holding the election itself was not being honest about changing a position. No-one, particularly politicians, wants to admit that they are wrong, but there are times when it is the honest way forward, and demonstrates strength rather than weakness. Otherwise you find yourself in a much deeper hole later on – as the PM is discovering now.

We now live in a news cycle driven by social media, meaning anyone (from Donald Trump down), can question your communications, at any time. This means that PR people need to ensure that they have planned everything rigorously, show that they are listening, and be prepared to change in response to dialogue. Only then will they win and retain public trust for the long term.

Photo Policy Exchange via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/hkNLMs licensed under Creative Commons

June 14, 2017 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Fake news – are we on the road to 1984?

For a term that most people hadn’t heard of 18 months ago, fake news is now mainstream. A simple Google search on the term turns up 145,000,000 results, 28,900,000 in the news section. Originally coined to cover clickbait stories written with the intent to mislead for political or financial gain, it has now been hijacked by the likes of Donald Trump, one of its key beneficiaries, to describe any story that he disagrees with.

Donald Trump

Misleading the public has always been a tactic used by leaders, with propaganda used to push a particular point of view, especially in times of war. Additionally, many newspapers have run sensational stories to attract readers – witness the New York Sun publishing stories about life on the moon in 1835.

George Orwell’s 1984 shows how the combination of propaganda and mass-media communications can be used to control the population and condition what they actually think and believe. And for those that dismiss that as a fantasy, I’d say that fake news in the digital age actually goes even further, for three reasons:

1. We live in an ungated world
In the past people got their news from a limited range of sources such as newspapers, TV and radio. All of these employed professional journalists to sift and check facts before they reached their audiences. This meant that while they may have been biased to left or right, or even stretch the truth, they had to meet journalistic standards. Now, in the digital world anyone can be a publisher, without needing any training – opinions and stories go direct to the public, particularly through social media, without any guarantee of quality. At the same time trust in traditional institutions (politicians, journalists and companies) has broken down, meaning people are actively looking at other sources for their information.

2. We live in a polarised world
Social media encourages people to cluster with those of similar beliefs, limiting our world view and therefore reinforcing it. During the European Referendum, for example, liberal Remainers just saw tweets supporting their stance on Twitter, leading to a sense of real shock when the result went the other way. When we’re in our bubbles on social media we’re more likely to click on, forward or believe in fake news if it plays to our particular beliefs – especially if it appears to be endorsed by someone we trust.

3. We live in a world with short attention spans
How many times have you seen a headline, read it but not bothered to click through for the full story? In my case pretty often. There simply doesn’t seem time to read news stories in-depth or in-detail. At the same time attention spans are shortening and people quickly move onto the next thing, meaning it is easy to confuse fake and real news.

So what can be done to fight fake news? It is easy to blame Facebook and its algorithms, shadowy websites that make money through adverts that run alongside fake stories or even politicians such as Donald Trump who know exactly the lies that they are peddling. However, I think responsibility goes further than this:

  • PR people and the companies they represent have to think through the stories that they issue – putting a positive spin on something is one thing, but be sure that you’re not crossing the line into untruths.
  • Politicians need to be more careful in what they say – perhaps backed up by an independent regulator that immediately investigates and pronounces on dubious statistics, such as the alleged £350m per week paid to the EU that was splashed on Vote Leave buses during the referendum.
  • As consumers we need to learn that not everything you read online is true, and that we are not in a cosy world where every story is meticulously fact-checked. We need to look for sources, think before we share and broaden our world views to try and understand the wider context of the new reality.

Otherwise the fake news we’ve seen already will just be the start, and we’ll be moving swiftly down the road to a version of 1984 that sees propaganda winning and trust between groups and communities completely disappearing. And that is in no-one’s long term interest – not even Donald Trump’s.

June 7, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Can you make your PR campaign strong and stable? 4 communication lessons from the General Election

 

With well under a month to the General Election the parties various communication strategies are becoming clearer. As I said in a previous blog, this won’t be a social media election, but that isn’t stopping politicians from adopting new techniques to reach voters. The aim is to control the message, and drum it into the electorate, even if that means repeating ‘strong and stable leadership’ ad nauseum.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APolling_station_6_may_2010.jpg

There are four key tactics that are emerging – and could serve as PR lessons for other communicators:

1.Go for the low hanging fruit
Essentially politicians are trying to duck the tough questions – although in the case of Diane Abbott she seems to be succeeding in making easy questions difficult. That means Theresa May popping up on The One Show, along with her husband, to discuss such key facts as who takes the bins out, while at the same time saying she won’t take part in a TV leadership debate. Instead, she’ll appear alongside Jeremy Corbyn, but not in a head to head.

While it is difficult for businesspeople to follow this strategy to the letter and duck tough media appearances, it should serve as a blueprint for showing your human side if you want to demonstrate that you are just a normal person, with interests and passions beyond your job.

2. Go where the audience is
It isn’t an election that will be won or lost on social media, but that doesn’t mean the channels can’t be used to get the message out there. The Prime Minister took part in a Facebook Live event with ITV News, essentially reaching an audience in the easiest manner for them. In reality there’s no difference between Facebook Live and a televised phone-in – as proved by Jeremy Corbyn trying to hijack the event by sending in a question himself. It is simply a question of going where the audience is – something that chief executives should also bear in mind.

3. Exploit the system
Once an election is declared, impartiality rules kick in for broadcasters. Covering TV and radio (down to community stations), they mean that no one party should be favoured, personal political preferences shouldn’t be aired by presenters and due weight is given to the larger parties. What this means in practice is that over the course of a bulletin, all major parties must receive airtime – and it must be presented in an unbiased manner. Hence the huge amount of effort put into campaigning in front of the camera, with politicians criss-crossing the country to launch manifestos and policies. In contrast, newspapers are free to add as much comment as they like, making politicians much warier of them.

Again, I’m not suggesting that PR people try and break the rules when it comes to getting their clients in front of the media, but understanding how different types of media work is vital to providing them with a story that works for them, and their audience.

4. Prepare and leave nothing to chance
The biggest lesson for all PR people from this election is the importance of preparation and planning. In terms of the Conservatives every appearance is carefully stage-managed, even down to allegedly shutting reporters in a room when Mrs May did a factory visit so they couldn’t film her and bussing in activists to serve as the audience in community centre visits. This level of planning doesn’t quite extend to Labour. As well as Diane Abbott’s series of car-crash interviews, the party manifesto was leaked with Jeremy Corbyn subsequently pulling out of launching its poster campaign to deal with the issue. And his driver then accidentally ran over a BBC cameraman’s foot.

You shouldn’t follow the Conservative strategy to the letter, and indeed being too polished can be detrimental to your message. However ensuring you have set detailed objectives, have the right messages, plan how you are going to deliver them and are fully prepared is more likely to project the image you want to be known for, rather than seeming to be continually running to catch up. As the election unfolds, expect to hear the words “strong and stable” a lot more………………

Photo by secretlondon123 (originally posted to Flickr as Polling station) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

May 17, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Making PR meaningful with proper measurement

In a couple of weeks I’m co-leading a session on measurement at the CIPR East Anglia Best PRactice Conference in Cambridge. Preparing for the event led me to think in a bit more detail about PR/marketing and measurement. I vividly remember one of my first jobs as an account executive was to physically cut out and spraymount coverage from magazines onto enormous boards, ready to be shown off at client review meetings. It would always be left until the last minute, you’d never be able to find the right articles and ineffective spraying often meant articles peeled off in transit to the client’s offices. But they were normally happy, so we moved onto the next quarter unscathed.Measurement_unit

In many ways that example typifies what PR measurement used to be about. Bodge it together and make it look good enough to get through the review meeting and everyone would be happy. No wonder that many agencies loved the idea of using Advertising Value Equivalent (AVEs). Look up the cost of advertising in the print magazine, multiply it by a number to denote that editorial coverage was more believable than advertising and even the most anaemic PR campaign appeared to be delivering a wonderful return on investment. There was no real measurement of outcomes and the impact of PR on the business or its objectives.

Thankfully, this attitude is changing fast, even if many agencies (and clients) still try to hang onto AVEs and measurement by the ‘thunk factor’ – the pleasingly loud noise a packed coverage book makes when it lands on the CEO’s desk. The rise of digital channels, where everything is measurable, pressure on budgets and the decline of straight media relations means that PR professionals have had to move on. So how should agencies approach measurement and what are the benefits of new approaches?

Firstly, I’d say there are four advantages to more grown-up measurement:

  1. It demonstrates the business value of our work and how it impacts the organisation
  2. It safeguards budgets as it shows the contribution of PR to the bottom line
  3. PR people can get more involved strategically in the company and its objectives, rather than simply churning out press releases
  4. Frankly, it is more interesting – you get to see what an organisation is trying to achieve and then come up with a measurable way of helping to deliver objectives.

So, where do you start? The good news is that there is plenty of information available, starting with AMEC’s Barcelona Principles on measurement. There are also multiple frameworks available to help PR professionals to put in place measurement for their campaigns and programmes.

However, they can look daunting and difficult to apply to your particular circumstances. Clients may not want to pay for measurement in addition to your consultancy fees, and, let’s face it, new ways of measuring aren’t as easy as counting pieces of coverage or sticking them in a book.

That’s the challenge that the CIPR Conference workshop on 23 May will try to help people overcome. Along with Laura Bagshaw of Norfolk Constabulary and Penny Arbuthnot of Genesis PR, I’ll be discussing how evaluation can be part of every campaign, large or small, public or private sector. You don’t need to be a CIPR member to attend the event and there’s a star-studded line-up of speakers to entertain, educate and intrigue you. More details at https://ciprea.org/conference/2017-2/2017s-programme/. I hope to see you there!

Image by Gowolves109 (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Measurement_unit.jpg

 

May 10, 2017 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment