Lessons on reaching a divided audience in marketing and PR

It feels like an understatement to say we live in turbulent, fractious times. And while previously the 24 hour news cycle may seem to have focused on trivia, now it’s a case of blink and you’ll miss something important. For example, we’ve just seen the shortest ever stint as prime minister, with Liz Truss famously outlasted by a supermarket lettuce.

Image by Amy S from Pixabay

There’s also a growing divergence when it comes to how people react to news – any statement or announcement seems to attract equal parts admiration and condemnation. Even introducing new, more sustainable, packaging for Quality Street chocolates has people up in arms. And, on the subject of lettuce, I’ve just seen people complain about a tweet put out by Lidl piggybacking on the PM’s resignation saying they are “disgusted” at the supermarket “feeling the need to do politics.”

It feels that everyone is a target for someone and that often crowds, particularly on social media, rapidly become a baying mob. So as marketers and PR people should we just accept this and forget trying to influence those who may not have a positive (or informed) view of our brand or product? To me, that feels like a wasted opportunity – if we only focus on people that like us, how do you spread your message or grow your sales?

Taking a step back, I’ve been thinking about people and brands that are universally admired, and what marketers can learn from them. The obvious example is the late Queen – even those against the concept of the monarchy itself saw her as someone genuinely dedicated to her role and serving the people. So, what can we learn from her reign? I think it comes down to four things:

1          Build a reputation through your actions

Even in her later, frailer years the Queen had a full programme of activities, criss-crossing the country (and the globe) to lend her support and presence to communities and groups. She was solid, dependable, and always there, while still willing to show humour (such as her skydive with James Bond at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics). That reputation meant that when the royal family did face challenges (such as around Charles’ divorce or the behaviour of Prince Andrew), there was a well of support to draw on that kept overall reputation positive.

2          Cultivate an air of mystery

Famously, the monarch’s role is not to share their opinions on any contentious issue. This means not getting involved in fast-moving events and allows them to cultivate an air of mystery. Essentially, everyone could believe that the Queen was on their side, and shared similar opinions as she acted as a mirror to reflect back their own thoughts. 

3          Listen and respond

Despite the widespread picture of the Queen as an unchanging figurehead, she was open to making tough decisions when circumstances required. Take stripping Prince Andrew of his official titles or removing Prince Harry from the working royal family. These were not decisions made lightly or as a knee-jerk reaction, but considered responses taken after gauging the mood of the country and overall public opinion.

4          Be everywhere

Like most people, for me the Queen was an omnipresent part of my life, who was always there, even if you weren’t actively paying attention to what she was doing. Of course, it helps if your picture is on the stamps, bank notes and coins, but you don’t need to be a monarch to demonstrate dependability and take a place in everyone’s lives. I think this was the reason, above all, for the tremendous outpouring of grief seen when she died – she had made herself part of everyone’s lives and her death left a gap.

To head off any criticism I’m not a particular royalist and clearly no brand has the unique attributes and position of the Queen. However, there are definitely lessons that can be learnt and applied to how we all market and communicate. Or would you rather be a lettuce?

Learning to keep your mouth shut – Prince Andrew

When it comes to public relations I’ve always advocated that people get out there and tell their side of the story. After all, nature/public opinion abhors a vacuum so will fill it with its own views if you don’t speak up.

But of course success depends on both what you say and how you say it, as Prince Andrew is currently finding out, following his recent BBC interview with Emily Maitlis. “Car crash” is probably the kindest description of the programme, which saw the Duke aim to address questions about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein amid claims that he had slept with a 17 year old girl introduced by Epstein.

My suspicion is that Andrew wanted to replicate the success of the late Princess Diana and her own Panorama interview. The difference is there she was very much seen as the victim of the royal family, whereas the Prince’s position is very different. Essentially it appears he believed that an interview would clear his name but I think he neglected three key factors:

1. The nature of the allegations against him

There is clear evidence that Andrew visited Epstein after he was first convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution. There is also a photograph of the Duke that seems to show him with his arm around Virginia Roberts, the 17 year old who alleges that he slept with her. In the interview he says he has no recollection of ever meeting her, and even says he has checked if the photograph could have been faked. None of this creates much sympathy on either side of the Atlantic, particularly given the strong push by Roberts’ lawyers to get Andrew to testify under oath. The allegations against him are simply too serious to be removed through a TV interview.

2. The Prince’s manner and previous behaviour

I’ve been at a couple of events that Andrew attended, and while I certainly didn’t speak to him directly, I’d say he didn’t have the strongest interpersonal skills in the world. He certainly seemed to mean well and clearly had an interest in technology/engineering (which is what the events were about), but came across as awkward and difficult to relate to. For all I know all royals of his generation share the same traits, particularly as he wasn’t being groomed for potential future kingship. However, this manner came across in his language and behaviour in the interview, which didn’t earn him any sympathy. Saying that he felt he’d “let the side down” through his visit to Epstein doesn’t come across as remorseful in an age where we expect public figures to show more empathy. He’s also not helped by his previous behaviour – being branded “Randy Andy” in his navy days for his sexual exploits, as well as being alleged to have used his connections to benefit from deals with shady oligarchs from Kazakhstan.

3. There’s an election on

While the public like the chance to peer into celebrity/royal private lives at the best of times, we’re currently in the midst of an election. So frankly, anything that isn’t about manifestoes, political posturing or Boris Johnson wearing boxing gloves is going to hit the headlines. This is not the time to bury such news, or think the that media and public will move on quickly. I even heard Alistair Campbell being asked on Radio 4 if this mirrored the Royal’s (in)famous annus horribilis when Diana died and Windsor Castle caught fire. Clearly, that’s a real stretch, but demonstrates the media’s appetite to keep the story running.

Most people believe that Andrew forced through the idea of doing the interview, against the better judgement of royal PRs. However, there’s one tantalizing, Machiavellian alternative. Perhaps he’s just been sent out to show what old-school royals are like in order to both deflect attention from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and to show instead how much more in touch with both their feelings and the population they are. Or perhaps the royal family is bored with the election too. If that’s the case, Alistair Campbell has nothing on the Queen when it comes to successfully spinning a story for the greater good……

The state of PR – underpaid, overworked and under representative

Over the 20+ years I’ve worked in PR I’ve seen the profession become much more visible, if not necessarily better understood. However, while we’re not there yet, there’s a growing realisation at a senior level within organisations about the business benefits that strategic, well-executed and effectively evaluated PR campaigns can deliver.

Photo via Pexels https://www.pexels.com/photo/adult-audience-celebration-ceremony-260907/

So, the latest PRCA PR and Communications census provides the perfect opportunity to take stock of where we are now – and where we need to improve. Reading through the results, and the analysis from my ex-colleague Stephen Waddington, five things jump out at me:

1.PR is big business
Total industry turnover is £14.9 billion, up 7.9% since 2018. To give some perspective this is bigger than the UK space industry (£11 billion) and about two-thirds of the defence sector. This is positive news, particularly as I believe that there’s a lot of PR and communications that isn’t covered by the census, either because it is carried out as part of other people’s roles, or that those doing it don’t realise it is PR.

2.PR is growing
As well as turnover increasing, so is the number of people working in the industry, rising by 9,000 to 95,000. That’s the size of a large town or small city – the PR industry has grown from being the equivalent of Chester (population 86,011) to Bath (94,872). All very lovely, as it shows that the market need for PR is growing, hence the profession’s expansion.

3.Average salaries are down
Unfortunately, this is where the good news ends. The average salary has decreased across agency, freelance and in-house roles, falling from £45,950 to £42,700. That’s a drop of 8.75% that the PRCA puts down to increasing numbers of more junior staff in the industry. PR has always been a pyramid, with lots of account executives and fewer account directors, but widening the base of the profession brings risks. Automation and AI are likely to remove the need for many of the traditional parts of the account executive role, and if we are to be seen as more strategic (and win a place at board level), we need to grow the amount of senior talent that is correctly remunerated. Otherwise skilled people are likely to either leave the profession or not even consider it in the first place.

4.And workloads are up
Not only have average salaries dropped, but they don’t tell the full story when it comes to workload. Half of PRs work for 45 hours a week (10 more than their supposedly contracted 35 hours), with senior professionals most likely to work overtime. That means that not only are people being paid less, but they are expected to do more. As well as being financially unfair this risks stress, burn-out and mental health issues. It is therefore sad, but unsurprising, to read that 32% of PRs have suffered from, or been diagnosed with mental health issues.

5.Diversity is not happening
Two-thirds of PR people are female – yet there is an average gender pay gap of 13.6% across the industry. This is shameful, even if it has dropped from 21% last year. Clearly skilled, motivated women are leaving the industry or not getting the senior jobs that they should be. Equally concerning is the lack of diversity in PR – 89% of the industry is white, although it is more diverse at more junior levels. PR needs to better reflect overall society – there shouldn’t be any barriers to entry for people. After all, you don’t need access to specialist equipment to enter the profession, meaning it should be open to all, regardless of background and ethnicity.

To me the PRCA census shows both sides of the industry – accelerating ahead in many areas, but still needing to fix fundamental issues around pay and diversity. Without overcoming these challenges it won’t have the talent and backing to truly establish itself as the strategic, vital profession that it actually can be.

6 areas every PR brief should cover

I recently saw a tweet from Mark Lowe of Third City stressing the importance of companies providing a budget when they are looking for a PR agency. I’d agree in most instances, particularly when omitting one is basically down to laziness. However, there are times when companies and marketers genuinely need help and guidance on what they should be spending, particularly in the early stage of a business.

Mark’s tweet made me think of some of the other things that companies routinely fail to include when briefing a potential PR agency or creating Requests for Proposal. We’ve all had briefs as basic/non-existent as “get us some press coverage” or “write us some press releases” and you can learn to recognise and avoid this type of company – after all, if they don’t know what they want now, it’s unlikely things will improve down the line.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Given that, and without trying to teach clients to suck eggs, here are the top six things I think every brief should include:

1.Business objectives
What is the organisation trying to achieve overall? Does it want more customers, to enter new markets or to retain the clients it already has? Is there an exit planned, and if so, what is it? In this case PR can be a really powerful method of attracting the right attention from the right potential purchasers – but only if the PR agency knows what the end game actually is. Be honest and you’ll get the best fit for your needs.

2.Marketing objectives
What are the marketing objectives and how do they support the overall business? What other activities are planned and how can PR piggyback/complement them? We’re in an increasingly joined-up world and any clued-up PR person should be able to demonstrate how they can support overall marketing and therefore maximise results (and budgets).

3.Who is your competition?
If a prospect says they have no competition I’m immediately suspicious. Is that because there is no market for what they do – or because the prospect has no idea what is actually happening in the sector? Outline clearly the type of business you come up against and your differentiators. At the very least this will help prospective PR agencies to see what the competition is doing PR wise and use this insight to create a strategy that out performs them.

4.What is your timeline?
This covers both the pitch process and overall expectations about when results will start to meaningfully impact the business. I know everyone is busy, and a PR tender process is normally run on top of full-time jobs, but try and give a reasonable idea of when agencies can expect a response to their proposal. For a start it will stop them hounding you with calls and emails asking how things are going.

PR doesn’t always deliver immediate results, so you need to be sure that you are realistic about your timeline here – and that the expectations of everyone in the company are well-managed. You’re not going to get straight onto the front page of a national newspaper or to immediately arrange a meeting with a key influencer.

5.Don’t forget measurement
What does success actually look like? Either give enough information for agencies to come up with measurement metrics of their own, or share your own with them, and make them as close to your business goals as possible. If you need external measurement then make sure that’s covered in the budget too.

6.What do you actually want?
It is always a good idea to think through what you want from an agency. Should it be small or large? Specialist or generalist? On your doorstep or is distance not an object? Able to expand into marketing if required? Take the time to meet prospective agencies to ensure that the chemistry works for both sides – and be firm that you want to talk to the actual team who would work on the account, not just an account director you’ll only see every quarter.

Set criteria for how you will judge the agency, particularly in a pitch situation with multiple people involved in the decision. By using a scoring framework you can take some of the emotion out of your choice and avoid too many internal disagreements over the pitch process.

While I’ve detailed six things that I believe that PR briefs should contain, I’m sure this isn’t exhaustive. Do chip in on the comments section with your suggestions – and marketers share your thoughts on what infuriates you about agencies during the pitch process too………….

Apple bets on reputation to drive streaming success

This week’s news that Apple is expanding into multiple new markets, including TV, gaming and finance is not unexpected. The market for iPhones is becoming saturated, with revenue from iPhone sales dropping 15% in the last quarter. So, increasingly Apple wants to be seen as a services company – it already has a successfully streaming product (Apple Music) and generated $10.9 billion of revenue from services, more than from selling Macs or iPads, in Q4 2018.

The announcement is also unsurprising for two other reasons. We now live in an experience economy, where people are more likely to rent or stream products and services than to buy them. And it joins a stampede of companies that want to be the digital provider of choice, for everything from entertainment and news to healthcare and control of your smart home.

Photo by Burak K on Pexels.com

This trend is turning digital companies that previously co-existed relatively harmoniously, such as Amazon, Apple, Google and others, into competitors. Combined with the rise of Netflix, this is disrupting the business models of existing content providers/film studios, leading them to scale up (witness Disney’s purchase of Fox) to try and compete.

Apple’s glitzy launch featured a host of A-list celebrities, from Oprah to Steven Spielberg and Big Bird from Sesame Street as it promised to spend $1 billion a year on original content. However, it is up against the likes of Netflix (which spent a reported $12 billion last year), and Disney, which counts best-selling franchises such as Marvel and Star Wars amongst its properties.

So can Apple succeed in streaming? After all, its existing Apple TV service has never really taken off. There are two factors it is betting heavily on:

1.Reputation as the champion of privacy
Throughout all the storms that have hit tech companies around privacy and use of personal data, Apple has aimed to position itself as the champion of the consumer. It has repeatedly stressed that it won’t share user data with advertisers, and even refused to allow the FBI to access locked iPhones belonging to criminals and terrorists. Apple boss Tim Cook continually reiterated the focus on privacy at the launch event, and clearly it is one of the ways it is looking to differentiate itself.

2.Market power
As Oprah said of iPhones “they’re in a billion pockets”, and Apple clearly has a huge, loyal fanbase to appeal to. That’s what has driven its services success to date, and even if it can only convert a small percentage of customers to its new offerings, it will be in the money. However, an awful lot of iPhones are in markets, such as China, where the new services are unlikely to be available, while most customers already have subscriptions to the likes of Netflix. The new Apple TV+ will allow consumers to bundle some existing services (such as HBO and Hulu), but not Netflix. And while it will be available on other hardware (such as Sony TVs), making it appeal to non-Apple owners may prove difficult.

So, when it comes to services and effectively its future revenues, Apple is essentially betting on its reputation rather than the deeper content reserves of its rivals. Can it take a bit out of streaming? Whatever happens expect a long and bruising battle as more and more companies try to differentiate themselves from the chasing pack and use communications and reputation to dominate the market.

5 things that Public Relations can – and can’t – do

In the 25+ years I’ve been working in public relations I’ve seen the entire industry shift, as digitisation has transformed media relations, content and the channels that businesses use to communicate with their audiences. We’ve moved from a situation where media relations was king to a more nuanced, wider ranging and more interesting world, where PR is more strategic and (hopefully) more valued.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

However, one thing that never changes is that a lot of people I talk to are still not 100% sure what PR can, and cannot do. And while, like many things, what it is achievable can change, here are 5 areas that commonly cause confusion:

1.Immediate PR results take time
To communicate your messages to your chosen audiences, you obviously need to know what you want to say and who you want to reach. And this has to be realistic – you can’t expect a start-up with nothing more than an idea to immediately appeal to a mass consumer audience. It takes time to build a brand, and that requires patience and an ongoing supply of stories that show momentum and are of interest to the people you want to communicate with, whether they are potential or actual customers, partners, investors and/or relevant media. So my recommendation for any company is be patient – we may live in an accelerated news cycle, but it still takes time and sustained effort to get your messages across.

2.Honesty is central to successful PR
Despite the talk about spin and companies using PR to pull the wool over people’s eyes, the profession can only do so much. The public is rightly cynical about companies that have a bad reputation and fail to own up to past mistakes. The first step to turning round perceptions is to be honest and make a real attempt at changing. It has to be genuine, rather than a smokescreen, and that often means cultural change is required. Look at the likes of Uber, which transformed its approach with a new CEO – it may not have rebuilt trust completely, but it is clearly committed to working on it.

3.PR is not just media relations
For many, media relations – talking to journalists and writing/sending press releases is what PR is all about. However, while media relations can be a key part of a campaign, it is not the only tool in the PR box. Reaching the right people, with the right messages, covers a wide range of tactics outside just talking to the press. I’ve seen PR campaigns that involve no media content, or that are focused on getting to customers, employees or influencers directly through other channels outside the press. This does make the boundaries of PR fluid, and the profession should embrace this rather than funnelling resources just down the media relations route.

4.PR can’t guarantee coverage
Time and time again, I’ve had potential clients come to me asking to get into the Financial Times or an equivalent title. That’s despite having no news or messaging that will appeal to that particular audience – or even any reason for actually reaching a certain group. I once had a PR manager ask me to get their company into the print edition of the Daily Mail, as “that’s what the CEO’s wife’s friends read,” and they wanted to something to boast about at the bridge club. Equally, there’s no such thing as guaranteed coverage – a journalist can write a story and then it doesn’t make it into the paper/onto the website due to any number of external factors. So look very closely at any promises from PR agencies that they will get you into certain titles – are they actually able to deliver?

5.PR can’t hide bad news forever
We live in a world where everyone has a smartphone, an opinion and the opportunity to share their thoughts and experiences. That means it is extremely difficult to keep bad news out of the public eye over the long-term. As the likes of Sir Philip Green have discovered, even expensive lawyers can’t achieve that. What PR can do is help you communicate your story, but your story has to be believable to start with. Creating a strong, genuine brand reputation, built up over years, is the best defence against any negative news that does arrive. It won’t prevent damage completely, but it will provide a context and the chance to explain and apologise.

The power of public relations is growing as more and more brands make it a core part of their marketing, rather than a tactical add-on. However, it is vital to be clear where its limitations lie – don’t fall for the spin.

Public relations – bring on the clowns

I recently read a fascinating piece of research around the human element of manned Mars missions. Given the length of the trip (9 months each way plus a wait before returning) and the fact that everyone is cooped up together in a small space, the risk of the crew disintegrating into warring factions is clearly high. How can it be stopped or at least minimised? NASA is obviously giving this a lot of thought, studying similar situations, such as groups posted to the Antarctic, to get some tips. What these studies have shown is that you need a mix of personality types to ensure team harmony. But most of all what you need is a clown – someone who can bridge between different people, defuse tension and create empathy with everyone, whatever their role or personality type.

Photo by sachin bharti on Pexels.com

It made me think that quite often this is the role that PR has (or should have) within an organisation. Starting with your business goals, you need to gain information from everyone in the company, across every department to set your communications strategy. Implementation requires buy-in from everyone – you need to keep everyone happy that their needs are being met, while getting them to realise that there is a bigger picture which means that PR can’t solely be about their department. You need to show empathy, understanding and be able to master all the different areas of your organisation, all while seeing it through a PR lens.

If you look at PR in this light, it reinforces its strategic importance – done right it is the glue between the departments in the company, and the multiple roles that people do. There’s no-one else, except perhaps for the CEO, who has this company-wide oversight. And, let’s face it, often people lower down an organisation may feel too overawed by the big boss to tell her or him the whole truth.

So next time someone describes public relations as a profession full of clowns, take it as a compliment, not a slight. We may not be putting humans on Mars (yet), but we’re essential to bridging gaps within every organisation and contributing to the smooth running of a business – all without having to resort to scary wigs or flowers that squirt water.

James Dyson and three lessons for Brexit communications

Sir James Dyson is clearly a very clever bloke. He’s an innovator who has successfully disrupted multiple industries, from vacuum cleaners to hand driers, and is now staking a claim to leadership in the emerging electric vehicle market.

Photo by freestocks.org on Pexels.com

He’s also an ardent Brexiteer, campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union. Much of his ire is down to his belief that EU regulations are rigged by his rivals, which has clearly impacted his thinking. I’m not going to reopen the Brexit debate, but in the circumstances of a potential looming No Deal, the fact that he’s moving his global HQ from Wiltshire to Singapore has drawn widespread condemnation from both sides of the debate. While no jobs are being lost, and the company is investing nearly £300m in the UK, it is seen as a betrayal, rather than a business decision.

What the press and social media coverage shows is just how poisonous the debate around Brexit has become. At any other time a successful company investing more in the country, while pledging to keep jobs in the UK would be applauded. But whatever the story, business decisions are currently all viewed through a Brexit lens – from Wetherspoon’s boss Tim Martin admitting that labour costs would be going up in the first half of the year, to the likes of Panasonic moving the registration of its European HQ to the Netherlands.

The lessons for all businesses are therefore clear:

1.Run your announcements through a Brexit filter

Particularly for those companies that have taken a strong stand on Brexit, every communication and action will be scrutinised by both sides. Therefore, take special care to analyse what you are saying from either viewpoint. What story will the press lead on? How will it be seen on social media? It is up to PR and communication teams to give strong, upfront advice on the potential consequences of any story, and how it can potentially be mitigated. For example, this weekend’s Sunday Times had a follow-up story claiming the real reason that Dyson is leaving the UK is fear of a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government – an angle that should have been highlighted much earlier if it was to avoid controversy.

2. Don’t use Brexit to bury bad news

Brexit does have a major impact on many industries and businesses. The drop in the pound following the referendum result pushed up the cost of imports, while current uncertainty means many consumers are not confident in making big ticket purchases. However, despite the temptation, businesses shouldn’t just blame Brexit for all of their woes. Doing so highlights their inability to react to changing market conditions and risks them being seen as moaners by the general population.

3. Either choose a position or stay quiet

Business owners such as Dyson and Martin have been vocal in stating their position. Equally executives from many more organisations, from Airbus to Jaguar Land Rover have warned against the negative consequences on jobs, investment and the economy. To successfully carry this off without impacting public reputation you need to be sure that your position is based on facts, and will resonate with your target audiences. And you need to remain fixed in your views – hence the condemnation that Dyson has received for appearing to not back Britain.

As the Brexit saga/shambles rumbles on, dominating the media landscape, all businesses need to understand how it impacts their public relations and communications strategies. Factoring it into planning is vital if you want to avoid damaging your reputation, sales and future revenues.

A Royal PR car crash?

There’s nothing like a royal story to get the press excited, and the Duke of Edinburgh’s recent car crash is no exception. It even kept Brexit off the front pages for a few days, providing a welcome bit of relief for everyone, particularly Theresa May.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

While the actual circumstances of the accident, which saw the 97 year old’s Land Rover flip over, are the subject of a police investigation, that hasn’t stopped the media analysing the situation in meticulous detail. It is a perfect opportunity – the crash site outside Sandringham is easily accessible to journalists, there are plenty of local witnesses to the aftermath and the injured occupants of the other car involved are clearly upset about their treatment and want to state their case. To top it all, the Royal Family hasn’t helped its cause – Philip was back driving a (new) Land Rover on the Sandringham estate just a couple of days after the crash, without wearing a seatbelt. And the Queen was then spotted in the back of another car without a seatbelt on her way to church.

Amidst all the furore and discussions about whether the Palace has apologised to those in the other car, the whole case is in stark contrast to the generally successful public image projected by the younger royals. Indeed, Prince William is busy interviewing Sir David Attenborough at Davos on saving the planet, while Prince Harry has launched the Invictus Games, openly discussed mental health and married a smart Hollywood actress. PR guru Mark Borkowski described the Royal Household’s response to the Duke’s accident as “DIY PR”.

But is it actually that bad? Clearly there isn’t much of a media relations strategy going on at all, but that’s unsurprising for three reasons:

1.The Duke of Edinburgh doesn’t give a damn about his public perception

In fact, he’s always delighted in being rude and not caring what people say. So any crisis PR team would have their work cut out getting their client to recognise there is an issue, let alone deal with it.

2. There’s a police investigation going on

As with any traffic accident, the police are looking into the circumstances and deciding next steps. So any admission of guilt to the injured parties would be prejudicial to the Duke’s case in any investigation. Not to mention that insurers always counsel never to admit to anything to avoid it being taken as declaring guilt.

3. No-one was expecting the Spanish Inquisition

It feels like the Royal Household thought this was a minor story that would blow over quickly. Hence not seeing driving a new car two days later as being a trifle soon. I think they also counted on public sympathy for Philip – he’s had health problems over the last year, and being independent enough to drive himself around at 97 is quite a feat.

What they didn’t understand is that the news agenda was waiting for this type of storm in a teacup story. As I said it is a change from Brexit and allows monarchists, anti-royalists and those in between to all give their opinions. A quick scan of the headlines backs this up – The Guardian has “Prince Philip’s crash should mark a turning point in our royal sycophancy”, The Independent has “Prince Philip has every right to drive at 97” and the Daily Express has “Diana caused Prince Philip crash.” While I may have made the last one up, it gives a flavour of the coverage to date – which shows no real signs of stopping.

Does this mean the Duke needs to take PR lessons from his grandchildren? Not in the least. Whatever your views on the Royal Family, and the Duke of Edinburgh himself, he’s being himself – and in many ways any negative coverage he gets acts as a lightning rod for the monarchy as a whole, making the rest of them look better. So less a PR car crash, and more an example of why you need a range of personalities within your organisation in order to appeal to everyone.

Why PR is like an iceberg

It’s a well-known fact that 90% of an iceberg is below the water. PR is actually pretty similar. What is visible (often the results of tactics such as media relations) is simply the tip of a strategically planned and delivered campaign. However, what the wider world sees is the end result (or in the case of journalists the pitch or press release). I think this is one of the major reasons PR and media relations are continually confused, pigeonholing the profession.

Photo by rawpixel.com from Pexels

The latest example of this is on the BBC’s Media Show. A recent episode, entitled “The Art of Public Relations”, has drawn widespread condemnation from the PR industry for its focus on media relations and publicity, and describing PR people as bullies and liars. Clearly this is both an outdated view of the PR world, and – let’s face it – if all 70,000 of us were liars I think we’d have been closed down by now.

Media relations is a key skill for PRs, but it is one of many. And arguably it is becoming less important as PR becomes more strategic and involved in delivering corporate goals, and other communication channels such as social media give a direct route to target audiences, bypassing journalists. But it is human nature to focus on the shiny things rather than the hard work and brainpower behind them. The trouble is, this is less easy to explain in a soundbite. Perfectly valid complaints about how PR is perceived are seen as whingeing – as a profession we suffer from Cobbler’s Children syndrome, too busy working for others to do our own PR.

How can this be overcome? Here are some recommendations from my experience:

• Keep demonstrating the value we create for companies, organisations, communities and individuals. They are the people that pay the bills, and simply wouldn’t be investing in PR if it was not important.
• Don’t just show value to immediate contacts, but talk to senior management and build up their understanding of PR. Given most CEOs tend to come from a finance, sales or operations background they are unlikely to have learnt about PR properly on their way to the top.
• Measure effectively what we do, and show that we are supporting corporate strategy inside and outside organisations.
• Spend more time proactively on doing our own PR, whether that is educating people we meet (without boring them senseless!) or speaking to schools and business groups.
• Show clients the strategy behind what we do for them, and lean more heavily on academic and business research to justify why a particular campaign is worthwhile.
• Always be professional, and avoid the temptation to focus solely on the tactical or the Ab Fab stereotype. It won’t deliver a lasting career or client relationships.

PR does seem to be constantly striving to justify itself to the public and journalists – but over the last 20 years I have seen things change for the better. We just need to keep pushing. We’re all in it together, so do share your recommendations for how we can better get across what we do in the comments section below.