Right, so after the disseratation tutorial here are some revised notes on the future of my thesis:
The general theory of the paper will follow the theme that
In relation to the British youth market (16-24 yr olds), the presence of traditional media is gone and those campaigns that have been most succesful at reaching this demographic have been those that utilize new media.
This demographic is known as one of the hardest markets to reach for PR professionals, yet some viral internet campaigns have such a colossal success rate with such a simple idea that it makes one think; is there a formula for a succesful new media campaign?
Succesful campaigns will be compared to those that have just flopped. The idea that there is a room full of 35-50 year old men trying to figure out how to make a "oool" and trendy campaign is quite amusing. One example of an online campaign that flopped was for movie Snakes On A Plane. There was a program on their website where users could enter their or a friend's name to have a personalized audo viral message sent to someone spoken by Samuel L. Jackson.
Now inititally, the youth market really took to this idea (it has proved succesful with similar programs launched by THE RING film). However, it was soon dismissed because of a simple and quite offensive glitch. The programmers did not take into account foreign names! The program could say JOHN and TOM and LISA but could not say anything remotley foreign. One blogger in the US went to the Social Security Administration's website and chose names from the 50 Most Common Names list available. Any name that was "ethnic sounding" failed. Who were these PR professionals hoping to reach???
Sometimes I wonder if people ever really understand what 20somethings really want.
I find that I am not as ethics-conscious as my fellow classmates. Three in particular want to work for charities because they want to do something "right" and would never consider working for a giant corporation. I don't think I will work in the PR industry, only because I'm more entrepeneurial, but if I was to go into it, I would apply for positions in companies I know deal with big clients and that could earn me a good salary (so I can retire on a beach somewhere in 30 years time). I have no problem creating a campaign to get obese people to eat more hamburgers or to make them think they just cant be happy until they buy the new mp3 player available. However, I do have some empathy; I changed my BA course from Journalism to PR because I was uncomfortable chasing up unhappy people who had just gone through a tragedy to get juicy gossip. I did witness fellow classmates lie on phones about which media they were calling from in order to get access into people's traumatic stories and it just made me uncomfortable. Perhaps it was because I was speaking directly to them.. maybe if I met an obese person I would not be able to sell them a hamburger..
PRWeek held a debate at our University on whether or not PR practitioners have a duty to tell the truth. For the motion were former CIPR President Simon Lewis and George Pitcher. Against the motion was Max Clifford and our university's own Simon Goldsworthy (during my BA he preached the values of truth in PR, I find this quite amusing. It makes me smile!)
138 voted that PR practitioners should NOT tell the truth. 124 voted they should.
And these are PR practioners and students talking!
I find it hard to define ethics. Is bending the truth to be more appealing to journalists or neglecting to mention certain bad qualities unethical? If I am promoting a new software, is not mentioning that 1 time out of 10 it crashes and needs rebooting unethical? or is it just being savvy?
John Cass, a blogger who works in marketing says:
"If a company wants to be truly successful, they must understand their audience’s needs and expectations and meet them. Nordstrom is a famous example of a company that held the mantra that the customer is always right and they refunded and took back any clothing articles a customer wanted to return.." (http://pr.typepad.com/pr_communications/2005/04/ethics_in_pr.html)
As long as your are not making empty promises or flat out lying (ENRON!), then as a PR practioner you should be alright. While being completely unethical is not recommended, neither is being so righteous that you maintain an open door policy letting everyone who asks know your problems and issues. Maintin some mystery! You need to be a strong player in the PR field, if your competitors aren't ashamed to market a certain product, you should ask yourself why? Is it hurting anyone? or is it just feeding a capitalist market?
Some definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility
The CSR Network defines CSR as: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is about how businesses align their values and behaviour with the expectations and needs of stakeholders - not just customers and investors, but also employees, suppliers, communities, regulators, special interest groups and society as a whole. CSR describes a company's commitment to be accountable to its stakeholders.
Companies have been encouraged to develop socially and environmentally aware practices and policies. international.lga.gov.uk/european_work/glossary.html
Corporate Social Responsibility The Green Book of the European Commission "Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility" defines corporate social responsibility as the "voluntary integration of corporate social and environmental concerns in their commercial operations and in their relations with the parties concerned. [...] To be socially responsible - the Green Book states - does not only mean to fully meet the applicable juridical obligations but also to go beyond this by investing in human capital, in the environment and in the relations with the related parties". http://www.intesasanpaolo.com/scriptIr/investor/eng/glossario/eng_glossarioC.jsp
To be honest, I find most CSR to just be a front to make customers think that companies care and are up to date ethically. Like McDonalds' funding of sports days; I don't believe they are doing so to be socially responsible, rather if they did not do so they would lose a lot of customers who think of them as a cold, uncaring company. However, I may just be a cynic.
Madsen Pirie, the current president of Adam Smith Institute says:
"CSR should not be a firm's role. Instead, it should be determined by society as whole through the rules and laws set by government. A business therefore should simply only follow the rules and regulations set by the country in which it operates. CSR may make a firm's directors feel good to give money to local charities, but a company's responsibility should be increasing profits and adding to a nation's wealth."
I still think companies all want a pat on the back for their charitable donations as they work on the whole "photo opp" and Look At How Great We Are! feel about it. Or, perhaps I am just having a bad day and there are truley some people who care out there. Having said that, I feel that the company Lush are quite environmentally caring but maybe that is because I dont see them as a giant corporation? Is it the big bad enterprise that makes me skeptical? I'm not sure. Ask me again tomorrow.
We had an interesting presentation today about diversity in public relations. We learnt that the brown pound is an estimated £40billion, the pink pound is £70b and the grey pound a staggering £250b! Yet, it was revealed today that the majority of UK PR campaigns are aimed at the young, white market (By young I mean under 50s).
I wonder if this is because the majority of peope in the PR industry are white and under 50, therefore pitching to their comfort zone. What would a 40 something year old white man (with a good salary) know how to promote items to 20-something afro-caribbeans? It's easy to see how mistakes like Trident's "Mastication for the Nation" campaigns can occur.
the CIPR has a whole section on diversity, where it claims it holds " Testimonials from successful PR practitioners from minority backgrounds and Case studies on PR campaigns targeted at diverse audiences" (http://www.cipr.co.uk/diversity/)
It is full of matter-of-fact comments on how diversity is an asset your company. It also claims that By 2011, only 18% of the workforce will be white, male, not disabled, under 35 and heterosexual What workforce is this? The points previous were talking about the UK as a whole and the labour workforce. If this is in relation to PR then perhaps as 80% are currently women, but it is not clear and surely they are not implying the labour or general UK workforce as perviously mentioned. Because as the ESRC report, 92.1% of the population is white, 50% are male and only 16% of the population is over 65. I find it all very confusing.
Dr. Rochelle L. Ford, APR wrote a paper for the PRSA that states: "Echoing the PRSA 2002 diversity survey, the majority of respondents (63 percent) felt that the PR industry is only mildly committed to taking actions in recruiting a more diverse work force. Likewise, 61.6 percent said that the industry is only somewhat successful in recruiting a more diverse work force; no one reported that the industry had done very well." (http://www.prsa.org/diversity/diversity%20dimensions/studyExamines.htm)
While many companies may not have a diverse workforce, it is unclear as to whether or not this is due to the graduates not being minorities or if the companies themselves are more comfortable hiring a white taskforce.
As a minority myself - mixed race - I have not every really thought of myself as a "minority" in any sense. My PR courses have been filled with ethnically diverse groups, many female, and while in my work experiences I have dealt with many white, british associates, we all appear to be on the same level. However our taste in cuisine is quite different! In conclusion I believe because 92% of the population is white and with only a small percetange being senior (regardless of their grey pound status) campaigns are more driven to the white, under 50s market, leaving practitioners in their comfort zone. Let's take another look at the statistics in 2011, who knows, perhaps then the "30 something, white guy" will be the minority!
Channel 4 has recently shown a new morning show called TV IS DEAD? that analyzes the growth in internet use in teens and how viewing shows online will take over ordinary television viewing. It also mentioned SKINS and how their use of viral promotions ensured that on its launch night it had the largest number of viewers in channel 4's broadcasting history. They also interiewed youths on the SKINS parties and how "cool" they were.
Interestingly, they also mentioned how Samsung approached some internet promotional company to create a VIRAL video that shows the new flip phone they would be launching. In order to create a video that did not look like a paid advertisement but rather, something that one of their target audience of teenagers could have made themselves (tapping into word of mouth), they worked on a montage filmed on a regular DV camera to be posted on YOUTUBE. The end result was a classic case of viral promotions as thousands of teens tuned in to see the film in action.
I have contacted them in order to get the show on DVD for my dissertation.
Is the trend of using New Media PR tactics that focus on audience interaction replacing standard advertising in relation to television program promotions? In specifics, looking at E4’s SKINS and Shipwrecked.
Is the use of online new media promotions that stir up audience interaction becoming the key choice of promotional strategy for television programming targeted at Britain’s youth? Are programmes such as E4’s Skins that use social networking to get viewers to send in ideas, music and artwork for the show as well as offering them opportunities to attend “VIP Parties” a clever and revolutionary new way to reach your target audience by giving you the chance to bypass journalists altogether? Thus giving you 100% guarantee that your message gets through.
The use of new media promotions is a relatively new theory as the history of public relations is concerned. It has only been in the last decade that internet use has exploded into our proverbial “personal space” with Nielsen/NetRatings reporting that according to their research, there are around 450 million surfers around the world. In the UK alone, 57.2 percent of the entire population have access to the web and are deemed as regular users. PR practitioners and marketing executives have begun to realise the prospects of online promotions, as it is a way for them to get into their target audience’s homes for little or no money as it is the users themselves who seek out or are directed to the information. Tom Murphy, an online PR blogger, posted a blog concerning a PR survey taken in March 2004 (http://www.natterjackpr.com/) where PR executives were asked about their relationship with the Internet. Of those individuals, 65% of respondents believed that new media provided an opportunity for a better relationship with journalists. However, one PR individual quotes,
“The Internet allows us to address our publics directly, so we don’t have to solely rely on journalists. This disintermediation is a challenge to journalists and to those involved in media relations.”
As the subject is quite specific I will be relying to a substantial bit of qualitative research for my primary research, involving interviews with PR practitioners involved in the promotional aspect of my case studies and their thoughts on why they use that specific promotional mix, people who are part of their web target audience and their views on the shows and an interview with a subject of one of the shows and how she was used for promotions of that specific show online (which has already been set up). I will also be researching the vehicles for their promotions, such as Islandoo, the new social networking site created by E4 in order to find new contestants for their show, Shipwrecked and the Skins new idea of podcasts and audience music interaction.
Little has been written on such a specific question and as it is a new area of exploration most information will be based on primary research. However, one book, The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use News Releases, Blogs, Podcasting, Viral Marketing and Online Media to Reach Buyers Directly by David Meerman Scott in 2007 is a vital piece of work in this area of information. The book is heavy with case studies and the theory of how new media and technology is an incredible asset for any product or company. It specifically looks at blogs and viral marketing, which will be the key focus of my case studies of Skins and Shipwrecked. It also explains the ideas of private networks, the grouping together of common interests and how to push PR into those streams.
Broader literature on new media and PR would include PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences by Deirdre Breakenridge (2008) which looks at the direct-to-customer approach with social media. It also explains that traditional web communication is not suitable anymore, which is vital to my argument as I am opening up the idea that E4’s new wave of audience interactive promotions is taking over the old school web promotion mentality. It also looks at RSS feeds and blogs and online newsrooms as it has just been published it is truly up to date with web PR. Another book to look at will be On-line Public Relations (PR in Practice) by David Philips 2001.
Books Reviewed:
Scott, David Meerman. (2007) The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use News Releases, Blogs, Podcasting, Viral Marketing and Online Media to Reach Buyers Directly . Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
Breakenridge, Deirdre (2008) PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences. USA: Financial Times/ Prentice Hall
Phillips, David (2001). On-line Public Relations (PR in Practice) London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Duhe, Sandra C. (2007) New Media And Public Relations. USA. Peter Lang Publishing
Witmer, Diane F. (2002) Spinning the Web: A Handbook for Public Relations on the Internet. New York: Allyn & Bacon
Our debate in class was "Women will always work in PR but never run it."
I found this topic very difficult to argue as in debates the use of "always" and "never" should not be used as they cannot be proved or disproved in any way. If the topic was "Women will work in PR but will not hold executive positions within the next ten years" it would make more sense.
My group was affirmative and our reasearch proved to be quite interesting.
"Only 2% of executive directors in the UK are female, a figure that compares with the US. "
Glenda Stone, of Busygirl.co.uk ("...a network that aims to promote the economic advancement of women")says Until women go from Page 3 to Page 1, things won't improve.
Dr Singh who is currently working on the 2nd edition of the female FTSE index claims that the glass ceiling is merely shifting upwards. She also believes bosses are more likely to cut out their female staff as they believe that men are more likely to be the main bread winner in the families.
Maternity leave is also a worry for some execs, says the BBC. CEO's are wary to give high power positions to women as they may desire to take maternity leave at some point, leaving the position open and in need of temporary arrangements. Having to get someone to cover you for 6months to a year who is responsible enough and trustworthy is quite a gamble.
As it was difficult to show hard evidence that women will never run the PR industry, I feel we came up with some good reasons as to why the rise of women in the PR world will be a slow and difficult one.
Today we looked at PR Vs Propaganda, specifically to do with the Iraq War. We reviewed the case of Corporal Jessica Lynch and the PR spin related to her "rescue" and the aftermath. Now, it is difficult to differentiate PR to Propaganda; whilst many anti-capitalists feel that PR is a form of propaganda used by companies to lead us to their products, other feel that PR is simply a tool of information that feeds a democratic society where the freedom of information is key. But where do we draw the line?
Here is a video from PRWATCH, a self proclaimed "watch-dog," a "nonprofit designed to strengthen participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda, and by promoting media literacy and citizen journalism, media “of, by and for the people.”"
To me, this seems lke it could be, in itself, a piece of propaganda- trying to scare people into thinking they're being tricked by big corporations into doing what they want. A slight form of puppets versus the puppeteer. However, in doing so you are creating the notion that us average joes are so simple and backwards that any kind of product promotion will shove us into a whirlwind of confusion and acceptance. To PRWATCH, public relations professionals are manipulating our news and misinforming the public. I find this ridiculous. If it weren't for PR newspapers would not exist, journalists do not have the time and energy in a 24 hour time frame to go out and investigate and write up every newstory found in their pages. And what of those public information campaigns that "Big, unknown" PR firms carry out in order to inform the public on the effects of smoking and AIDS etc.?
Most people are quick to attribute propaganda to government and thus to ALL PR professionals. Government public relations and corporate PR are, to me, at two completely different spectrums.
The Jessica Lynch story is a strong case of deliberate misinformation by the PR office at the White House. They sent out press releases concerning Lynch stating that she was a POW, a survivor of an attack on her regiment. The Washington Post ran a front page story on the 3rd of April with the headline “She Was Fighting to the Death’: Details Emerging of W. Va. Soldier’s Capture and Rescue”. The sources were unnamed US officials, and the story read
“Lynch, a 19-year-old supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23, one official said. The ambush took place after a 507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.
The paper also claimed she was taken away and tortured for answers by the Iraqi army.
On the 15th of May 15, The Guardian published a story claiming that the description of events was untruthful.
Excerpts from the book "I Am A Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story," by Rick Bragg:
Jessica was hospitalized for nine days following the incident. The official government tale alleged she was terrorized and abused by her captors—allegations again refuted by Lynch in Bragg’s biography. “No one even slapped me... No one asked me anything about our troops. I couldn’t answer anyway” (I Am A Soldier Too, p. 115) http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/lync-n19.shtml
Now, while the Lynch scenario could be deemed as propaganda, claiming that a corporate campaign such as the Diet Coke's "Diet Coke Break" campaign holds similar ground is fairly unreasonable. While the line between propaganda and public relations remains blurred, we as a evolved and educated species should be able to monitor our world around us and take in information gathered and make sound choices that affect our lives.
The crisis management excersise we performed in class today showed how easy it is to pass on the blame when something malicious occurs in order to save your company's reputation.
It is important for every company press office to be have crisis preparation in place because news travels fast and you need to be on the ball with what the media and people are saying about you and your products.
An example of crisis management is the 1991 "Syringe in a Can" story with Pepsi COLA. A customer claimed to have found a dirty syringe in a pepsi cola can. As soon as the press caught hold of his story there were suddenly dozens more reports of customers finding screws, bolts and more syringes in Pepsi's drink cans. The Pepsi Co. company immediatly denied the stories and claimed them to be fraudulent. Vice President of Product Safety, Jim Stanley, explained that it is important to counter crisis issues as soon as possible:
"Because you don't have a lot of time to gather the facts, you'd better take advantage of the first few hours that you do have. If you waste those early hours in trying to deliberate on what you should do, you're going to miss an opportunity to solve a lot of issues that you could best solve immediately."
The Press Office's job was to "ensure consumer safety and security while protecting its 95-year old trademark and maintaining a positive image amidst a blitz of often negative media attention,"
They countered the crisis by launching new PR and ad campaigns proclaiming their products to be 99.9% Safe which included going on Nightline and doing numerous press interviews. This opened up time for them to investigate the original story. They went through the surveilance tapes from the shop that the original syringe can was bought from, they discovered the customer placing the syringe in the can. They were then able to bring this footage to light and save their company's image. The only drawback is that Pepsi Co. estimate they lost $25million during that one week of bad press. Citations: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3289/is_n3_v163/ai_15312359/pg_2
The perfect Crisis Management equation is quite complex, as Winning With The News Media: Crisis Management Chapter by Clarence Jones explains:
1. Never under-estimate the crisis.
2. If you under-estimate, once they learn the real extent of the problem, reporters will feel like you tried to deceive them
3. If you under-estimate, you can be blamed for your lack of knowledge and skill, once we know how bad it really is
4. If solving the problem becomes a long, difficult task, the news media expected it to be, and you won’t be faulted
5. If you over-estimate the crisis and then solve it quickly, it appears you have immense power and skill
Thus you need to calmly assess the situation and take the appropriate steps in an orderly fashion. Or as Gerry McCusker states in his book Talespin: PR Disasters published by Kogan Page, January 2005:
"....should you find your client - or yourself - involved in a PR disaster always manage the situation ethically, with good grace, humility or humour - at least that's a good foundation on which to rebuild any damage done by a PR disaster."
