The New View From Object Towers

Strumpette editor Amanda Chapel resigns

Not a headline I expected to be writing today - but apparently, Strumpete Editor Amanda Chapel has had enough.

Say what you will about Ms Chapel (and many have), there can be no doubt she brought a much needed level of focus and debate to the PR industry generally. We'll certainly miss her at Object Towers.

Top UK PR agencies caught editing client entries on Wikipedia

Front page piece from today's PR Week which claims that: "PR agencies are flouting Wikipedia rules demanding they do not edit the site. At least six of the PRWeek top ten UK agencies have edited the site in the past year, according to WikiScanner, a new programme that tracks the IP addresses of computers editing the online encyclopaedia.

FD is the biggest offender, filing 25 edits, primarily concerning clients Russ DeLeon and Ruth Parasol – founders of the online gambling company PartyGaming."

I've always thought the blanket ban on PR agencies editing a bit draconian - surely there would be no issue for PR companies to do this providing it was done transparently ie their interest was declared and they could back up the rationale for the suggested changes.

Then again, its Wikipedia's show - so if PR agencies knowingly flout its rules - and get caught - only themselves to blame.

Still - not just PR agencies doing this kind of thing - as this piece  shows, everyone from the BBC, the CIA and the office of the Australian Prime Minister are at it.....still, kudos to the BBC for running such a story and helpfully including a link to the Wikipedia Scanner.

90pc of PRs say online coverage has become more important in the last 12 months

Says a new survey from Webitpr.

But more important than what? Print media?

As we've said before, some semblance of balance needs to be maintained on the online vs offline press coverage debate.

Google invites the people featured in news stories to comment | Technology | Guardian Unlimited

Google invites the people featured in news stories to comment | Technology | Guardian Unlimited.

Blimey - really curious to know how Google are going to make this work.....

Getting it in the neck

Maybe it's because we are in the summer silly season, but a few people seem to be getting it the neck from the bloggerati over the last few days - here are the main targets:

Sir Elton John - says we should close down the Internet for five years.

Rory Sutherland, Executive Creative Director at Ogilvy - for contributing a "state the bleedin' obvious" puff piece to Precision Marketing.

ITPR, a tech PR agency - their "A Day In The Life" of an account exec piece appears to have unleashed a torrent of amusement and disbelief at TWL.

Happy days.

The Economist Style Guide - online

I've always had a copy of The Economist Style Guide close to hand -  of course, I can't swear I've always abided by its rules - but it has been a valuable aid when people question why you've written something in a particular way.

I should therefore have guessed it would be online - and sure enough, it is (albeit a condensed version). I commend it to all right thinking PR and marketing people. The following section on use of jargon is particularly helpful:

Avoid it. You may have to think harder if you are not to use jargon, but you can still be precise. Technical terms should be used in their proper context; do not use them out of it. In many instances simple words can do the job of exponential (try fast), interface (frontier or border) and so on. If you find yourself tempted to write about affirmative action or corporate governance, you will have to explain what it is; with luck, you will then not have to use the actual expression.

Avoid, above all, the kind of jargon that tries either to dignify nonsense with seriousness (The appointee...should have a proven track record of operating at a senior level within a multi-site international business,  preferably within a service- or brand-oriented environment, declared an advertisement for a financial controller for The Economist Group) or to obscure the truth (We shall not launch the ground offensive until we have attrited the Republican Guard to the point when they no longer have  an effective offensive capacity   — the Pentagon's way of saying that the allies would not fight on the ground until they had killed so many Iraqis that the    others would not attack).

What was meant by the Israeli defence ministry when it issued the following press release remains    unclear: The United States and Israel now possess the capability to conduct real-time simulations with man in the loop for full-scale  theatre missile defence architectures for the Middle East.

Try not to use foreign words and phrases unless there is no English alternative, which is unusual (so a year or per year, not per annum; a person or per person, not per capita; beyond one's authority, not ultra vires; and so on).

 

Has the ad biz lost its lustre? Management Today

Good piece by Alex Benady about the current state of the advertising industry in the latest issue of Management Today. The following excerpt makes for sobering reading - and not just for ad execs. It also doesn't include any reference to Internet channels either:

In 1980 there was just one commercial TV channel.

By 1997 there were 58 pay-TV channels, 172 radio stations and 7,088 periodicals.

By late 2003 there were 296 pay-TV channels, 263 radio stations (and a further 43 digital multiplexes with nine channels each) and 8,338 periodicals.

Today, 797 TV channels are licensed to broadcast, making it harder and more expensive to reach consumers. And with fragmenting audiences, advertising is losing much of the cultural currency that comes from critical mass.

Perhaps the most ignominious sign of the adman's descent in the corporate pecking order is the fact that, increasingly, it's the procurement rather than the marketing department's job to buy advertising. The intrusion of purchasing professionals into advertising contracts drives many in the agency world to distraction.

'These people know the price of everything and the value of nothing,' fulminates a Top 30 agency chief. 'How on earth can you value imponderables like a great film script when you are talking to someone who was buying bog rolls by the yard just an hour ago?'

Journalist uses Facebook for editorial contribution shocker

Even if Saul Hansell isn't going to use Facebook for PR purposes, some journalists clearly already are. Marc Brenner, Editor of The Research Magazine, has  been requesting editorial contributions via the title's Facebook forum members. He refers to "a good slab of response" to this already - a possible pointer as to how Facebook can be made to work for both journalist and PR.

"Triaging Corporate Snafus": Forbes guide to PR

Forbes magazine has just published a piece about the PR biz, describing it as The Single Greatest Marketing Tool. No huge surprises in it. But I was intrigued to learn that one of the key roles of PR is "triaging corporate snafus"

Yes, it had me wondering for a few minutes - however, after a quick look at the dictionary, I think the author was trying to think of a different way of saying "crisis communications."

Still, she may be on to something. Describing yourself as a snafu triagist sounds way more exotic than crisis communications consultant.

More on the disconnect between PR/marketing agencies and their potential customers

Just stumbled across Rainmaker's latest New Business Survey which reports on how U.S. marketing communications agencies should best engage with prospective clients for the purpose of winning new business.

They polled opinion from 150 major US brand spenders, in respect of three areas where accurate insights are critical for effective new business activity. A series of questions were put to marketing decision-makers to confirm: (1) what prompts them to search for a new agency, (2) the most effective ways for agencies to engage with them, and (3) the reasons they choose one agency over another.

Says Rainmaker: "The findings reveal sharp contrasts between what marketing agencies tell us and what marketing decision-makers are telling us. These have enabled us to make some straightforward recommendations for how agencies might alter their approach to become more effective at new business". (And even though this is a US based survey, I think you'd find a similar situation here in the UK):

In the main, clients don’t feel that size matters, but in the main agencies do. Agencies should not sell themselves so vigorously on size, neither should they worry so much about size being an issue.

The majority of clients (83%) don’t feel geographical location is an issue – many agencies think it is. Agencies should not overly worry that their physical location will prevent clients from buying a winning solution from them.

85% of clients don’t feel agencies prepare enough – many agencies don’t invest much in this area or prefer to fire from the hip – which looks cool, but you can often miss. Agencies must invest more in effective intelligence on their prospects.

Most clients (75%) are buying solutions to their business problems - most agencies think the client is looking for advertising, or PR, or design or whatever other silo fits their model. Agencies should present a solution, not a discipline.

Clients want agencies to be far more proactive – most agencies like to sit in the bunker. Agencies should proactively reach out to the brands they want to work with.

A major trend, and one which will undoubtedly impact on all marketing communications agencies depending on how prepared they already are, is the increase in demand from clients for better customer insights. This tallies with our own experience – the improved new business performance of agencies that embrace this point speaks for itself. Agencies should develop keener customer insights and communicate these energetically to their prospect-base.

 

Download the full Survey results here.