All posts by Sebastian

Owned media: you might own it but does that mean you can say what you like?

Uncategorized

In case you didn’t know, and why should you, there are apparently three ways of defining the media channels that companies and individuals use to communicate with their audiences. PR Week’s editor gives a good definition of ‘bought, earned and owned’ so I won’t repeat it here but I did think it worth focusing on ‘owned’ media.

Owned media is where you’re communicating directly with your audience via Facebook or Twitter for example. You don’t own the medium you use, but you do own the relationship with your followers and you can say whatever you like (within the boundaries of acceptable taste and moral decency of course).

A strange contradiction
Anyway, turn over the page in the same edition of PR Week (29 June) that I mention above and you find a strange contradiction. A story appears on Wayne Rooney tweeting a Nike campaign that the Advertising Standards Authority ruled had not been ‘obviously identified as marketing comms’. Hang on. Surely he owns the relationship so why can’t he do and say whatever he likes (again within those boundaries of acceptable taste and decency)?

Why should Wayne Rooney be subject to the professional standards that the likes of journalists and publishing houses have to observe? Does he own the medium he’s using or not?

That’s the trouble/great thing with the likes of Twitter, it’s turned the traditional publishing model upside down. There are no rules, so why should celebrities or anyone who chooses to use it, listen to it, converse on it, play scrabble on it, care what the ASA, or anyone else says?

Car crash PR

Uncategorized, Working with the media

Anyone who read the Gordon Ramsay interview in the Observer last Sunday http://bit.ly/Kv2NIy would have enjoyed some spirited sparring between a spiky journalist and a prickly chef. From a communications perspective though, the role of the legion of PRs that Ramsay apparently brought with him was fascinating but ultimately did more harm than good.

Does an opinionated, forthright character like Ramsay really need a public relations team with him to guide the conversation? Of course he should have someone along to make sure the interview happens and that there is someone to listen in and make sure facts are recorded accurately, and any necessary follow-up takes place (or even post interview damage limitation, although it’s rarely effective – just look back at the Observer piece where the PR’s comments on Ramsay’s football injuries also get used in a slightly disparaging way).

Keep anonymous
In my book, if the journalist has to refer to the PR in their piece then the PR has failed. It’s a bit like the referee in a game of football. If you get to the end of a game and you don’t know the referee’s name then you know they’ve had a good match; they kept control without having to overly draw attention to themselves.

At one point in the Ramsay interview, the exasperated journalist turns to the PR and asks if they would prefer to conduct the interview. It’s not reasonable to pitch Ramsay for an interview ostensibly on his latest project and expect the conversation to stick firmly to the PR’s preferred topic – especially someone as colourful as Ramsay. To then repeatedly try and blunderingly guide the interview just makes it worse. Having said that, it does make for great reading!

When research led PR backfires…

Working with the media

There are lies, damned lies, and then there are, of course, statistics. A recent press release from an insurer has drawn a certain amount of ire from commentators for extrapolating up a statistic from research on people fiddling their expenses. See the Guardian’s comment:  http://bit.ly/JzMFZb

It’s tempting to try and draw out some big numbers from this type of research, but as ever it comes down to your gut feel and common sense: if you think it’s stretching the integrity of the research then journalists will almost certainly come to a similar conclusion and you could find the whole thing back firing.

So the chief executive is a human after all…

Social media, Talking to your customers, Talking to your employees

According to a newish survey by BrandFog, CEOs who use social media are more likely to be trusted by both employees and customers.

Seems like a nice chap
And it’s true; recently I was looking for a bank account to put some money in and found some good rates at a less than well known building society. Having checked on the FSA’s website that it was in fact registered (I said it wasn’t very well known), I then had a quick peruse on their website and found an engaging blog recounting the chief exec’s gardening experiences. Gullible I may be, but I felt that here was a person to be trusted and promptly deposited my money in to his (or at least the society’s) hands.

So a blog, regular tweeting or whatever social media channel you’re using, can influence the purchasing decision; but how do you get your chief exec to engage? Inevitably, it will be the communications team trying to encourage their chief exec to use social media and almost as inevitably they’ll end up drafting content to try and make it easier.

People will spot a blogus
But here is the dilemma: tone of voice and authenticity is absolutely at the heart of getting social media right – people will spot a bogus blog (blogus?) a mile off. Making sure you can replicate his or her style while getting the right content is critical and you can only do that with regular access and their engagement in what you’re trying to do.

Of course in an ideal world, your chief exec will write it themselves and it’ll be engaging, interesting and you can sit back and watch the trust in your company and its senior management steadily grow (you might even pick up some gardening tips).

x+x = the best news coverage ever (apparently)

Working with the media

Next time you have that press release in front of you, check how many of Johan Galtung’s and Mari Ruge’s boxes it ticks?

Deep thinkers

Never heard of them? Well, neither had I until stumbling on their research the other day. In short, they’re two Norwegian academics who, in the 1960s, identified 12 factors which determine whether an event would be covered in a newspaper.

Does your press release include the following?
These factors included frequency, unambiguity; meaningfulness; unexpectedness; reference to elite nations or elite people; reference to people; reference to something negative.

So, the answer I suppose is, if you haven’t got a President or a Prime Minister to quote, make sure you can tick as many of the other boxes for the perfect, news coverage guaranteed, press release.