Follow us on Twitter

Blog

Playing the name game

What’s in a name?

Well, according to the Public Relations Society of America, an awful lot of needless guff.

It seems, due to the ever-changing face of our industry, they feel the need to redefine ‘public relations’ and in so doing, have apparently suffered from a severe bout of verbal diarrhoea.

Currently, they are inviting PR professionals to provide feedback on three definitions as follows:

  1. Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually beneficial relationships and achieve results.
  2. Public relations is a strategic communication process that develops and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their key publics.
  3. Public relations is the engagement between organizations and individuals to achieve mutual understanding and realize strategic goals.

Now, if you’ve read even one of my previous blogs, you’ll probably be painting the picture of a grumpy ex-hack for whom cynicism and sarcasm has become a competitive sport. If I’m not yet a professional moaner, I’m easily a top-ranked amateur.

That said, I can’t be alone in thinking the above definitions do absolutely nothing for the image of the modern PR person. In fact, the pretentious, convoluted tone is downright off-putting.

Personally, I have no need to be defined and as far as I’m concerned, this job is exactly what you make it. There are a multitude of methods and styles that allow you to reach the same goal and, no matter how the landscape changes, it’s up to the individual to make the most of the tools at their disposal.

Once this definition is finalised, what exactly are we supposed to do with it? Am I to write it on the back of my business card and slot it neatly into my wallet so it can be trotted out verbatim the next time someone throws me a puzzled look when I tell them what I do?

Answers on a postcard please.

Bookmark and Share

Beyond the brand

While knocking back my morning protein shake (new year, new obsessive compulsive health regime) and scouring the web, I came across this piece on PR Week.

A new survey revealed 70 per cent of consumers questioned would avoid buying products if they did not like the parent company.

As far as I’m concerned, that’s an encouraging development. Not only will the brand come under scrutiny when the public are making purchasing decisions but so too will the organisation and, by extension, their corporate ethics.

That’s a step in the right direction because too often a strong brand has been the cloak for a multitude of sins.

Personally, I was disappointed when Innocent Smoothies sold a majority share to Coca Cola but perception of the brand doesn’t seem to have changed much in the aftermath.

It’s slightly disingenuous that a company with such a fluffy, cuddly image, founded amid the mud, hemp sandals and ponchos of a music festival should be run by a global leviathan, which has faced criticism for adverse health effects and exploitative labour practices.

But as much as my mental product blacklist takes ethics into consideration, there’s another major factor – advertising.

Rightly or wrongly, I have been dubbed the ‘angry man’ around the office but maybe my extreme intolerance for anything I find even mildly irritating is a contributory factor.

So no, I don’t want to sell you my car and even if you offered me two grand above the book price I still wouldn’t because of that instant headache of a song on your TV and radio adverts.

Similarly, if and when I sell my unwanted CDs and DVDs, I think I’ll just bang them on eBay rather than hand them over to some smug bird with an astonishingly appalling theme tune. Think on.

Bookmark and Share

Time for a new broom?

Is anyone actually interested in the Leveson Inquiry?

At this stage, I’m pretty certain the only people actually concerned with the minutiae of this tiresome parade are the journos themselves – and then only because they’re tasked by unimaginative editors with cataloguing every moment Hugh Grant scratched his backside for their morning editions.

If I have to see another worthy celeb appear outside the Royal Courts of Justice to tell us “journalists are bad mmm kay” then I may just form a one-man militia to reclaim the moral high ground and force those beloved personalities back into the pages of Heat. Kind of like Fathers for Justice but with shorthand notepads and a greater sense of self-awareness.

Now, I’m not condoning phone hacking (although I do take exception to the term as ‘hacking’ tends to indicate a degree of skill) and I’m certainly not saying all’s well on Fleet Street.

For too long, our nation’s newspapers have gone unchecked, free to publish stories of questionable accuracy with utter impunity.

But what will the Leveson Inquiry actually achieve? A few convenient scapegoats will be sacrificed but nobody with any true power will be brought to task.

Ultimately, you get the feeling that it’s a chance for a few politicians to either boost their careers or enjoy a fleeting moment in the sun – at the expense of the taxpayer of course.

It’s the Parliamentary version of Big Brother, where a series of inconsequential figures preen, pose and pontificate under the constant glare of the camera lens, aware this may be their only chance to grasp Warhol’s fabled 15 minutes.

The money could be spent better in actually affecting some kind of change. Obviously media self-regulation is flawed and greater Government intervention would open up a whole new can of worms, so why not direct funds to establishing an independent regulatory body?

Too often, the PCC appears toothless when dealing with disputed stories and victims find the cost of legal action restrictive when faced by the might of huge media conglomerates. An independent watchdog could provide a happy medium to ensure inaccurate or malicious journalism does not go unchecked.

I’m not for one minute suggesting we curb freedom of expression but self-regulation is clearly not working. The argument that bad journalism will be punished by a loss of credibility seems to have lost much of its gravitas in a world where celebrity scandal is splashed across the front of countless newspapers and magazines.

Even as an ex-journalist myself, I admit it’s time for a new broom.

Bookmark and Share

Take pity on the poor PR exec

So much for an easy life.

It’s that time of year when everyone, no matter their age, occupation or location, feels the weight of the world pressing firmly on their shoulders.

It’s understandable. After days on end spent cultivating the perfect sofa groove throughout the festive period, the January Blues can bite hard.

But before you start to feel seriously sorry for yourself, please take a moment to consider the existence of the downtrodden PR executive.

According to a study carried out by Career Cast, PR practitioners have the seventh most stressful job on the planet – behind only assignments to the armed forces or emergency services and the cursed world of event planning.

Even chief executives have it easier, so show a little sympathy when you come across a bedraggled agency foot soldier out in the street. Maybe even treat them to a cup of coffee – a little kindness and a lot of caffeine can go a long way!

In fact, I’ve come up with my Dragon’s Den idea, a rehabilitation centre where overworked and underappreciated PR people can escape the pressures of everyday life. It’d be much like a day spa where the swimming pool is replaced by a beer bath and champagne jacuzzi.

What do you mean, it’ll never take off? I’m off home later to empty a few cans of Tetley’s into the tub.

Bookmark and Share

Mellow to the music

Spotify is a modern marvel.

Whatever music you want, whenever you want it. Well, unless you fancy listening to some Beatles or Oasis, which is pretty much the same thing anyway, or some De La Soul – strangely enough.

The absence of everyone’s favourite daisy age rap group from everyone’s favourite music streaming software is a particular annoyance when you grew up wearing Adidas shell toes and baggy jeans.

Anyway, thanks to Spotify and my own varied taste, each day becomes a directionless trek through the world of music.

From Thelonius Monk to The La’s, Leonard Cohen to Run-DMC, no stone is left unturned.

But as varied as my tastes are, the music all has one thing in common – it’s good. Or at least that’s what I thought.

I have always made a concerted effort to avoid bubblegum pop, shoe-gazing rock or lazy R&B – all manner of downright dirge – yet apparently I’m not really allowed to classify any of this as ‘bad’.

Maybe I’ve been blinded by my own snobbery but, playing devil’s advocate, one of my colleagues argued there was actually no such thing as good or bad music, that it was all, in fact, a matter of opinion.

I tried to define good music as being made with a genuine love and appreciation for the artform but even that falls down when you consider plenty of utter garbage has been created in earnest. Just listen to some of the more recent stuff from seminal 80/90s rap group Public Enemy for an example of that.

Age is generally making me grumpier but this is one area where I may just have to mellow.

So, feel free to listen to whatever you want – just as long as you don’t do it within my earshot.

Today’s Spotify playlist:

Outkast – The Love Below

Aloe Blacc – Good Things

Sam Cooke – The Two Sides of Sam Cooke

Thelonius Monk – Monk’s Business Vol 1

Tribe Called Quest – People’s Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm

Janis Joplin – Pearl

The xx – The xx

The Animals – Animal Tracks

Beastie Boys – Hello Nasty

Happy Mondays – Pills ‘n’ Thrills and Bellyaches

Bookmark and Share