I have to agree with actor Benedict Cumberbatch, who was angered by mobile device users recoding his stage performance of Hamlet.
Unfortunately, people generally seem to have few manners at any type of live performance these days.
Common practice is to talk during performances and moving in and out of seats to get alcohol.
The same thing goes at sports events.
For the life of me I don't know why some people pay money to attend these events, at which they pay little attention.
Might just be a sign of how short attention spans are becoming. We get bored, we pull out a mobile to check emails.
It's one of the reasons I prefer to watch major sport on TV. I can focus and enjoy without the distraction.
-Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
11 August 2015
25 June 2015
Government/ASIO PR stunt?
Was yesterday’s filming of terrorist hotspots at ASIO HQ just a government stunt to expand it’s “rule by fear” agenda?
Having worked at top secret level, I can’t see that ASIO would agree to it, despite what PM Abbott said in Parliament today.
Seriously, who would allow filming of classified maps inside our spy-catching organisation? ASIO, that’s who. But of course now it’s revealed the maps weren’t classified.
I now seriously question the judgement of ASIO boss, ex-SASR commander Duncan Lewis, who allowed this to happen.
17 June 2014
Dog finds PR client
I walked out of the house with the dog this morning. Who do we :bump" into?
Angela Maxwell.
She's walking around the world.
We got talking, as she pulled her 45kg three-wheeled home.
Rather than go into details of a half-hour conversation, check out her web site which explains it all. ProjectWeThrive
She's raising money for women in underprivileged communities.
I am now her honorary PR person while she's in Australia. That's for the next six or seven months.
Please support her.
28 October 2011
Katter's Mad Hatter Party put its spin on blood money funding
Yesterday's The Australian featured the disturbing revelation that Bob Katter's Australia Party is funded by an arms company which is also associated with the murder of endangered species.
Today, further claims that the Party then provides bullets to people (via gun clubs) in return for their support.
I don't condone the arms industry or the slaughter of African animals (even if they are from a game reserve).
I wrote to Katter and the arms company, NIOA (the MD is Katter's son-in-law and Party vice-president). I received a reply only from Katter's people. I'd mention that NIOA was banned by Seaworld from hosting its 2010 Christmas party there because of its association with the killing of wildlife (the company advertises in hunting magazines).
I received the usual preprepared reply, with an attachment of their Party manifesto.
What the Party has done is put its "spin" (they refer to the endangered animals as being from "on a property that breeds animals"). Really, so that makes it okay?
The fact remains, these animals are murdered for what passes as sport or recreation (quite disturbing behaviour in most people's minds).
The fact also remains that the party accepts donations from the arms industry, which supplies weapons to these people. The company in question advertises in a range of hunting magazines. I'm all for shooting as a pasttime/sport (having served in the Army for 17 years) but not animals.
Rather than stand up for the rights of people to "have a flutter", Bob Katter might stand up for the rights of helpless animals.
It just reinforces the notion that this mob are just a bunch of redneck hillbillies. Maybe the Party should be renamed Katter's Mad Hatters. As one media report said: "the cowboys are calling the shots".
Today's The Australian
My site: http://www.prlab.com.au
Today, further claims that the Party then provides bullets to people (via gun clubs) in return for their support.
I don't condone the arms industry or the slaughter of African animals (even if they are from a game reserve).
I wrote to Katter and the arms company, NIOA (the MD is Katter's son-in-law and Party vice-president). I received a reply only from Katter's people. I'd mention that NIOA was banned by Seaworld from hosting its 2010 Christmas party there because of its association with the killing of wildlife (the company advertises in hunting magazines).
I received the usual preprepared reply, with an attachment of their Party manifesto.
What the Party has done is put its "spin" (they refer to the endangered animals as being from "on a property that breeds animals"). Really, so that makes it okay?
The fact remains, these animals are murdered for what passes as sport or recreation (quite disturbing behaviour in most people's minds).
The fact also remains that the party accepts donations from the arms industry, which supplies weapons to these people. The company in question advertises in a range of hunting magazines. I'm all for shooting as a pasttime/sport (having served in the Army for 17 years) but not animals.
Rather than stand up for the rights of people to "have a flutter", Bob Katter might stand up for the rights of helpless animals.
It just reinforces the notion that this mob are just a bunch of redneck hillbillies. Maybe the Party should be renamed Katter's Mad Hatters. As one media report said: "the cowboys are calling the shots".
Today's The Australian
My site: http://www.prlab.com.au
21 October 2011
Bob Brown and the Greens deceive the Australian people ... twice
It was fitting the Federal Ombudsman resigned, but Greens leader Bob Brown's performance leaves me feeling sick.
It was the Ombudsman's pre-prepared questions to Green senator Sarah Hanson-Young (and didn't she go to ground) that caused the resignation. That in itself is deceit, on both sides.
However, Brown's holier-than-thou response, shifting blame on to the government, is a desperate attempt to mask the facts that the Greens were complicit in an attempt to undermine democracy.
Just like the Democrats, when they said they'd never vote for a GST, the Greens have betrayed my trust.
Never again, Bob Brown.
My site: http://www.prlab.com.au
It was the Ombudsman's pre-prepared questions to Green senator Sarah Hanson-Young (and didn't she go to ground) that caused the resignation. That in itself is deceit, on both sides.
However, Brown's holier-than-thou response, shifting blame on to the government, is a desperate attempt to mask the facts that the Greens were complicit in an attempt to undermine democracy.
Just like the Democrats, when they said they'd never vote for a GST, the Greens have betrayed my trust.
Never again, Bob Brown.
My site: http://www.prlab.com.au
19 August 2011
Heart Foundation a disgrace
Yesterday my mother-in-law in Geraldton was contacted by a Heart Foundation telephone caller and asked to donate. She is a pensioner, who has regularly worked for various Church charities.
When she told them she couldn't donate, the response was: "well, you better hope you don't have a heart attack."
My wife reported this by phone to your head office, which said it would investigate and get back to her today. She's heard nothing.
So I will now mount a PR campaign against the Foundation for both it's disgraceful conduct on the phone, and it's pathetic response to what was a most distressing incident for my 72-year-old mother-in-law.
When she told them she couldn't donate, the response was: "well, you better hope you don't have a heart attack."
My wife reported this by phone to your head office, which said it would investigate and get back to her today. She's heard nothing.
So I will now mount a PR campaign against the Foundation for both it's disgraceful conduct on the phone, and it's pathetic response to what was a most distressing incident for my 72-year-old mother-in-law.
23 May 2011
Cracks appearing in Australia's workforce
Australia is sitting on a workforce fault-line, with the cracks in our society starting to appear this year.
Leading Australian demographer Bernard Salt made the observation at State Training Providers Forum in Perth recently.
“The first of the baby boomers, those born in 1946, will start retiring this year,” said Salt.
“What’s going to happen when a large group of tradespeople from this demographic start disappearing almost on en masse? The loss of so many skilled people is going to have a profound impact on from the workforce.”
Salt thinks big and is concerned about issues and trends from a national perspective, giving forum participants plenty to consider when planning for the future.
While training issues weren’t the focus of his keynote address, he referred to some occupations that were under threat.
“Five years ago, more than a third of the nurses in Australia were over 50, so they could decide to leave any time soon,” Salt said.
“The same scenario applies to religious ministers, across all faiths. In 2006, 48 per cent of them were over 50.
“These are just random occupations in the Census. What we should be doing is having this data for all occupations so we can better plan for workforce needs.”
While workforce shortages will rise rapidly, Salt believes there is some hope to halt the sudden loss in labour.
“The federal government will, I hope, do something drastic and allow a large influx of skilled overseas labour, but there also needs to be a reinvention of what we consider retirement to be,” Salt said.
“We need to tap into the narrative of how people want to live their lives. These days people can look forward on average to 20 years of what could be considered retirement.
“But people don’t want to simply stay home and look after the grandkids. They still want challenges. Then there’s those boomers haven’t saved enough, so they have to work beyond traditional working age.
“The skill will be to help them find new niches. This could be through short courses and other incentives for them to remain in the workforce.”
Leading Australian demographer Bernard Salt made the observation at State Training Providers Forum in Perth recently.
“The first of the baby boomers, those born in 1946, will start retiring this year,” said Salt.
“What’s going to happen when a large group of tradespeople from this demographic start disappearing almost on en masse? The loss of so many skilled people is going to have a profound impact on from the workforce.”
Salt thinks big and is concerned about issues and trends from a national perspective, giving forum participants plenty to consider when planning for the future.
While training issues weren’t the focus of his keynote address, he referred to some occupations that were under threat.
“Five years ago, more than a third of the nurses in Australia were over 50, so they could decide to leave any time soon,” Salt said.
“The same scenario applies to religious ministers, across all faiths. In 2006, 48 per cent of them were over 50.
“These are just random occupations in the Census. What we should be doing is having this data for all occupations so we can better plan for workforce needs.”
While workforce shortages will rise rapidly, Salt believes there is some hope to halt the sudden loss in labour.
“The federal government will, I hope, do something drastic and allow a large influx of skilled overseas labour, but there also needs to be a reinvention of what we consider retirement to be,” Salt said.
“We need to tap into the narrative of how people want to live their lives. These days people can look forward on average to 20 years of what could be considered retirement.
“But people don’t want to simply stay home and look after the grandkids. They still want challenges. Then there’s those boomers haven’t saved enough, so they have to work beyond traditional working age.
“The skill will be to help them find new niches. This could be through short courses and other incentives for them to remain in the workforce.”
Australia vulnerable to a "desperate" world, says Salt
Western Australia could find itself at the centre of growing international tension over its mineral wealth. And governments aren’t prepared.
Leading Australian demographer Bernard Salt made the prediction at a forum of WA Vocational Educational Trainers recently.
“The world wants and needs what we have, and there’s going to be a made scramble for all of these things,” Salt said.
“We have what the world wants. That makes us valuable, but also vulnerable.”
Alarmingly, the scramble will come sooner than later.
“Most people are predicting this will happen around 2070, but I think it will come by 2020,” said Salt, who was addressing 200 VET industry representatives in a forum sponsored by the Department of Workforce Training and Development.
“For me, this is the biggest issue facing Australia, and governments are doing nothing about it.
“Look at where our military presence is. We have Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. It was built in the sixties. What’s it protecting now? We have Robertson Barracks in Darwin, which was expanded during the East Timor crisis.
“But there’s no military assets of note between Darwin and Perth – an area that contains pretty much all of Australia’s wealth – about $43 million worth of gas and oil.
“The Chinese have already demonstrated they need the raw materials. Gorgon was about China shoring up its assets.”
Salt was quietly scathing of government inaction, saying while we had aligned ourselves militarily with the US, we expect our financial support to come from China.
“China is now the emerging power, but it remains to be seen how governments deal with the dilemma.”
Salt called for a massive boost to infrastructure, including a larger military presence with at least 5000 soldiers, and a regional town of 150,000.
“It only makes sense to put the military hardware where you are most exposed.
“This is the biggest issue confronting us.”
Leading Australian demographer Bernard Salt made the prediction at a forum of WA Vocational Educational Trainers recently.
“The world wants and needs what we have, and there’s going to be a made scramble for all of these things,” Salt said.
“We have what the world wants. That makes us valuable, but also vulnerable.”
Alarmingly, the scramble will come sooner than later.
“Most people are predicting this will happen around 2070, but I think it will come by 2020,” said Salt, who was addressing 200 VET industry representatives in a forum sponsored by the Department of Workforce Training and Development.
“For me, this is the biggest issue facing Australia, and governments are doing nothing about it.
“Look at where our military presence is. We have Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. It was built in the sixties. What’s it protecting now? We have Robertson Barracks in Darwin, which was expanded during the East Timor crisis.
“But there’s no military assets of note between Darwin and Perth – an area that contains pretty much all of Australia’s wealth – about $43 million worth of gas and oil.
“The Chinese have already demonstrated they need the raw materials. Gorgon was about China shoring up its assets.”
Salt was quietly scathing of government inaction, saying while we had aligned ourselves militarily with the US, we expect our financial support to come from China.
“China is now the emerging power, but it remains to be seen how governments deal with the dilemma.”
Salt called for a massive boost to infrastructure, including a larger military presence with at least 5000 soldiers, and a regional town of 150,000.
“It only makes sense to put the military hardware where you are most exposed.
“This is the biggest issue confronting us.”
19 May 2011
Parliament will run full course
There's no way federal parliament won't go the distance. The Independents will, by and large, back the government, because they know they're "on a hiding" in an election.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
06 May 2011
RSL stance baffling
The Returned Services Leage in Western Australia continues its "no-comment" policy with regard to the issue of killed in action SAS members not being allowed to have their names inscribed on the War Memorial. This is a baffling stance.
By not saying anything, the RSL shows how out of touch it is on two fronts. Firstly, the non-reponse shows how ill-equipped it is to deal with the media, which is hardly surprising, given the age of the executive. And, of course, it has already demonstrated how intractable it is, and has again rejected a move to change the rules, despite a survey by The West Australian showing that the majority of RSL sub-branches support the widows.
From a PR perspective, the RSL is now on a hiding. The public's views are now firmly entrenched and behind the widows and the RSL has lost its chance to at least appear sympathetic and understanding.
By not saying anything, the RSL shows how out of touch it is on two fronts. Firstly, the non-reponse shows how ill-equipped it is to deal with the media, which is hardly surprising, given the age of the executive. And, of course, it has already demonstrated how intractable it is, and has again rejected a move to change the rules, despite a survey by The West Australian showing that the majority of RSL sub-branches support the widows.
From a PR perspective, the RSL is now on a hiding. The public's views are now firmly entrenched and behind the widows and the RSL has lost its chance to at least appear sympathetic and understanding.
04 May 2011
Maybe Twitter not so popular
In setting up next semester’s “e-PR” unit for students the the University of Notre Dame Australia (Fremantle), I have created a google group, blog and twitter account. The students will use google as a hub to conduct a range of activities, including surveys and blogs.
In setting up Twitter I have grabbed some of the peope I’m already following from another account. In an effort to inject more local “content” (more Perth PR practitioners) I searched google for “Perth public relations”. In the first two pages of results, 10 companies were listed (not including paid ads).
To my surprise, only two companies mentioned on their web site they had a twitter presence. Given all the hype about the medium as a communications tool, I found this strange. I now feel a survey coming on. But I’ll save it for class.
In setting up Twitter I have grabbed some of the peope I’m already following from another account. In an effort to inject more local “content” (more Perth PR practitioners) I searched google for “Perth public relations”. In the first two pages of results, 10 companies were listed (not including paid ads).
To my surprise, only two companies mentioned on their web site they had a twitter presence. Given all the hype about the medium as a communications tool, I found this strange. I now feel a survey coming on. But I’ll save it for class.
25 February 2011
Aussies abandoned by government
What exactly does the Department of Foreign Affairs do?
Two indicents this week highlight the ineffectiveness of Australia's overseas representatives.
Aussies stuck in Libiya got no assistance and were told to book their own flights out. Then, just across the Ditch, they were told the same thing.
Two massive events in which citizens in danger received zero help.
And don't start me on QANTAS charging people $900 for a ticket home from NZ, when Air New Zealand offered flights for $70.
Two indicents this week highlight the ineffectiveness of Australia's overseas representatives.
Aussies stuck in Libiya got no assistance and were told to book their own flights out. Then, just across the Ditch, they were told the same thing.
Two massive events in which citizens in danger received zero help.
And don't start me on QANTAS charging people $900 for a ticket home from NZ, when Air New Zealand offered flights for $70.
22 December 2010
Some PR academics need to "get real"
Following a recent mention of my research in a PR journal I have come to question the value of PR as an academic discipline.
First, to give my comments some context: I worked for 17 years as a journalist on daily newspapers, then another 15 in various PR roles. I completed a Masters in Communications in 2004, then obtained my PhD in 2007. I taught PR for two years at two universities.
A recent article in this "junior" journal misrepresented my research. It a few sentences it primarily drew conclusions which were based on preliminary research, and not the completed work. The comments made not only were flawed, but also made me out to be somewhat of a PR chauvanist, which I am not (if the full thesis had been read). The referencing said the work was unpublished, when it is not. It is available on Amazon.
The writer, a long-standing academic, wrote as only an academic can: in waffling prose. I find this strange in PR, as we teach (or I do) students to write English as it's spoken. I sometimes wonder who these writers and journals are trying to impress? It's probably just their miniscule readership, all of whom are other academics. A mutual admiration society. Really, who will read this material, other than a few PR academics? I wouldn't have known about it, except that someone tweeted the subject.
Interestingly, the issue in question had as its theme, the subject of my research. I suppose I should be pleased I was quoted at all, given that the other half dozen authors didn't give me a mention, despite my research being the most recent. Most were content to quote material from the 1980s, which in itself is lazy research.
When all's said and done (pardon the cliché) "PR's not rocket science". In fact, PR's a soft subject, which, after all is why so many women do it (the topic of my research). Now, I said "subject". I don't mean it's soft when you get out in the real world. It's "soft" when taught at university, where in most cases, the course content doesn't reflect what's going on in the business world.
From an academic perspective, it's all very well to teach Grunig and Maslow (though I must say Grunig is getting irrelevant) but that's not going to cut it when Miss Jones is asked to write a 10-paragraph media release in 15 minutes. Academics will argue that university is there to teach you "why". If you just want to learn "how", then you go to TAFE. But knowing how is more relevant in today's environment than why. Isn't that what it should be about: relevance.
PR is attracting too many sub-standard students, because it's such an easy Degree to pass, and is a money-spinner for the universities. All this does is devalue the Degree, and the profession. Hundreds of graduates are churned out, with only a few likely to have any prospect of being employed in PR.
Academics, meanwhile, are cloistered in their vacuum, oblivious as to what the requirements of business really are. No wonder, when many of them are writing this waffle that is unintelligible to all but their closed circle.
I recently caught up with the head of news for a metropolitan TV station, who said that no university had ever approached him about having students come through to take a look at how the news is put together. Astonishing.
There's a group of PR academics who really need to wake up and "get real". Perhaps they should be given an assignment: apply for a PR job and see how far they get. I wonder.
First, to give my comments some context: I worked for 17 years as a journalist on daily newspapers, then another 15 in various PR roles. I completed a Masters in Communications in 2004, then obtained my PhD in 2007. I taught PR for two years at two universities.
A recent article in this "junior" journal misrepresented my research. It a few sentences it primarily drew conclusions which were based on preliminary research, and not the completed work. The comments made not only were flawed, but also made me out to be somewhat of a PR chauvanist, which I am not (if the full thesis had been read). The referencing said the work was unpublished, when it is not. It is available on Amazon.
The writer, a long-standing academic, wrote as only an academic can: in waffling prose. I find this strange in PR, as we teach (or I do) students to write English as it's spoken. I sometimes wonder who these writers and journals are trying to impress? It's probably just their miniscule readership, all of whom are other academics. A mutual admiration society. Really, who will read this material, other than a few PR academics? I wouldn't have known about it, except that someone tweeted the subject.
Interestingly, the issue in question had as its theme, the subject of my research. I suppose I should be pleased I was quoted at all, given that the other half dozen authors didn't give me a mention, despite my research being the most recent. Most were content to quote material from the 1980s, which in itself is lazy research.
When all's said and done (pardon the cliché) "PR's not rocket science". In fact, PR's a soft subject, which, after all is why so many women do it (the topic of my research). Now, I said "subject". I don't mean it's soft when you get out in the real world. It's "soft" when taught at university, where in most cases, the course content doesn't reflect what's going on in the business world.
From an academic perspective, it's all very well to teach Grunig and Maslow (though I must say Grunig is getting irrelevant) but that's not going to cut it when Miss Jones is asked to write a 10-paragraph media release in 15 minutes. Academics will argue that university is there to teach you "why". If you just want to learn "how", then you go to TAFE. But knowing how is more relevant in today's environment than why. Isn't that what it should be about: relevance.
PR is attracting too many sub-standard students, because it's such an easy Degree to pass, and is a money-spinner for the universities. All this does is devalue the Degree, and the profession. Hundreds of graduates are churned out, with only a few likely to have any prospect of being employed in PR.
Academics, meanwhile, are cloistered in their vacuum, oblivious as to what the requirements of business really are. No wonder, when many of them are writing this waffle that is unintelligible to all but their closed circle.
I recently caught up with the head of news for a metropolitan TV station, who said that no university had ever approached him about having students come through to take a look at how the news is put together. Astonishing.
There's a group of PR academics who really need to wake up and "get real". Perhaps they should be given an assignment: apply for a PR job and see how far they get. I wonder.
09 December 2010
Branding in government. Necessary or not?
The following may form the basis for a Paper. As such, it is not academically structured at present. Just putting it out there.
“The value of a brand is in its reputation as a faithful provider” (Branson, as cited in Switzer, 2010).
Origin of branding
Moo-cows. What we now think of as modern branding began in the American Wild West, where cattle farmers identified their herds with a brand, delivered by hot iron. So the brand became the identity.
What is branding?
For most people branding is about a logo. Looking at government department guidelines around Australia, that’s mostly what they refer to – the use of logos and colour schemes.
That perception (and practice) is wrong, and scaringly so, particularly when considers the money that is poured into “branding”.
Branding is a deep understanding and appreciation of a range of forces that make an organisation what it is. The American Marketing Association (2001) said “the brand means the business … a reflection of everyone affecting its performance in the marketplace: employees, alliances, suppliers and consumers. The brand effectively represents the culture of all who touch the business.”
It involves
• messages,
• perception,
• trust,
• loyalty,
• psyche,
• your value (sometimes known as goodwill),
• image,
• symbols,
• organisational culture
• staff knowledge and demeanour
Edberg (2002) said your brand is the “soul of your organisation”. Or, as the lawyer in the Aussie movie The Dish said: “It’s about the vibe” (a feeling associated with that brand). It’s about everything an organisation does … what customers think about when they think about a company, a person, a product, or a service” (Graham, 2001).
Some ideas:
• “A brand’s attributes can be described by a consumer’s perception of trustworthiness and credibility.”
• “Brands signify meaning to consumers about the source.”
• “Brand signals (credibility, consistency, clarity, personality).”
Today, brands are moving away from being primarily about a product. “Major brands have increasingly focussed their efforts on associating themselves with the promise of an experience or lifestyle” (Lewis, 2002).
Many people that shop in surf shops do not surf. The same with outdoors shops and 4WDs. People are buying products not for their practicality, but for what they represent. So in the case of a Porsche 4WD, it’s not that the person wants to hit the outback, but rather they want to be seen as rugged, but not dusty.
Businesses spend billions on brand identity. Look at these businesses. What do they stand for?
• David Jones
• Myer
• Target
• K-Mart/Big W
• Best and Less
When you think of the following products, do these companies come to mind?
• Rental cars (Hertz, Avis)
• Stereo equipment (Sony, Bang and Olfussen)
• Computers (Apple, Dell)
• Clothing (Country Road, Rivers)
What does branding do?
It differentiates you from the crowd. As in the examples above.
So this begs the question? Do we need branding in government (departments); particularly when there is no competition?
It begs another question: why are we doing branding, when a sound communication program would probably suffice? Some possible answers further on.
Where does it sit?
In many ways, branding belongs more in the PR domain than in marketing, as the goal with branding is not so much the short-term gain of sales, but the long-term goals of shaping and influencing people.
How do you get it?
• Define our uniqueness and value
• Goal
• Message
• Audience/s
• Management and Ministerial support
What are we branding?
• Department/Program (Buy West, Eat Best)
• Kellogg’s/Nutri-Grain
Sure, government can do with sending out positive messages. Sibbick (2008) recognised “government agencies need to mange their ‘corporate image’, because it is
the overall impression that various stakeholders have of the government agency”.
However, as with many things in government, there is often little, if any, research undertaken to determine why things should be done. Often, it’s a case of “we need a newsletter”, with the rationale simply being that “we need it to show we’re doing something”. A case in point was the Sydney Olympics, where the Olympic Coordination Authority produced maps of the precinct “just in case somebody needed one”. This is supported by Sibbick (2008).
“Only some conceptual work has been completed to date about how a consumer’s exchange of value is influenced by a government brand and that only limited empirical work has reported strategies to develop brand equity when designing a social marketing program” (Sibbick, 2008).
Apart from the fact that government agencies are usually not in competition with anyone, there are other reasons which question whether branding programs are necessary.
“Exploratory focus group findings suggests that target audiences’ interpretations of government brand signals are mixed, and at best, consumers are ambivalent about the inclusion of government logos and brands in social marketing. As the following focus group participant’s comment illustrates: I think there’s less credibility with government brand[ing]because if you see this spot you might think of it. … But first [you’re] wondering why they do it. I think it is much better without a brand” (Sibbick, 2008).
Colyer (2006) also questions the notion of branding in government.
“While public bodies have a mandate to work on behalf of ‘the people’, they have to be responsible with their finances too, demonstrating prudence with the public purse. So can investments in branding programs be justified, or is the public sector merely following a marketing fad? Indeed, is branding even appropriate for public services?”
The then director of publications in the UK government's Central Office of Information, Andrew Prince says: “I think that what you need out of the public sector is good communication,” asserts Andrew Prince, director of publications in the UK government's Central Office of Information (COI)” (Colyer, 2006).
That said, Colyer believes branding may go part of the way to assist.
“Branding is “shorthand for consumers” (AMA, 2001), or a shortcut to people's understanding” (Prince, as cited in Colyer, 2006).
“You don't have to start from scratch with a concept or idea. In government, it is important that communications get through to people and brands are a part of that. Governments have realized the need to focus communications and marketing efforts in terms of consistency of message. They are looking at the private sector and the notion of branding to help them out” (Colyer, 2006).
All that said, and with all the best intentions, there are a range of problems in getting government branding programs underway. Josef Jurkovic, a partner and director of the Centre for Excellence in Communications in Ottawa, Canada, explains:
“For governments it is a more complex and difficult issue to brand than the private sector. The main difference is the degree of control the public sector has over branding. In government, branding is made harder because of complex reporting structures, bureaucracy and decision-making. You need 360-degree alignment of all activities [and people], and it is hard for a large organization to exercise this control” (Colyer, 2006).
Conclusion
The challenges for government branding are in many ways no different to private enterprise. Everything operates in a Web 2 World, which is the overall communications environment. More groups are increasingly competing for someone’s attention. It is estimated the average American (sorry about that – couldn’t find Australian figures in the given time) sees between 3000-4000 marketing messages a day.
While we can be ever so vigilant about how we craft our messages (and our Brand) the world today is a heady place, and the best laid plans can be hijacked. According to Drapeau (2008) “everything put out there – video, blogs, tweets – is open to interpretation, comment, sharing, and re-use. It all affects your brand, and while you can direct and define things to some extent, it is largely out of your control”.
References:
American Marketing Association (2001). Who’s in charge of the brand and just what do we mean by brand? Toronto Table Roundtable. www.glasgrp.com/downloads/In_charge_of_brand.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2010
Colyer E (2006) Branding in public: A waste of money? Brand Channel, http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=310
Drapeau (2008). Government 2: What’s your brand? Business.com, http://mashable.com/2008/09/03/government-brand/
Graham J (2001). The Canadian Manager. Toronto: Spring 2001. Vol. 26, Iss. 1;
Lewis S (2002). Who’s in charge of the Brand? Reflections on Brand and Reputation. millennialmarketing.com/.../brand-building-and-social-media-whos-in-charge. Accessed 9 December 2010.
Sibbick, Joseph B. and Previte, Josephine A. and Russell-Bennett, Rebekah (2007) Is government branding ‘just wall paper’ or does it enhance product acceptance : conceptualising brand influence in social marketing. In: International Non-profit and Social Marketing Conference, 27-28 September 2007, Brisbane.
Switzer P (2010). Brand power with Richard Branson. http://www.switzer.com.au/small-business/business-management/marketing/brand-power-with-richard-branson. Accessed 9 December 2010.
“The value of a brand is in its reputation as a faithful provider” (Branson, as cited in Switzer, 2010).
Origin of branding
Moo-cows. What we now think of as modern branding began in the American Wild West, where cattle farmers identified their herds with a brand, delivered by hot iron. So the brand became the identity.
What is branding?
For most people branding is about a logo. Looking at government department guidelines around Australia, that’s mostly what they refer to – the use of logos and colour schemes.
That perception (and practice) is wrong, and scaringly so, particularly when considers the money that is poured into “branding”.
Branding is a deep understanding and appreciation of a range of forces that make an organisation what it is. The American Marketing Association (2001) said “the brand means the business … a reflection of everyone affecting its performance in the marketplace: employees, alliances, suppliers and consumers. The brand effectively represents the culture of all who touch the business.”
It involves
• messages,
• perception,
• trust,
• loyalty,
• psyche,
• your value (sometimes known as goodwill),
• image,
• symbols,
• organisational culture
• staff knowledge and demeanour
Edberg (2002) said your brand is the “soul of your organisation”. Or, as the lawyer in the Aussie movie The Dish said: “It’s about the vibe” (a feeling associated with that brand). It’s about everything an organisation does … what customers think about when they think about a company, a person, a product, or a service” (Graham, 2001).
Some ideas:
• “A brand’s attributes can be described by a consumer’s perception of trustworthiness and credibility.”
• “Brands signify meaning to consumers about the source.”
• “Brand signals (credibility, consistency, clarity, personality).”
Today, brands are moving away from being primarily about a product. “Major brands have increasingly focussed their efforts on associating themselves with the promise of an experience or lifestyle” (Lewis, 2002).
Many people that shop in surf shops do not surf. The same with outdoors shops and 4WDs. People are buying products not for their practicality, but for what they represent. So in the case of a Porsche 4WD, it’s not that the person wants to hit the outback, but rather they want to be seen as rugged, but not dusty.
Businesses spend billions on brand identity. Look at these businesses. What do they stand for?
• David Jones
• Myer
• Target
• K-Mart/Big W
• Best and Less
When you think of the following products, do these companies come to mind?
• Rental cars (Hertz, Avis)
• Stereo equipment (Sony, Bang and Olfussen)
• Computers (Apple, Dell)
• Clothing (Country Road, Rivers)
What does branding do?
It differentiates you from the crowd. As in the examples above.
So this begs the question? Do we need branding in government (departments); particularly when there is no competition?
It begs another question: why are we doing branding, when a sound communication program would probably suffice? Some possible answers further on.
Where does it sit?
In many ways, branding belongs more in the PR domain than in marketing, as the goal with branding is not so much the short-term gain of sales, but the long-term goals of shaping and influencing people.
How do you get it?
• Define our uniqueness and value
• Goal
• Message
• Audience/s
• Management and Ministerial support
What are we branding?
• Department/Program (Buy West, Eat Best)
• Kellogg’s/Nutri-Grain
Sure, government can do with sending out positive messages. Sibbick (2008) recognised “government agencies need to mange their ‘corporate image’, because it is
the overall impression that various stakeholders have of the government agency”.
However, as with many things in government, there is often little, if any, research undertaken to determine why things should be done. Often, it’s a case of “we need a newsletter”, with the rationale simply being that “we need it to show we’re doing something”. A case in point was the Sydney Olympics, where the Olympic Coordination Authority produced maps of the precinct “just in case somebody needed one”. This is supported by Sibbick (2008).
“Only some conceptual work has been completed to date about how a consumer’s exchange of value is influenced by a government brand and that only limited empirical work has reported strategies to develop brand equity when designing a social marketing program” (Sibbick, 2008).
Apart from the fact that government agencies are usually not in competition with anyone, there are other reasons which question whether branding programs are necessary.
“Exploratory focus group findings suggests that target audiences’ interpretations of government brand signals are mixed, and at best, consumers are ambivalent about the inclusion of government logos and brands in social marketing. As the following focus group participant’s comment illustrates: I think there’s less credibility with government brand[ing]because if you see this spot you might think of it. … But first [you’re] wondering why they do it. I think it is much better without a brand” (Sibbick, 2008).
Colyer (2006) also questions the notion of branding in government.
“While public bodies have a mandate to work on behalf of ‘the people’, they have to be responsible with their finances too, demonstrating prudence with the public purse. So can investments in branding programs be justified, or is the public sector merely following a marketing fad? Indeed, is branding even appropriate for public services?”
The then director of publications in the UK government's Central Office of Information, Andrew Prince says: “I think that what you need out of the public sector is good communication,” asserts Andrew Prince, director of publications in the UK government's Central Office of Information (COI)” (Colyer, 2006).
That said, Colyer believes branding may go part of the way to assist.
“Branding is “shorthand for consumers” (AMA, 2001), or a shortcut to people's understanding” (Prince, as cited in Colyer, 2006).
“You don't have to start from scratch with a concept or idea. In government, it is important that communications get through to people and brands are a part of that. Governments have realized the need to focus communications and marketing efforts in terms of consistency of message. They are looking at the private sector and the notion of branding to help them out” (Colyer, 2006).
All that said, and with all the best intentions, there are a range of problems in getting government branding programs underway. Josef Jurkovic, a partner and director of the Centre for Excellence in Communications in Ottawa, Canada, explains:
“For governments it is a more complex and difficult issue to brand than the private sector. The main difference is the degree of control the public sector has over branding. In government, branding is made harder because of complex reporting structures, bureaucracy and decision-making. You need 360-degree alignment of all activities [and people], and it is hard for a large organization to exercise this control” (Colyer, 2006).
Conclusion
The challenges for government branding are in many ways no different to private enterprise. Everything operates in a Web 2 World, which is the overall communications environment. More groups are increasingly competing for someone’s attention. It is estimated the average American (sorry about that – couldn’t find Australian figures in the given time) sees between 3000-4000 marketing messages a day.
While we can be ever so vigilant about how we craft our messages (and our Brand) the world today is a heady place, and the best laid plans can be hijacked. According to Drapeau (2008) “everything put out there – video, blogs, tweets – is open to interpretation, comment, sharing, and re-use. It all affects your brand, and while you can direct and define things to some extent, it is largely out of your control”.
References:
American Marketing Association (2001). Who’s in charge of the brand and just what do we mean by brand? Toronto Table Roundtable. www.glasgrp.com/downloads/In_charge_of_brand.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2010
Colyer E (2006) Branding in public: A waste of money? Brand Channel, http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=310
Drapeau (2008). Government 2: What’s your brand? Business.com, http://mashable.com/2008/09/03/government-brand/
Graham J (2001). The Canadian Manager. Toronto: Spring 2001. Vol. 26, Iss. 1;
Lewis S (2002). Who’s in charge of the Brand? Reflections on Brand and Reputation. millennialmarketing.com/.../brand-building-and-social-media-whos-in-charge. Accessed 9 December 2010.
Sibbick, Joseph B. and Previte, Josephine A. and Russell-Bennett, Rebekah (2007) Is government branding ‘just wall paper’ or does it enhance product acceptance : conceptualising brand influence in social marketing. In: International Non-profit and Social Marketing Conference, 27-28 September 2007, Brisbane.
Switzer P (2010). Brand power with Richard Branson. http://www.switzer.com.au/small-business/business-management/marketing/brand-power-with-richard-branson. Accessed 9 December 2010.
24 November 2010
Women in Pr
I wrote a PhD in 2007 on why more women than men do PR. so it's old "news". I wish people would do some research before commentating.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:Perth
08 October 2010
Spin in the surf
The shame that is surf life saving continues. The spin also continues.
Following the second death last summer of another young competitor, Saxon Bird, at the national titles venue of Kurrawa, the organisation decided to extend the competition to a week, with "vacant" days.
According to SLSA, the reason for this is due to extra competitor numbers. That logic in itself is flawed. If there are extra competitors, they would be using the additional days to compete.
The real reason there are "lay days" is in case of more dangerous seas, so they can move the events forward or backward a day or two, depending on the weather and surf forecast.
The travesty is that the reasons put forward by SLSA are pure spin in the worst traditions of PR. What's wrong with telling the truth?
I have competed in more than 30 Australian championship and won 39 medals in surf events. I also warned SLSA of the dangers before last year's events (and this is documented in the media).
Certainly this latest rubbish emanating form SLSA HQ at Bondi does nothing to convince me this organisation has regained any credibility following last season's tragedy at Kurrawa.
This approach also avoids any mention of Saxon, thereby relegating him to the dustbin of history. That is extremely sad. I imagine, SLSA is taking a purely business-like approach in wanting not to draw attention to the real reasons for the change. Well, that sort of thing has a habit of working the opposite way.
PS: I have not seen any Coroner's findings, so have written to the Court asking if there has been a finding, or when one is likely.
Following the second death last summer of another young competitor, Saxon Bird, at the national titles venue of Kurrawa, the organisation decided to extend the competition to a week, with "vacant" days.
According to SLSA, the reason for this is due to extra competitor numbers. That logic in itself is flawed. If there are extra competitors, they would be using the additional days to compete.
The real reason there are "lay days" is in case of more dangerous seas, so they can move the events forward or backward a day or two, depending on the weather and surf forecast.
The travesty is that the reasons put forward by SLSA are pure spin in the worst traditions of PR. What's wrong with telling the truth?
I have competed in more than 30 Australian championship and won 39 medals in surf events. I also warned SLSA of the dangers before last year's events (and this is documented in the media).
Certainly this latest rubbish emanating form SLSA HQ at Bondi does nothing to convince me this organisation has regained any credibility following last season's tragedy at Kurrawa.
This approach also avoids any mention of Saxon, thereby relegating him to the dustbin of history. That is extremely sad. I imagine, SLSA is taking a purely business-like approach in wanting not to draw attention to the real reasons for the change. Well, that sort of thing has a habit of working the opposite way.
PS: I have not seen any Coroner's findings, so have written to the Court asking if there has been a finding, or when one is likely.
06 October 2010
Bikies' PR a shambles
Events at the weekend, when three Perth bikies from the Finks were injured in a dust-up with the Coffin Cheaters, must all but signal the end of the United Motorcycle Council's PR campaign.
The Council (in WA and nationally) wants to have laws of association abandoned. The Council (aka, the bikie gangs) hired a Brisbane PR outfit, Cole Communications to help with its image and key messages. Frontman was the Finks' Ferret, who, while colourful, was not a great choice.
So the UMC's spokesman is a Fink, of the same club in Sunday's brawl, in which one Fink lost three fingers and another was shot.
How credible now is the bikies' assertion they are just a group of fun-loving bike riders?
Another aspect to this is the WA Police's lack of "intelligence" about the gathering. A quick glance at the Sunday Times' weekly motorcycle column would have told them about the event. Surely it's not difficult to "do the maths" and realise that drag-racing Harleys would attract bikies?
The Council (in WA and nationally) wants to have laws of association abandoned. The Council (aka, the bikie gangs) hired a Brisbane PR outfit, Cole Communications to help with its image and key messages. Frontman was the Finks' Ferret, who, while colourful, was not a great choice.
So the UMC's spokesman is a Fink, of the same club in Sunday's brawl, in which one Fink lost three fingers and another was shot.
How credible now is the bikies' assertion they are just a group of fun-loving bike riders?
Another aspect to this is the WA Police's lack of "intelligence" about the gathering. A quick glance at the Sunday Times' weekly motorcycle column would have told them about the event. Surely it's not difficult to "do the maths" and realise that drag-racing Harleys would attract bikies?
26 August 2010
Cousins documentary send wrong messages
Last night's Ben Cousins documentary seemed to me to be more a celebration about how good an AFL player he was. Everybody had their two bob's worth.
Cousins admits taking drugs from the age of 17. If that was the case, why didn't somone pick it up? I find it hard to believe all those teammates he had (in any club) would not have known he was taking drugs. Many journalists knew about it.
Cousins even still thinks, and says, he had a winning system: that he could take drugs and play well.
I'm also not impressed by his "cocky" attitude, nor his language. He comes across as (still) being a spoilt brat.
In the end, he had access to the best treatments money can buy. Everyone else just has to make do.
So, I'm not interested in the rest of the show.
I heard the WA Police Commissioner says Cousins should dob in his dealers. As nice as that sounds, I think even Cousins isn't that stupid.
05 August 2010
Twitter not an election tool
Interesting article in today's Australian about how Australian politicians haven't used Twitter to great effect in the current election campaign.
Apt because (as my last blog stated) I haven't been doing much Twittering/Tweeting myself. Reason? I just don't have the time, nor the inclination - probably because I spend a great part of the day writing stuff. Today, I wrote 11 media releases. Tomorrow I'm analysing survey results on video gaming and health.
I'm just not sure who's actually listening on Twitter, apart from the people on your list. And that's doubtful. If you have 1000 people you follow (many overseas) I'm sure you're not going to wade through screens of Tweets to see what they've all been saying while you're asleep. No, you'll just read the most recent.
The politicians and their media managers know about Twitter. If it was thought to be a useful tool, they'd be using it, for sure. But like me, they realise that most people (at least in Australia) still get their daily diet of news from traditional sources - TV, radio and print.
New media "gurus" and social media "experts" can talk it up all they like. But Twitter's been around long enough now for it to be incorporated into media strategy.
@prlab (but not today)
Apt because (as my last blog stated) I haven't been doing much Twittering/Tweeting myself. Reason? I just don't have the time, nor the inclination - probably because I spend a great part of the day writing stuff. Today, I wrote 11 media releases. Tomorrow I'm analysing survey results on video gaming and health.
I'm just not sure who's actually listening on Twitter, apart from the people on your list. And that's doubtful. If you have 1000 people you follow (many overseas) I'm sure you're not going to wade through screens of Tweets to see what they've all been saying while you're asleep. No, you'll just read the most recent.
The politicians and their media managers know about Twitter. If it was thought to be a useful tool, they'd be using it, for sure. But like me, they realise that most people (at least in Australia) still get their daily diet of news from traditional sources - TV, radio and print.
New media "gurus" and social media "experts" can talk it up all they like. But Twitter's been around long enough now for it to be incorporated into media strategy.
@prlab (but not today)
13 May 2010
Twitter-free diet ... almost
As I wrote in my last blog, I've been slack about writing recently; no doubt due to being sucked in by Twitter.
Not that I've got anything against Twitter. But it's all about priorities.
A PR person can't be all places in cyberspace at once, and that's what was happening. I was simply spending too much time on the computer, let alone on the computer and the Internet. Something had to give. So, I went Twitter-free for almost two weeks.
Interestingly, I read (online) on the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday about a detoxification program for social media addicts. Can't recall the details, but Susan Maushart's name was mentioned. I'd go and get the link, but it would mean more time spent on the Web. You go and do a search.
The point was that there is a big problem out there; in many ways similar to people being addicted to video games.
While Twitter has its place, it needs to be used with a specific purpose. Do you want to share information, learn or socialise? That, of course, is up to the user. However, the trick is to keep things in balance: much like diet, only in this case it's your consumption levels of social media that need to be kept in check.
If it's not Twitter, then it's LinkedIn, Facebook, or simply attending to emails. We've got a huge fare on the table (desk).
For me, I simply went "cold turkey" and didn't use Twitter. I might have missed something interesting, but certainly not life-shattering.
So do yourself a favour. Ask yourself how much do you really need to be connected, and are there other things you could spend your time doing – preferably outdoors?
Not that I've got anything against Twitter. But it's all about priorities.
A PR person can't be all places in cyberspace at once, and that's what was happening. I was simply spending too much time on the computer, let alone on the computer and the Internet. Something had to give. So, I went Twitter-free for almost two weeks.
Interestingly, I read (online) on the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday about a detoxification program for social media addicts. Can't recall the details, but Susan Maushart's name was mentioned. I'd go and get the link, but it would mean more time spent on the Web. You go and do a search.
The point was that there is a big problem out there; in many ways similar to people being addicted to video games.
While Twitter has its place, it needs to be used with a specific purpose. Do you want to share information, learn or socialise? That, of course, is up to the user. However, the trick is to keep things in balance: much like diet, only in this case it's your consumption levels of social media that need to be kept in check.
If it's not Twitter, then it's LinkedIn, Facebook, or simply attending to emails. We've got a huge fare on the table (desk).
For me, I simply went "cold turkey" and didn't use Twitter. I might have missed something interesting, but certainly not life-shattering.
So do yourself a favour. Ask yourself how much do you really need to be connected, and are there other things you could spend your time doing – preferably outdoors?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
