The incoming chairman of the PRSA (America’s peak PR body) has outlined some of the problems PR faces. In many ways, they are no different to us in Australia. The full text is available at bulldogreporter.com (29 Nov).
Sounds like the Yanks face some of the same problems we do – one of them being irrelevance of the peak PR body. I was talking about this today with a colleague, who is pro-PRIA. I am not a fan of it, mostly because it’s a toothless organisation which offers little to members. Why should lawyers be regulated, but PR people not be?
To be a PRIA member one should be an experienced practitioner (and qualified). So why does it run workshops for members on how to write a media release? They should know that already. Sheesh, they teach it in journalism 101.
Figures don’t lie. Our PRIA has 2800 members, from an estimated PR workforce of between 11-14,000 (Aust. Bureau of Statistics).
30 November 2007
29 November 2007
PR in the TV spotlight
The ABC’s long-running TV program Media Watch will also include reports on poor PR practice from next year.
Media Watch will be hosted by Walkley Award-wining journalist Jonathan Holmes.
This is great news, as it will serve as a wake-up call for the profession.
Hopefully, one of the byproducts will be a greater professionalism in the industry. I’ve long said that PR has been its own worst enemy.
While I’m sure it will expose the charlatans, it could be a chance for PR to start to reposition itself as a serious business discipline.
Media Watch will be hosted by Walkley Award-wining journalist Jonathan Holmes.
This is great news, as it will serve as a wake-up call for the profession.
Hopefully, one of the byproducts will be a greater professionalism in the industry. I’ve long said that PR has been its own worst enemy.
While I’m sure it will expose the charlatans, it could be a chance for PR to start to reposition itself as a serious business discipline.
26 November 2007
Glad (it's) all over
As the old Dave Clark Five song of the same (headline) name says, I'm glad the election is over, if nothing more than to give us a break from the tedium of campaigning (and babies).
Labor's victory was deserved, given that for the most part the Liberals simply weren't listening.
Maxine McKew, the Labor candidate for Bennelong, who, at the time of writing, seems to have ousted the Prime Minister from his seat, gave a pointer as to why the Liberals had lost.
McKew, a former high-profile TV journalist and first-time candidate, said she was amazed at the people she met while door-knocking and visiting shopping centres. Well, surprise, surprise.
They're called Australians, or more precisely, constituents ... the people who just sacked a government ... and a PM who had held his seat for 30 years.
This is what politicians, particularly those in power, forget: that they represent people. If the people aren't being listened to, they have the amazing opportunity to have their say, even if it is only once every three years.
Labor's victory was deserved, given that for the most part the Liberals simply weren't listening.
Maxine McKew, the Labor candidate for Bennelong, who, at the time of writing, seems to have ousted the Prime Minister from his seat, gave a pointer as to why the Liberals had lost.
McKew, a former high-profile TV journalist and first-time candidate, said she was amazed at the people she met while door-knocking and visiting shopping centres. Well, surprise, surprise.
They're called Australians, or more precisely, constituents ... the people who just sacked a government ... and a PM who had held his seat for 30 years.
This is what politicians, particularly those in power, forget: that they represent people. If the people aren't being listened to, they have the amazing opportunity to have their say, even if it is only once every three years.
21 November 2007
20 November 2007
Pure theatre from Howard and Costello
Prime Minister John Howard performed the "best" PR stunt of the election last night by appearing with Treasurer Peter Costello on Today Tonight. It was almost as good as his donation of $500,000 to save the orangutan (complete with YouTube video and sick child).
Suddenly voters are supposed to believe all is well in the House of Liberal between these two, after two years or so of tension about the leadership. Sure.
It was a cosy setting. More interesting was that it was on Today Tonight, a pretty "low-brow" infotainment program (it long ago ceased to be about current affairs or news). I imagine it's the Liberals' attempt to reach the "masses", seeing as though Howard isn't disposed to using the fm stations to push his messages.
This morning there was another interesting "sideshow. The Liberals' used a garbage truck, featuring a poster of Howard and Costello and some other politician. I couldn't make out who, as I was driving back from the beach, and I usually don't look at garbage trucks.
Not to be outdone, my son then got a text/voice/viedo message on his mobile from Kevin. This was actually an excellent use of the medium. You could also enter several areas of policy and read the details. The only drawback was that it is unsolicited. But then again, so have been the pamphlets appearing in our letterbox over the past two weeks.
Suddenly voters are supposed to believe all is well in the House of Liberal between these two, after two years or so of tension about the leadership. Sure.
It was a cosy setting. More interesting was that it was on Today Tonight, a pretty "low-brow" infotainment program (it long ago ceased to be about current affairs or news). I imagine it's the Liberals' attempt to reach the "masses", seeing as though Howard isn't disposed to using the fm stations to push his messages.
This morning there was another interesting "sideshow. The Liberals' used a garbage truck, featuring a poster of Howard and Costello and some other politician. I couldn't make out who, as I was driving back from the beach, and I usually don't look at garbage trucks.
Not to be outdone, my son then got a text/voice/viedo message on his mobile from Kevin. This was actually an excellent use of the medium. You could also enter several areas of policy and read the details. The only drawback was that it is unsolicited. But then again, so have been the pamphlets appearing in our letterbox over the past two weeks.
17 November 2007
PR frustrating at times
Known for her stinging attacks on the profession, Strumpette didn’t hold back.
Referring to a long list of Web 2 “luminaries” and how they “contribute” to PR, Amanda Chapel wrote: “It's a motley band of no-talent schmooze hucksters surreptitiously slinging refried common sense to a global room full of nitwit conference goers and pedestrian dupes.”
Whether or not you agree with Chapel (Strumpette) at http://strumpette.com, you should read it.
In a roundabout way, it brings me to my point. PR is often a frustrating business.
For starters, everyone, it seems, is an “expert” (until they have to write a media release, or construct a strategy).
It’s a business where things move fast. “You’re only as good as your last trick”, just about sums it up for me. In that regard, it’s not much different from journalism. You get the story, find a new angle for the next one, then move on. “Today’s news is tomorrow’s fish wrapping,” as one crusty editor said. In fact, I think all editors used to say that.
Chapel’s article helped distill why I get frustrated with PR.
I particularly agreed with point 4 (The Rejection of Healthy Discrimination). This is reflected in society and at university. Students these days all have to get distinctions. No one is mediocre. NOT. Children these days aren’t equipped to deal with failure. We wrap them in cotton wool and protect them from, it seems, everything (including playground swings, slippery dips and monkey bars).
“We've told a generation of kids that don't know shit that they have something important to say,” Chapel says. “Now they won't shut up! And now they drown out any/all serious discussion and debate.”
I feel a headache coming on.
Referring to a long list of Web 2 “luminaries” and how they “contribute” to PR, Amanda Chapel wrote: “It's a motley band of no-talent schmooze hucksters surreptitiously slinging refried common sense to a global room full of nitwit conference goers and pedestrian dupes.”
Whether or not you agree with Chapel (Strumpette) at http://strumpette.com, you should read it.
In a roundabout way, it brings me to my point. PR is often a frustrating business.
For starters, everyone, it seems, is an “expert” (until they have to write a media release, or construct a strategy).
It’s a business where things move fast. “You’re only as good as your last trick”, just about sums it up for me. In that regard, it’s not much different from journalism. You get the story, find a new angle for the next one, then move on. “Today’s news is tomorrow’s fish wrapping,” as one crusty editor said. In fact, I think all editors used to say that.
Chapel’s article helped distill why I get frustrated with PR.
I particularly agreed with point 4 (The Rejection of Healthy Discrimination). This is reflected in society and at university. Students these days all have to get distinctions. No one is mediocre. NOT. Children these days aren’t equipped to deal with failure. We wrap them in cotton wool and protect them from, it seems, everything (including playground swings, slippery dips and monkey bars).
“We've told a generation of kids that don't know shit that they have something important to say,” Chapel says. “Now they won't shut up! And now they drown out any/all serious discussion and debate.”
I feel a headache coming on.
15 November 2007
Election a PR bore
I’ve refrained from too much comment on the forthcoming Australian election. But as we near the end, with six days of campaigning remaining, I’ve faltered. I’m fed up and bored.
Following Labor’s campaign “launch” (again) today I could not help but feel how uninspiring it all is – and not just Labor. Kevin Rudd was monotone (bla, blah, blah). So was Howard.
There is nothing visionary about either Party. It’s simply come down to a series of daily pork-barrelling promises, accompanied by the ritual PR photo opportunity. Stock-standard and boring. Does anyone remember what Howard promised yesterday.
It’s all simplistic spin – fairy floss for the masses. Where is the substance and the leadership? It’s just about spending, in turn fuelling inflation (there goes your tax cuts, folks). Come to think of it, where's the imagination?
Despite this lack of lustre, and our ability to radically change our direction, we will continue to vote as lemmings – Labor or Liberal.
Following Labor’s campaign “launch” (again) today I could not help but feel how uninspiring it all is – and not just Labor. Kevin Rudd was monotone (bla, blah, blah). So was Howard.
There is nothing visionary about either Party. It’s simply come down to a series of daily pork-barrelling promises, accompanied by the ritual PR photo opportunity. Stock-standard and boring. Does anyone remember what Howard promised yesterday.
It’s all simplistic spin – fairy floss for the masses. Where is the substance and the leadership? It’s just about spending, in turn fuelling inflation (there goes your tax cuts, folks). Come to think of it, where's the imagination?
Despite this lack of lustre, and our ability to radically change our direction, we will continue to vote as lemmings – Labor or Liberal.
12 November 2007
Toyota's PR coup. Thanks, Channel 9
Toyota’s Aussie PR people must be patting themselves on the back with the airtime they received on the main Channel 9 bulletin in Perth tonight (and I assume on all its capital city affiliates).
Respected journalist Peter Harvey spruiked the virtues of the latest model of Lexus, simply helping promote a vehicle that is well short on sound environmental credentials.
I take back my remark about being Harvey being respected. This was rubbish from any angle … especially in news value. It was just a blatant plug in the guise of news.
Respected journalist Peter Harvey spruiked the virtues of the latest model of Lexus, simply helping promote a vehicle that is well short on sound environmental credentials.
I take back my remark about being Harvey being respected. This was rubbish from any angle … especially in news value. It was just a blatant plug in the guise of news.
11 November 2007
Racing pitches gambling to children
Earlier this week, on Melbourne Cup Day, I noticed Channel 7 interviewing seven-year-olds as part of it’s Cup-day broadcast. The subject: what they were betting on. At the time I commented on another blog of mine, This Aussie Life, that it was promoting gambling.
Well, I’m taking it up a notch, because on last night’s Channel 10 news, racing was at it again. This time the station highlighted youngsters’ participation in a fashion parade during the Melbourne Spring Carnival.
It’s obvious that racing is attempting to build a “relationship” with kiddies. After all, they are the future punters who will help keep the $10 billion Australian gambling industry going. What better (seemingly innocent) way that to innocently portray them as fashionistas? Clever PR perhaps, but lacking in morality. Isn’t it absurd enough that a seven-year-old dresses up in suit and tie at a racetrack?
The industry, aided and abetted by sponsor Emirates Airlines, should be held accountable by regulatory authorities. It’s enough that children are assailed daily by advertising for products. But to have them targeted as future gamblers is breaking the laws of moral decency.
Sadly, there’s nothing in the PRIA Code of Ethics that covers this type of operation. The closest is: “Members shall avoid conduct or practices likely to bring discredit upon themselves, the Institute, their employers or clients.” Well, maybe if someone exerts a little pressure, Emirates and Racing will feel somewhat discredited.
Well, I’m taking it up a notch, because on last night’s Channel 10 news, racing was at it again. This time the station highlighted youngsters’ participation in a fashion parade during the Melbourne Spring Carnival.
It’s obvious that racing is attempting to build a “relationship” with kiddies. After all, they are the future punters who will help keep the $10 billion Australian gambling industry going. What better (seemingly innocent) way that to innocently portray them as fashionistas? Clever PR perhaps, but lacking in morality. Isn’t it absurd enough that a seven-year-old dresses up in suit and tie at a racetrack?
The industry, aided and abetted by sponsor Emirates Airlines, should be held accountable by regulatory authorities. It’s enough that children are assailed daily by advertising for products. But to have them targeted as future gamblers is breaking the laws of moral decency.
Sadly, there’s nothing in the PRIA Code of Ethics that covers this type of operation. The closest is: “Members shall avoid conduct or practices likely to bring discredit upon themselves, the Institute, their employers or clients.” Well, maybe if someone exerts a little pressure, Emirates and Racing will feel somewhat discredited.
10 November 2007
Cousins saga continues
Whether you like it or not, the Ben Cousins saga continues. Because the West Coast Eagles and Cousins are such a part of the WA media landscape you can not ignore their antics from a PR perspective.
Cousins was supposed to vist Los Angeles for a second round of drug rehab. Instead, he went on a five-day cocaine bender (proven by LA 911 records).
Meantime, back home, the club continues to bury its head in the sand. In a TV interview, coach John Worsfold claims he knew nothing of the problems, which extend to other players. Sure, John. Pull the other one. Worsfold is no fool. He is a pharmacist by profession.
If the WA media knew of the players' indiscretions (and they did, because I worked in it) he sure did - as did the club managemnet, led by current CEO Trevor Nisbett.
However, they continue to deny any responsibility for the club's problems.
This club needs a dramatic cultural shift, yet they persist with the old guard who have only contributed to the problem.
It's not only Cousins that has to get with the "program".
Cousins was supposed to vist Los Angeles for a second round of drug rehab. Instead, he went on a five-day cocaine bender (proven by LA 911 records).
Meantime, back home, the club continues to bury its head in the sand. In a TV interview, coach John Worsfold claims he knew nothing of the problems, which extend to other players. Sure, John. Pull the other one. Worsfold is no fool. He is a pharmacist by profession.
If the WA media knew of the players' indiscretions (and they did, because I worked in it) he sure did - as did the club managemnet, led by current CEO Trevor Nisbett.
However, they continue to deny any responsibility for the club's problems.
This club needs a dramatic cultural shift, yet they persist with the old guard who have only contributed to the problem.
It's not only Cousins that has to get with the "program".
09 November 2007
More on Moose ... and Dr Karl
Moose Toys finally “got it” by posting a front-page link on their web site to information about the recall of the deadly Bindy’s Beadz. Only took 48 hours … too long.
Meantime, Senate candidate Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, did something people in political life don’t normally do … apologise.
He retracted his comments about “clean coal” being a “furphy”.
Nice of you to say so, Karl – for whatever reason. But I agree with Tim Flannery and still reckon there’s no such thing as clean coal.
Burning coal simply puts rubbish in the environment. When (and if) they get around to clean coal, it will still be pumping carbon into the atmosphere; just a lesser amount.
Meantime, Senate candidate Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, did something people in political life don’t normally do … apologise.
He retracted his comments about “clean coal” being a “furphy”.
Nice of you to say so, Karl – for whatever reason. But I agree with Tim Flannery and still reckon there’s no such thing as clean coal.
Burning coal simply puts rubbish in the environment. When (and if) they get around to clean coal, it will still be pumping carbon into the atmosphere; just a lesser amount.
07 November 2007
Moose Toys' poor response, poor attitude
In my previous post about Moose Toys’ lame response to deadly toxic beads being swallowed by children, the media writer for The Australian, Amanda Meade, kindly pointed out the company issued a release.
For sure it did, then “hid” it in the “kids” section of its web site, which probably explains why it wasn’t picked up by the media until 24 hours-plus after the hospitalisation of three children. I went to the kids section (http://www.mooseworld.com.au/content/kids2/Home.aspx) and I still couldn’t find it. You’d think it would be under the corporate section, at least.
Apart from hiding the release, some of the language isn’t too encouraging.
Quote: “made this decision in the best interests of the brand and the children who love playing with it”.
I didn’t know you could play with a brand. But “in the best interests of the brand”. They really have their priorities wrong. This type of stuff is amazing in this day and age of supposed corporate responsibility.
In the second paragraph they’re also indirectly blaming children for playing with it incorrectly. Cripes, it’s what kids do … put things in their mouths. But to shift blame on to children (customers).
Then it goes on to say Moose voluntarily recalled the product. So if no one found out and didn’t make them recall it, then they wouldn’t have.
I see the statement is issued by a marketing person, which is why you need communicators to handle things like this.
This company has seriously abrogated its responsibility. It’s reputation is tarnished.
I’ll be teaching this as a case study in how not to do PR for a long time.
For sure it did, then “hid” it in the “kids” section of its web site, which probably explains why it wasn’t picked up by the media until 24 hours-plus after the hospitalisation of three children. I went to the kids section (http://www.mooseworld.com.au/content/kids2/Home.aspx) and I still couldn’t find it. You’d think it would be under the corporate section, at least.
Apart from hiding the release, some of the language isn’t too encouraging.
Quote: “made this decision in the best interests of the brand and the children who love playing with it”.
I didn’t know you could play with a brand. But “in the best interests of the brand”. They really have their priorities wrong. This type of stuff is amazing in this day and age of supposed corporate responsibility.
In the second paragraph they’re also indirectly blaming children for playing with it incorrectly. Cripes, it’s what kids do … put things in their mouths. But to shift blame on to children (customers).
Then it goes on to say Moose voluntarily recalled the product. So if no one found out and didn’t make them recall it, then they wouldn’t have.
I see the statement is issued by a marketing person, which is why you need communicators to handle things like this.
This company has seriously abrogated its responsibility. It’s reputation is tarnished.
I’ll be teaching this as a case study in how not to do PR for a long time.
06 November 2007
Life-threatning but company remains silent
No word from an Australian toy manufacturer about a life-threatening situation for children.
The manufacturer of Bindeez Beads, the Australian Toy of the Year (2007), has not made any statement, despite its product apparently being responsible for the hospitalisation of at least three children who swallowed the beads, which contains an ingredient known as GBH, an ingredient in ecstasy.
The product has been banned in NSW, the ACT, South Australia and Western Australia, after two children suffered seizures.
To show how bad news travels fast, TV New Zealand reported: "Testing by scientists in NSW found the chemical link to the drug gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GHB) - also known as fantasy or Grievous Bodily Harm - which can also cause drowsiness, coma and death."
With the story many hours old, the company responsible, Moose Enterprises, had not taken it from their web site (9.46pm EST). That's outrageous. And still no word from the company.
You'd think in this day and age, companies would be prepared, even with just a statement to express concern.
But to not even take the product down from their web site. Unbelievable.
The manufacturer of Bindeez Beads, the Australian Toy of the Year (2007), has not made any statement, despite its product apparently being responsible for the hospitalisation of at least three children who swallowed the beads, which contains an ingredient known as GBH, an ingredient in ecstasy.
The product has been banned in NSW, the ACT, South Australia and Western Australia, after two children suffered seizures.
To show how bad news travels fast, TV New Zealand reported: "Testing by scientists in NSW found the chemical link to the drug gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GHB) - also known as fantasy or Grievous Bodily Harm - which can also cause drowsiness, coma and death."
With the story many hours old, the company responsible, Moose Enterprises, had not taken it from their web site (9.46pm EST). That's outrageous. And still no word from the company.
You'd think in this day and age, companies would be prepared, even with just a statement to express concern.
But to not even take the product down from their web site. Unbelievable.
Targetted PR releases a must
Was Chris Anderson, editor of Wired, correct to "out" PR practitioners who send him unsolicited e-mails?
The "outing" made headlines on 5 November in the New York Times Technology section, after Anderson ripped into the PR people who "can’t be bothered to find out who on my staff, if anyone, might actually be interested in what they’re pitching".
Anderson says he gets more than 300 e-mails a day. Some of these were from the leading public relations firms, including Edelman, Fleishman-Hillard, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide and Weber Shandwick. Anderson says they should know better.
The debate is split. Some people believe Anderson breached privacy etiquette. Most, however, are with him.
I agree with Anderson. One of the golden rules, particularly in today's fragmented market, is to research your audience and target only those media that cater for that audience. You would think "professionals" would know this. Obviously not.
It's a good lesson for them, particularly as their addresses have now been harvested by email bots. You've heard about payback, well Anderson is getting some (deserved) "bounceback".
The "outing" made headlines on 5 November in the New York Times Technology section, after Anderson ripped into the PR people who "can’t be bothered to find out who on my staff, if anyone, might actually be interested in what they’re pitching".
Anderson says he gets more than 300 e-mails a day. Some of these were from the leading public relations firms, including Edelman, Fleishman-Hillard, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide and Weber Shandwick. Anderson says they should know better.
The debate is split. Some people believe Anderson breached privacy etiquette. Most, however, are with him.
I agree with Anderson. One of the golden rules, particularly in today's fragmented market, is to research your audience and target only those media that cater for that audience. You would think "professionals" would know this. Obviously not.
It's a good lesson for them, particularly as their addresses have now been harvested by email bots. You've heard about payback, well Anderson is getting some (deserved) "bounceback".
03 November 2007
The perception of PR
To paraphrase American singer/songwriter, Jimmy Buffett: “Public relations, public relations, boozing and schmoozing that's what I do ... public relations such hullabaloo ... ego inflation, that's what I do … it’s only public relations, who’s screwing who … just give me some time and I’ll make it come true.” I play it to students in their first tutorial. Mostly they think it’s a nice tune but don’t really listen to the words.
Unfortunately, Buffet’s image of PR reflects the still commonly-held perception of what many practitioners do. And therein lies the problem: the perception of PR.
For a profession that is all about perception, what are professionals doing about it? Not much. If professional bodies such as the PRIA were serious about it, they’d be mounting a PR campaign to counteract the skewed perceptions we suffer. TV shows such as Ab Fab, Absolute Power (to name but two) do nothing to enhance our standing in the business community. It riles me when all students are taught is they must fight to “get a seat at the boardroom table” so they can influence decision-making. Yeah, right.
The accounting profession has adopted a great series of (US) advertisements that push the benefits of having a CPA working for business. What have we got? Zilch, that’s what. Unfortunately, the PRIA’s membership numbers couldn’t afford to subsidise a TV ad campaign. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates there are 11-14,000 people who classify themselves as PR practitioners. The membership of the PRIA is under 3000. That’s another story.
Unfortunately, Buffet’s image of PR reflects the still commonly-held perception of what many practitioners do. And therein lies the problem: the perception of PR.
For a profession that is all about perception, what are professionals doing about it? Not much. If professional bodies such as the PRIA were serious about it, they’d be mounting a PR campaign to counteract the skewed perceptions we suffer. TV shows such as Ab Fab, Absolute Power (to name but two) do nothing to enhance our standing in the business community. It riles me when all students are taught is they must fight to “get a seat at the boardroom table” so they can influence decision-making. Yeah, right.
The accounting profession has adopted a great series of (US) advertisements that push the benefits of having a CPA working for business. What have we got? Zilch, that’s what. Unfortunately, the PRIA’s membership numbers couldn’t afford to subsidise a TV ad campaign. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates there are 11-14,000 people who classify themselves as PR practitioners. The membership of the PRIA is under 3000. That’s another story.
Dr Karl debunks clean coal PR myth
Good to see Dr Karl Kruszelnicki today debunk the government's PR stunt on clean coal. Karl, a physicist, is standing in the election as a Climate Change Coalition candidate for the Senate. Clean coal, along with the government's preference for climate change instead of global warming, are two simple PR tactics of giving something dangerous a more friendly name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
