A Bit of PR Punditry

The further I wander into the maze of intellectual thought that is the MSc in Public Relations course…the more dazed and confused I am, each time I come back out and open an issue of PR Week.

‘In there’ the work we’re doing is related to the ‘new’ face of PR, which, I guess, is all about professionalisation; so we’re immersed in Content Analysis, measurement and evaluation, surveys and statistics, the extensive use of new technology, concepts of ethics and truth and a barrage of other stuff, which I suspect does not trouble a large number of practitioners.

Certainly, much of it will not easily fit into the standard how-to PR files marked ‘seat of the pants’ or ‘common sense’. These, as I recall, being the only two files regularly in use in public relations for the last thirty-odd years…and I was in publishing and dealing with PRs back in the days when Lynn Franks was a strip of a gal.

Now, struggling with concepts which definitely challenge some established PR practice, I’m aware there’s a much bigger tussle going on in the industry. One lot is basically saying about PR: ‘It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it’ while the other lot says: ‘Get a grip. Tomorrow has arrived. Change or die.’ Nowhere is this stand-off more apparent than in the pages of PR Week: the 13^th April issue proving no exception.

The CIPR Diploma can now be obtained through an online course (p4), which means all of the above knowledge stuff can be yours at the click of a mouse and the handing over of two thousand quid. And according to this article by Kate Magee, it’s ‘borne out of demand by those unable to attend the traditionally taught course’. So it seems some of you out there share the view that there may be more to PR than meets the eye, or the seat of the pants.

Miranda Lane (p16) draws attention to a ‘skills vacuum’ in financial and investor PR – a world in which being a smart party arranger just won’t cut it. Here, PRs are required to be regulations-savvy and clued in mathematically. Heather McGregor, MD of specialist communications headhunter, Taylor Bennett, says she’d like to see more accountants moving into communications. So much for professional jurisdiction…but you get her point: the average PR offering won’t wash around the money men.

For a short lesson in anything but average PR, turn to Hannah Marriott’s piece on ‘Rocket Man’ (p17) a profile of Gary Farrow, Chairman of PR outfit, The Corporation.

Described as ‘an old school publicist who relies on instinct’ (instinct being a mate of seat-of-the-pants and common sense), Gary has some interesting things to say.

Regarding ‘Off the record, in perpetuity’:

‘Perpetuity is when you die and even in heaven. And if there is a stage beyond that, you still shut the f***k up.’

Regarding education:

‘Listen – I come from Orpington. I’ve got two GCSEs or whatever the bollocks they’re called.’

Regarding measurement and evaluation:

‘F***k it no. Leave that to those f*****g ponytail twats. Evaluation and pie charts and bollocks.’

Gary, as you have probably figured, is the kind of PR the CIPR realise will never have an Epiphany – even though he likens himself to John the Baptist of PR. He lives and breathes ‘common sense’ and ‘seat of the pants’. Speaking of which, check out his moment of checking out with a client…which has to do with pants and getting jiggy with a penguin, in Trafalgar Square at four in the morning. It’s a testament to the black art of common sense.

I'd have given you a website address for The Corporation but it says everything that keying in his name, his company's name, its stated business - and permutations of all three - bring up no website url. Not for this lot, search engine optimisation. What does come up are thousands of references to Gary, which tells me this is one busy and successful dude, even if he does think evaluation is bollocks.

We appear to have the definitive guide to creating a unique campaign (p20). And it is, I guess, the nearest we’ll ever get to putting Colonel Sanders deep into orbit. Weber Shandwick really did strut their stuff with this global relaunch, no less, of Kentucky Fried Chicken. The notion of being able to view the face of the Colonel – from space – is a breathtaking PR idea.

But I couldn’t help noticing in the Measurement, Evaluation and Results section of this article that the ensuing coverage was measured in numbers of stories and the advertising equivalent value. At £23 million, this is not to be sniffed at. But the real question is…will seeing Colonel Sanders from space actually result in more terrestrials buying the product?

Finally, we have wise words from Claire Murphy, (p19) the deputy editor of PR Week. She supports the whole notion of training – a concept which she feels the PR industry hasn’t exactly embraced. Obviously I’m in agreement. It’s because I believe you’re dead in the water if you don’t stay current that I’m on this course. But I also think we should guard against losing our old skills in our efforts to become adept at the new. Old skills such as clean copy and thorough subbing, Claire: this issue boasts far too many literals.

The PR industry appears to be living in interesting times. Personally, I think there’s a lot to be said for the old ways: I bet Gary Farrow gets things done. But I also think PR has got to clean up its act. And if PR practitioners want to defend their professional turf against encroachment by journalists, marketers and accountants! they’ll have to prove to clients that they possess a unique skills set.

So forgive me for hedging my bets, but today I’m off to get down and dirty with the postmodern approach to PR research and practice, with the celebrated Derina Holthausen. There’s not a sniff of common sense in this tome, I betcha…and probably no mention of pants….

A Fair Cop?

Next time you’re busily blabbing into the Blogosphere - keying your most intimate secrets into what you fancy is deepest, darkest cyberspace…consider this. One in five employers find information about job candidates on the web and nearly 60% say it influences their job decisions. And 25% of HR decision makers reject candidates based on personal information found online.

You’re hoping I made that statistic up? Sorry to disappoint…but these – ahem! – end-of-party pictures… or the grim details of that stag-night slide into debauchery…or even the low-down on what you really think of your boss, his wife and their new baby…if you’ve posted any of it anywhere on the Web, it will likely come back to haunt you.

Online Recruitment wants you to take better care of your NetRep – that is, if you fancy the idea of future employment. They quote a research report released by the business social network Viadeo. Apparently, more than 2,000 consumers and over 600 employers were surveyed by Viadeo and the findings were as outlined above.

This isn’t to say that your online self is necessarily going to screw your employment chances. The same survey concluded that information found online can work in an applicant’s favour – as long as the content is appropriate and presented correctly. In fact, 13% of HR decision makers chose candidates they might otherwise have rejected, because of additional positive information they found about them online.

The solution? Consider using a social networking site to promote a professional image of yourself on the Net. A tough job, maybe…but not impossible! And check out Viadeo – it’s as good a place as any to start.

You will be Googled…you have been warned!

Carry On Copying??

I’ve spent the last few weeks getting my head around the whole notion of cyberspace; particularly with regard to the who/where/what of copyright protection. As a one-time journo who experienced having consumer media heavyweights ride roughshod over my own rights to copy (sign the whole lot away on the back of your cheque, lady. Otherwise there ain’t no payment and yer dog gets it…) I’ve been amazed by the free-for-all on the copyright front. Which is why the whole Viacom/Google opera has been so instructive.

Backstory: Google pays $1.65billion for YouTube, which effectively means that YouTube is now the kid on the block with the big-walleted daddy. So if you were ever going to sue YouTube for copyright infringement, the time is surely now.

Up sails Viacom Media’s legal boarding party with an invitation to attend court for ‘massive intentional infringement of copyright’ plus $1billion for damages.

Google-dad is pushing back, in the hope that the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 will save its bacon. Specifically section 512 which protects service providers from liability for acts of copyright infringement committed by 3^rd parties. (Although this patently didn’t save Napster’s hide.)

All goes quiet for a couple of weeks. Then ‘whacko!’ out come the cyberspace army I’ve been hearing about since I started this whole technology module. They’re the Internet Community…the Invisible Ones…the Out There’s. Only now they’re very visible, very here and very *****d off with Viacom

The electronic activists have got themselves very much together and have launched a legal suit against Viacom Media. This after Viacom supposedly issued a video takedown request to Google – with which the service provider immediately complied – only for all parties to ‘discover’ later that the video in question was on YouTube perfectly legitimately.

The argument now is that the video use was ‘protected under the fair use provisions’ of the same copyright law…which means Viacom’s complaint amounted to a ‘misrepresentation’, which leaves it open to damages. Viacom is insisting that it never issued the request for this particular takedown. Although it did ask for 100,000 other videos to be filtered by Google, who declined to co-operate. Makes you wonder how this one got through…Sod’s Law, I guess.

But since courtrooms still seem to operate in a peculiarly old-fashioned way – requiring tangible proof, evidence and stuff like that - I imagine the hunt is now on at Google for the revelatory – and condemnatory – email. A paper trail, in other words…now this, I do understand!

Got me thinking about the whole copyright thing tho…and the realisation that anything published after 1923 is effectively copyright protected. (So much for the odd screen-grab!) Can’t take the credit for knowing this…found it on a very interesting website. The Tartan is the online version of the student magazine for the Carnegie Mellon University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I like it! Very clean, stylish looking site, easy to navigate, loads of interesting info and good writers. We need something like this at Stirling!!

Class Act

Obviously I have a never-before-accessed-but-nonetheless-very-strong masochistic tendency. Nothing else can explain why I roll up to the technology class each week to undergo the ritual tecchie-mauling by my fellow students.

We’ve done the digital camera thing and now it’s the memory-stick thing. My hubby presented me with mine a few weeks ago (and yes, Derek – he had just upgraded his. But I think the term ‘cast-off is a little cruel.)

Anyway…it’s about 2.5 “(dead giveaway!) long, it’s a rather refined gold colour and it’s called VFUEL. Is there anything in this description that would make you fall about laughing? Whatever…this got passed around from person to person causing huge mirth. And then of course, everyone had to get theirs out (some things never change) and there was lots and lots of showing off. All of which was quite wasted on me.

If only my presentation the previous week had created so much focus, interest and active response…although to be fair, it was on social media press releases. And I’d bored myself silly with that, long before presentation day….

Right now, it’s Easter week. Or so I’m told. Up here in my little roof loft, I’m in a death struggle with an essay on ‘Technology’s Impact on PR’. Terminal, if my own experience is anything to go by….