Whatever...

Terminator 4: Rise Of The PR Machines

By Tom Kirkham

According to BT 'futurologist' Ian Pearson, machine intelligence is going to make most traditionally male jobs redundant within the next twenty years.  However, women - and their 'softer', emotional skills - will still be in demand apparently, and so jobs such as PR, marketing and HR are unlikely to be taken over by robots.  As a male in the PR industry, this puts me in an interesting position - am I in fact a robot in disguise, desperately masking a flat Austrian accent while trying to remember what that article in Marie Claire said about emotional intelligence...?  I was going to ask our own futurologist, but unfortunately Johnson King doesn't have one.

I'm not going to be lured into a debate about men versus women in PR, through fear of being poked with sticks by our predominantly female workforce.  No - what interested me most about Pearson's predictions is that he assumes PR will resist the rise of the machines.  But what makes him so sure?  I think there's a lot of companies out there that would prefer machines as PRs...

It's common to come across senior marketing types that believe PR should be about sending out press releases indiscriminately and then calling up every journalist in the country to see if they received it.  The only thing these people need is a computer with some sort of basic voice function - then it'll be goodbye emotional skills, hello ruthless automation.

Of course, this won't work with the majority of journalists today - but who knows what the future will bring?  There are a growing number of news portals that simply reprint press releases verbatim, plus increased requests for 'potted comment' via email, all of which makes the job of the PR computer even easier.  Our industry relies upon having an intelligent media to interact with - but if the standard of journalism falls, it becomes harder for PRs to justify their role.  And while it may be flattering to see your prose used word-for-word, it does make you wonder whether journalists should be fearing the takeover of machine intelligence too.

My guess is that, for the time being, PRs are probably safe, because enough of the public still value the insight provided by good journalists over mindless regurgitation of press releases.  That is of course until someone invents a Sirius Cybernetics Corporation-esque public relations robot with Genuine People Personality... hang on a sec, what was I saying about being a robot in disguise...?

Online self-service - a cautionary tale by Outraged of London Bridge

By Kathryn O'Donoghue

The DVLA's recent Orwell-esque advertising campaign - 'You can't escape the computer' - certainly served its purpose of reminding me that my car tax was due. However, after the hassle of traipsing down to the Post Office - making sure to remember and dig out all the relevant documentation - and queuing for hours just to get a slip of paper, I almost wish it hadn't.

And while the DVLA purports to have made it possible to avoid the lengthy queues and renew your tax online, in reality, this is as good as impossible. To do so, you need a new style MOT - that the majority of garages do not provide - and what's more, every time I tried to go to the relevant website, it was undergoing essential maintenance. Maybe it had had an argument with the 'computer'.

I am outraged by the cheek of the DVLA, which is essentially trying to intimidate and scare drivers in these adverts. To boast about how great its online systems are when it comes to issuing fines - but to fail to provide an efficient means of paying online - just makes you think that, rather than providing a better service, the majority of its efforts have been concentrated on ripping off innocent drivers who can't get to the Post Office outside of work hours.

Talking about being purely driven by money, the DVLA has also been selling drivers' addresses for £2.50 each, and by flogging 2.5 million of them between April 2005 and March 2006, has made a tidy profit of £6.5 million. While many people are uncomfortable with their personal data being sold to legitimate companies, the fact that some of these addresses were sold to convicted criminals gives even more cause for concern.

Ultimately, the DVLA should stop wasting money on expensive advertising and start making their online systems more reliable and customer friendly. While these measures are clearly designed to remove reckless drivers from the roads, which is of course a good thing, their methods have to be called into question. But, in an organisation where over 100 employees have recently been cautioned, and 14 dismissed, for distributing pornographic material over corporate email, what more can we expect?

Of bunnies and hacks

By Claire Gibson

There’s been much discussion regarding some recent postings on UK journo blog Getting Ink, which wonders whether or not it’s ok to refer to PRs as ‘bunnies’.  It's a bit of a potential minefield/rabbit trap even trying to address this question, but here goes... 

The term ‘bunnies’ is pretty loaded when you think about it - from fluffy woodland animals to Playboy. On the one hand, it's easy to describe as a harmless, even affectionate term ie. if you take offence at it then you’re obviously a stuffy, boring stick-in-the-mud who can’t take a joke once in a while. 

I personally think that most people - even PRs! - don't mind a bit of ribbing... but when it becomes the ‘default mindset’ for journalists, it starts to become just a little bit offensive.  Not to mention hypocritical - journalists can sometimes be just as fluffy-headed themselves.

For example, I recently pitched two customer stories to separate journalists working at two very high profile publications.  My emails were very clearly marked in the subject line as ‘possible case studies’, and didn't look remotely like press releases in tone, format or length.  However, BOTH journalists interpreted these emails as press releases, and one even submitted it as a news item in that week’s issue.  Now, this is fine by me - if you want to run old news, then please, be my guest. But who's being the 'bunny' here?

Of course, in all this pot-kettle-black business, there is a basic paradox - that while it’s fine for us PRs to slag each other off now and again, and perhaps even use the ‘bunny’ term of abuse, it’s not always welcome from a hack. I’m sure it works the same way in the journalistic fraternity too - but of course, that kind of secret isn't likely to fall into our furry little hands now, is it…?

PC TV or easy TV?

By Flora Haslam

As Channel 4 becomes the first major UK TV channel to be simulcast on the internet, it seems the face of TV is changing.  Viewers will now be able to watch their favourite programmes (the home-grown ones at least) on the family PC or even at the work desk. 

Of course, the BBC has recently been showing World Cup football games on the internet, and ITV has already announced it will show programmes on broadband up to 30 days after first transmission.  So, Channel 4 has done well to position itself as a pioneer of internet TV - but the question remains: do people actually want this?  Presumably broadcasters wouldn't be going down this route without first having assessed demand, but I can't help but think that this is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse - yet another technology innovation in search of a market.

While some employers may already be throwing their hands up in the air, convinced that productivity is about to be halved as their entire workforce tunes into Deal or No Deal, I just can't envisage a time at home when I'd rather boot up the PC than sit on the sofa and switch on the telly to watch Channel 4.  And despite my normally speedy broadband connection, I'd be concerned that network resources would not be able to cope with demand if the service proved popular.

Channel 4's move should prove to be an interesting experiment to gauge the level of interest in broadcasting over the internet.  Technology advances are certain to change the way we view television in the future, and the convenience of video on demand looks set to be a big hit. But for now, the thought of watching a small selection of television programmes on a PC doesn't really appeal - I'm just not ready to leave the comfort of my sofa yet!

“I hate to have to ask this, but…”

By Joe Banks

They’re the words that every PR dreads - “of course, we’ll need to have full approval of what the journalist writes”. 

Well, we heard them yet again the other day (thankfully from a client’s customer, rather than a client), which inevitably led to the usual attempt on our part to dissuade the company rep from making us ask this of the journalist… which just as inevitably led us to say “OK, we’ll see what we can do”.  Why?  Because it’s often a case of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’.  If you say ‘absolutely not’, you risk either souring client relations or losing that customer that you’re desperate to have speak to a journalist.

But if you say ‘yes’, you then risk compromising your relationship with the journalist, most of whom regard such requests as, at best, an inconvenience, at worst, a serious infringement of their professional integrity/independence - none of which reflects well on the unfortunate PR who has to make the request.

Why does the attitude persist among certain organisations that they have a right to pass final judgement on a journalist’s editorial copy before publication?  I’m sure that all of the people who make this kind of request happily subscribe to the concept of a free press - but as soon as it’s their spokesperson in the ‘firing line’, they start issuing the kind of demands that would make your average oppressive regime blush.

Here are a few possible reasons as to why we’re still being asked to request final copy approval:

1) It’s the marketing department.  The request gets made because of rampant paranoia within certain marcoms departments - they remember what happened the last time they let the CEO out on his own, and they’re sure as hell not going to let it happen again.  Easier to pull up the drawbridge rather than have to deal with the hassle of providing proper media training (which is usually the reason why spokespeople go ‘off message’ in the first place).

2) It’s the culture.  The request gets made because, let’s face it, we’re all Hollywood celebs these days, and why on earth would we allow one single word to escape out into the world without first inspecting it, dissecting it, and then removing anything that could possibly be construed as being an opinion.  Who do these journalist guys think they are anyway??  OK, that might be a little over the top, but you get the idea - some companies increasingly think that it’s their divine right to have the final say over everything.

3) It’s the media.  The request gets made because “that’s the way the media works, isn’t it?”  It’s a depressing fact of the PR life that you still regularly come into contact with people who think that getting into the FT is as simple as ringing them up and asking them to ‘place’ the company’s story on page 4, thank you very much…  There’s also the growing trend among certain journalists to happily accept potted/vetted email comment from companies without actually speaking to anybody - but that’s a whole other blog…

4) It’s the PRs.  The request gets made because, well, far too often, we just play along with it.  Sometimes it’s easier to say ‘yes’ than ‘no’, particularly if the client’s giving you a hard time or if you really need a user to speak to a journalist.  Should we be putting our foot down more firmly?  Almost certainly - but unfortunately, this issue all comes back to how seriously PR itself is perceived as an industry that provides both a professional and ethical service.  We continue to get asked because too many of us have said ‘OK’ in the past.

For my part, I’d just like to say to the control freaks in these organisations: get some perspective - you ain’t made it to the Oscars yet…

Evaluate this!

By Mike King

I see that the never-ending discussion about how best to evaluate the business benefits that PR delivers has raised its tired head again - this time in the FT.  But I for one am fed up with the PR industry’s constant state of self-doubt, and its struggle to find new ways to demonstrate its value and justify its existence. Surely, its time for the PR industry to grow up and show a bit more self-confidence in the service it delivers. 

We all know that it’s not just about counting cuts, producing advertising value equivalents or even looking at how many direct sales leads a PR campaign has generated.  PR is about much more than that - its key deliverable for any organisation is surely building reputation and establishing market/sector credibility. 

It is well documented that business leaders view corporate reputation as one of their most valuable assets. Yet bizarrely, the PR industry - which plays an integral role in establishing and maintaining this reputation - seems to operate with an in-built inferiority complex, forever bowing to requests from jittery marketing departments to measure ROI based on arbitrary and often meaningless criteria. 

Yes, of course a successful campaign needs to be generating positive coverage, and measurable targets are great for setting expectations and determining the scope and extent of any campaign.  Yet surely the honest answer to the question ‘What ROI am I going to get from my PR spend?’ is increased credibility and an enhanced reputation.  It really is as simple as that.

Other professions providing business services don’t suffer the same lack of self-worth.  Take accountants for instance, a profession that, if called upon, could no doubt calculate the answer to the ROI question to at least three decimal places. But think about it - what ROI do you get from your own firm’s accountants?  Most of us need to use professional accountants, but can you put a figure on the actual ‘value’ of this expertise? 

I’m sure if I asked a firm of accountants what ROI they delivered, they’d perhaps talk about savings made over employing in-house staff to carry out the work, access to their expertise, the ability to handle peaks in activity. But it’s unlikely that they’d attempt to come up with some kind of ‘bottom line impactfulness index’ or have a crisis of confidence whenever the word ‘accountability’ is mentioned - unlike PR.

I just wish that the PR industry would stop acting like a moody teenager, one minute loudly proclaiming how brilliant it is, then the next bleating 'nobody understands me'. Let's just get a grip, get on with the job we've been contracted to do, and do that job well - then maybe the business world might start taking us a bit more seriously.

Germans issue cutting riposte to 40 years of English harping

This is Johnson King's German office (well, Central European office actually - PR also available in Austria and Switzerland!). They sent us these lovely pics in response to Mr King's previous provocative blog...

Words fail us...

Well, they did, until we decided to have a caption competition here in Blighty.  Here's our top three:

- Claims that the new German World Cup footballs are too lightweight appear to have been grossly exaggerated

- German supporters don Ronaldo suits in the hope that their team will perform like Brazilians

- The German's enthusiasm for the World Cup gets blown up out of all proportion

Join in the crazeeness here: http://www.funny-costumes.com/

Petty rivalries make the World Cup what it is

By Mike King

One of the best things about the World Cup is being able to poke fun at foreign colleagues and generally have laugh at their expense, or at least at the expense of their underperforming football teams. Being English, of course, we are well used to being on the receiving end of such stick and I find it strangely enjoyable when our colleagues in other countries have a go at us too. 

Actually, it is quite bizarre how something like the World Cup can bring colleagues together through the banter and insults that result from such petty national rivalries. 

The French tell us that even if they are eliminated from the competition (in the first round again with a bit of luck), they will never, ever support the English. Apparently, it is in their genes and something that they are incapable of ever doing. 

The Germans mock that after 40 years we still haven’t learnt that we will never again beat them in the World Cup (and the one time we did it wasn’t really a goal, so we didn’t win properly anyway). 

The Americans, of course, are for the most part oblivious to the fact that the biggest sporting event in the world, ever, is even taking place. And when you do explain it to them they fail to understand the concept of a ‘World’ competition that has teams from different countries. Or how a game called football actually involves the players using their feet to kick the ball.

My problem this time around is that I’ve mistakenly booked a business trip to the states on 8^th July.  Yes, if it isn’t bad enough that I’m leaving the country the day before the World Cup final, I’m going to be in the one country on earth where there isn't any interest in the competition. Not only will there be no banter, I’ll probably have a job to find somewhere where I can watch England’s finest sporting moment. 

Virtual reality check

By Claire Gibson

So there I was watching a programme on social interaction on the internet whilst pedalling away like a madwoman in the gym last week - socially, a pretty strange place in itself. However, the discussion on BBC Two’s ‘The Happiness Formula’ programme turned out to be more engaging than I anticipated.

Rightly or wrongly, I’ve long been scornful of those shadowy groups of people who spend hours locked in fantasy battles, or directing an avatar (3D representation of themselves) around the photo-realistic dancefloor of a virtual club. Come on dorks, what’s wrong with going out and making friends with real people?!

I do have to concede though, that, while relationships struck up via the internet don't have the benefit of body language, eye contact and the ‘feel’ of a person gained during a ‘real’ introduction, the benefits of the global social interaction enabled online should not be understated. And it's not all about avatars or alternative personalities - just consider the variety of blogs, message boards and chatrooms that already exist, and have led to some remarkable stories of families reunited, friendships struck up and love found.

In an age where it often seems as though we’re being programmed to fear other people, an increase in global communication and understanding (particularly amongst young people) must be encouraged. Although the web shouldn’t be a substitute for real life social interaction, I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be an enhancement of that.

And with that, I’m off down the gym, to spend another hour staring at a TV and sweating in a room full of strangers. If only I could get my avatar to do it for me...

Microsoft struggles to be at the Forefront of security

By Natalie Shamshoum

So not only has Microsoft just launched OneCare (careful how you say it), its security solution for home users, it's now also after a slice of the enterprise security pie.  Named Forefront, this new offering - intended to launch next year - consists of anti-virus and anti-spyware tools designed to secure enterprise networks.  However, just days after news of ForeFront, we hear that Microsoft has issued the largest bundle of new security updates and patches for over a year - addressing a total of 21 vulnerabilities in its own software products.

This doesn't exactly bode well for Forefront, does it?

While OneCare will undoubtedly do well with consumers (probably by aggressively undercutting offerings from McAfee and Symantec), Forefront could well be on shaky ground in the enterprise space, where security solutions have to be fast, supportive and responsive - and not be full of holes that need constant patching.

Microsoft could also be a victim of its 'me, myself and I' attitude.  IT professionals need their security solutions to cater for several operating systems, such as Apple Mac and Unix, something that Microsoft just isn't interested in.  And what of protecting users of Windows 98, which can still be found in most schools?  No - Microsoft won't cater for this either, since that wouldn't encourage people to upgrade.

Admittedly Microsoft is a company to be applauded for the many great things it's done, including its attempts to sharpen its security image.  However, my concern is that you can't be all things to all people. I just can't see Forefront being the security of choice for today's enterprises, which already face an increasingly complex threat environment - the last thing they need is yet another buggy Micosoft product to add to their woes.