Danny Whatmough.com

Argh, yes I know, I’ve been very lax about blogging over here – indeed anywhere – recently. A combination of lots of work (that’s a good thing!), busy social thingys (get me!), sun, Wimbledon, sun, Wimbledon, has meant that I’ve been neglecting the old blog. But don’t fear, I’m still committed – you wont find me drifting of into the more trendy ‘lifecasting’ (don’t get me started – another post for another time).

But today, an article has been nagging me and I feel compelled to rant comment. I know I really shouldn’t rise to the bait but here goes!

You may have read – in the business press, no less – that Morgan Stanley’s European Media Analysts have today released a ‘report’ revealing the media habits of the teenage generation. So far, so good.

However, the ‘research note’ was written by Matthew Robson – a 15-year-old intern (think work experience for son of a director) at the investment firm. However, this small fact didn’t stop it being labelled by Edward Hill-Wood, head of the research team as “one of the clearest and most thought-provoking insights we have seen”.

And the traditional media have gone ballistic, with the news even reaching the front page of the FT.

So what does the report/note/homework say?

You can read it in full here (PDF), but it essentially covers the following:

- Matthew UK teenagers don’t listen to the radio
- They don’t buy newspapers (duh)
- They use PCs rather than Macs because it is what they are used to (like most of the population then)
- Facebook is their network of choice. They don’t use Twitter much as they prefer to send SMS direct to friends
- They ignore advertising unless its impressive (think viral)

My problem with all this is that it’s only one kid’s view. I don’t have a problem with that per se, but it’s being touted around as the latest and greatest insight into the youth of today – and that’s just wrong. This from Mr Hill-Wood again: “We’ve had dozens and dozens of fund managers, and several CEOs, e-mailing and calling all day.’ [I only hope Matthew was the one that answered the call]

And part of me is jealous – this is great fantastic PR for Morgan Stanley. It makes them seem ‘down with the kids’. But it’s also lazy. Julien Rossi, also from Morgan Stanley says that it’s the starting point for a ‘debate’. For me there are better starting points out there – both qualitative and quantitative.

So I’m not saying this insight is wrong – we just don’t know that it’s right.

And I’m not just cross that it’s anti-Twitter; it’s widely known that the average Twitter user is about 30 years old. For me, that is not a problem. I don’t really want to chat on Twitter with 15 year-olds and I certainly don’t want to target teenagers for any of my clients!

Insight and knowledge about your target audience (whoever they might be) is vital – it’s the only first step in any ‘effective’ marketing, PR, social media etc. strategy. But it has to be qualitative and quantitative otherwise it’s just a stab in the dark.

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to make the online PR debate organised by NMK last night, but I’ve been following the fallout today on Twitter and entering into the fray myself, as well as catching up on the blog posts that are now starting to trickle through.

It looks like it was a good event (as Ian’s always are) that tossed around some interesting arguments.

For me though, I get slightly annoyed by the need to define everything. Often we go out of our way to define something which then loses its meaning or is interpreted in a different way. It’s all just semantics really.

And the jargon of new media certainly falls into this space. It is why PR is so synonymous with media relations and journalism. Why SEO and social media seemingly also exist (or feel they need to exist) within their own spheres.

I’m not saying that specialisms aren’t important but that rather than PR v. SEO v. digital etc., we should be looking at the wider, bigger picture. I’m sure this is how many of our (as agencies) clients see things; the bottom line is everything for them. [And I note that it was pretty agency-weighted last night]

This is what we are attempting to do more and more at Wildfire. We are seeing the blurring of disciplines and are also identifying areas where the traditioanl media aspect of PR is dying very quickly. Our venture into new realms isn’t driven by shiny new toys and networks, but by an attempt to get results for our clients and influence the publics they are attempting to reach.

Now to me, this feels very much like a definition of PR. But, I am aware that it is equally true of other disciplines, e.g. advertising, as this Ad Age article demonstrates.

One thing underlines all these tactics though, and that is establishing a message and conveying this to an audience – and this is something that PR professionals are usually very well placed to do. The conveying might be through traditional media, it might be through engagement or conversation on social networks or it might involve search engines and advertising.

As a PR (and marketing) professional (caveat: who is and has been immersed in digital and social media), I am excited and thrilled by the opportunity the internet and digital affords us practionners and our clients or businesses.It’s refreshing to be able to knock out the middle man, to ‘go direct’.

And in order to achieve this effectively, the more tools we have in our tool box, the more options we have and the more potential we can achieve.

The future is bright. It might not be PR as we know it. It might not be called PR. It might even be called social media and be carried out by ’social media experts’

But my bet is that no one group will dominate and that there will be plenty of new tricks to learn and plenty for everyone to practice.

picture credit

Update:

Lots of chatter about this – here is a quick round-up:
Lloyd Gofton

Peter Hay (PR Week)

Jo-Rosie Haffenden

Rowan Stanfield

Roger Warner

Jed Hallam

Ian Delaney

Steven Waddington

Gerel Orgil

Drew Benvie

Oh dear Amazon.

If you were out of the country offline over the Easter weekend, you might’ve missed the latest Twitter-crazed furore focusing on a suspicious lack of Amazon ranking points for lesbian and gay literature on the site.

It didn’t take long for #amazonfail to be trending on Twitter. And, a few hours later the bloggers launched in, followed by the traditional media, followed by commentator after commentator after commentator. Social media ‘experts’, activists and the like were all there having their say.

In the end, it was all a bit of a huff and a puff about nothing. It was a technical hitch and everything is being sorted out. Phew. An Amazon spokesperson had a tail between legs moment:

“This is an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error for a company that prides itself on offering complete selection,” wrote Drew Herdener, Amazon’s director of communications.

“Many books have now been fixed and we’re in the process of fixing the remainder as quickly as possible, and we intend to implement new measures to make this kind of accident less likely to occur in the future.”

It is an incredible episode for the darling of the the 2.0 crowd. And there are a few interesting takeaways:

1. Amazon were woefully slow in responding
2. The web doesn’t sleep – ok, it was a Easter weekend, but bloggers et al don’t play by those rules
3. Bloggers etc. don’t check facts – 1+1 = 3 online and anything goes until the ‘media’ or the company involved wakes-up
4. Your digital channels have to be set up and ready to go BEFORE this happens
5. Monitoring tools must be in place and active and being monitored by someone at all times

Will Amazon survive? Of course. Will this have hit their credibility? Possibly. Will they have learnt some important lessons? Definitely.

It’s been another busy week at the White House.

President Obama welcomed a new member of his team – a puppy, Bo – and, more pertinent politically (if less hyped) are the suggestions from the current administration that things may be about to get a bit better economically.

And it really is perfect timing for America’s golden boy.

Yes, he was quick to mention that things were still bad. And yes, he has had to endure a few months of dire economic conditions. But this hasn’t really been a particularly taxing time for Obama in the popularity stakes.

He rode the wave of popularity when he came to office and was seen as the ‘knight in shining armour’ that would rescue the US (and the world) from  economic gloom and usher in a new prosperous era. And so far, so good. A few months of meetings with world leaders, sober, considered speeches and a eye-watering rescue plan and here we are: on the road to recovery. Easy!

I’m not trying to diminish the role he has played. Others, far more experienced than me will be able to comprehensively say what difference he and his policies have made. But the timings couldn’t have been better. And the language he used yesterday was perfectly picked:

“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand.  We must build our house upon a rock.  We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.”

PR works best when you have a product that sells itself, and Obama certainly has that. But, a little bit of luck certainly helps too. I wonder if it will run out anytime soon…

Oh Charles, what have you started!?

Tech journo supremo Charles Arthur this week compared the client/PR/Journo relationship with the car industry.

Confused? Well, yes, you might be! But stick with it. There are some interesting points raised (some more valid than others) including in the comments section if you can be arsed to wade through them.

Here are a few short, sharp observations of my own:

• Mr Arthur is not your typical journalist
• Every journalist is different – see this post Not all PRs/journos can be tainted with the same brush – this is a big industry with many sectors
• Media relations (which is what we are talking about) is only a (diminishing) part of PR
• MRs (and therefore PRs and their clients) still depends on journalists
• There are more and more PRs and fewer and fewer journos
• There is still a place for good quality, best practice MRs
• PRs need to be consultants and need to be specialists and need to be realistic
• As Guy says, the journalist doesn’t work for the client
• But, the PR does work for the client
• And most many journos need MRs
• Many PRs HATE MRs
• ‘Did you get my press release’ – these calls do work sometimes and, in desperation, are understandable (if unfortunate)
• But they don’t justify/want/need spam
• As with everything in modern-day marketing, targeting is absolutely crucial
• Good PRs are not merely consumed by money and/or results. We know the issues and the topics and how to write good stories
• But we all (PRs and journos) have commercial interests; sometimes (at the best times) these can be mutual
• We all get it wrong from time to time

Over at the Guardian, Bobbie Johnson has written a little piece entitled Why I’m finished with ’social media’

In it, he suggests that social media isn’t new so why all the jumping on the bandwagon every time a new celebrity signs up to Twitter or has a shower.

In the comments, a number of people have replied, venting their fury about all things Twitter and proudly stating that they have now quit. So there.

But they are missing the key thrust of Bobbie’s post. He’s not saying that he is finished ‘using’ social media, but that he is fed up with the social media ‘craze’.

And I see where he is coming from. I’m also fed up of hearing about the latest celebrity doing x y and z. But then I get fed up of that anyway in the ‘real world’. I hate Heat magazine et. al. So of course I am going to get fed up of hearing about it on Twitter.

Bobbie’s other point is: “‘Social media’ is mainstream – we don’t need to claim any more victories for it.”

Again, I partly agree. But some platforms aren’t mainstream yet. Just because the technorati and digerati  have been using Twitter for ages doesn’t mean its dull to the rest of the world. I find the Twitter phenomenon fascinating. And so do all the people out there (journalists and PRs included) that are learning about it for the very first time [i.e. the public].

But Bobbie’s eventual conclusion is correct – “Social media is people. People talk about stuff. The end.” – and this is often forgotten. Social media is just a different platform for content or conversation or broadcasting or listening or research or socialising…

What we are seeing is two levels here:

On one hand, we have the ‘platform’ itself. What it does. How it’s used. Takeup. Popularity. Strategies for using it in marketing/business etc. As a medium or a platform, social media does continue to evolve and change and, for digital analysts/influencers/marketing-bods, this is interesting. It’s not fair to liken it to the telephone or the pub.

On the other hand we have the content on the platform itself. The ‘Stephen Fry is stuck in a lift’ story. This is gossip, news (yes, to some it is) etc.

So you have the platform – Twitter/pub/telephone – and the content – ‘Stephen Fry is stuck in a lift’.

You can choose what content suits you and of course you can choose which platform suits you. If you don’t like the content then buy a different magazine or follow someone else. If you don’t like the platform then select a different one.

Just don’t blame the platform for the content. And don’t blame the public for liking the content. And don’t blame the PRs/media for liking that the public like the platform/content…

So Stephen Fry has become the second most followed person on Twitter. He is now only bettered by a certain US President!

[Don't worry, this isn't a jumping on the social media bandwagon post]

That is quite some going and 100,000 is a big number.

In the PR game, where ‘reach’ is obviously important, what does this say about media and influencer outreach?

A few things to consider:

- 100,000 people wont be seeing (let alone acting on) every one of Fry’s tweets

- I wonder how many of the 100,000 use Twitter on a regular basis

- Targeting is also important and perhaps difficult here

- Being ‘remarkable’ is surely even more important when targeting people like Fry

Having said all that, I was just on TweetDeck looking at the TwitScoop (a constant update of what is ‘hot’ on Twitter) and I noticed that “Bletchley” and “bpark” were coming up particularly strong.

When I clicked to find out more, I found that the only reason for this was that @stephenfry had just tweeted about it and his followers were re-tweeting his post.

Power indeed!