Danny Whatmough.com | pr

PR spam – it’s tricky, it’s a losing battle but education is needed

If there is one issue that is almost guaranteed to raise its head every month or so, it is PR spam. I’m sure it has always been thus and I’m sure it will continue to be…

Yesterday, Business Zone editor Dan Martin blogged about a couple of PRs that pitched irrelevant information to him, failing to realise that his specialism was small businesses. At almost the same time, I saw tweets from journalists Sally Whittle and Adrian Bridgwater similarly moaning about pitches they had also recently received.

Dan mentions the Inconvenient PR Truth campaign that Real Wire launched earlier in the year. At the time, I resisted the temptation to blog about the campaign as I wasn’t really sure about my reaction to both the issue and the campaign itself.

But, I’ve been mulling it all over and think there are three key points worth making. I also think the comparison with other marketing genres is interesting and pertinent for example, email marketing – another area where spam is seen to be a big problem.

Pitching isn’t always as easy as it might seem – I’m prepared to get slated here, but pitching and targeting isn’t always as easy as it might seem. Media databases and distribution services (like Real Wire) in many ways make it seem too easy for PRs, but they also make us lazy. Factor in the pressure from colleagues and clients to get results and you have a situation where sending out press releases to a distribution list is as simple as a click of a button. This isn’t targeting. Targeting is much much harder and takes a lot of research and understanding. This isn’t an excuse, it is a recognition that this is a specialist technique that needs care and attention. It’s the same with email marketing; it’s easy to blast out an email to a distribution list, but it is much harder to segment your list based on user behaviour, it takes time. And the fact with both is that taking the care and effort will always bring better results.
Spam will always exist - many journalists rely on PR a lot (as a PR, you quickly get to know the publications and journalists that will simply copy and paste anything they are given!). That’s not to say they should just suck it up and cope with it, but there will inevitably be good and bad PRs (like there are good and bad journalists). This will never change. Similarly there will always be companies that spam using email marketing, it’s one of those things that are annoying but we just have to get on and deal with.
Education is vital - combining both these points, there is a genuine need for education in the industry, to promote best practice. We work with an email marketing company that works tirelessly with organisations like the Direct Marketing Association amongst others to promote best practice. I don’t think the same is really true in the PR industry and I’m not sure that it was an outcome of the Inconvenient Truth campaign, but perhaps should have been.

Conclusion: let’s be positive

So what is the answer? I genuinely think there is an opportunity for the industry as a whole, perhaps in combination with journalists, to share positive examples of how this process should work from a best practice standpoint. We are all quick to talk from lofty, strategic positions, but when do we ever talk about more tactical processes? Journalists too are quick to complain about bad practices, but if we don’t ever hear about good examples, how are those lower down in agencies or in-house meant to learn.

Yes, this should probably all happen internally to an extent, but it obviously isn’t happening everywhere so, as an industry, don’t we have a responsibility to share and learn together?

picture credit

Danny Whatmough

#eurostarfail Social media is for good times AND bad

Social media is a great tool for marketers, no question about it. But what about when things go wrong and the tables are turned?

I’ve argued before that in many ways, PRs are best placed to run social media operations and there are number of reasons why I think this is the case. One of the key reasons is that experienced public relations pros are adept at responding to situations – good and bad – and communicating messages quickly and effectively to a particular audience to inform, whilst taking strides to protect the reputation of the brand or business involved.

Last night, five Eurostar trains stopped working as they entered the Channel Tunnel, leaving the trains and passengers on board trapped. Many were trapped for hours in what must have been a scary and terrifying ordeal for them as well as their families and friends.

This is a nightmare situation for a company like Eurostar. And this is not the place to look at attributing blame. But, I do want to look at how the company approached one of those mainstays of traditional public relations: crisis communications.

Across the board, Eurostar seems to have fallen down on it’s duty to its customers, by failing to adequately transmit information.

And nowhere has this been more evident that on social media and, in particular, on Twitter. Mike Butcher at Techcrunch has covered the unfolding of this story in detail. But, essentially, there were no updates on either the @Little_Break or @Eurostar_Uk Twitter accounts as the crisis unfolded. In a twist to the story, it transpires the latter account wasn’t even an official Eurostar channel – it has now been suspended – and @eurostar is used by someone in Shanghai!

The @Little_Break account wasn’t updated until 11.30 today (Saturday) – a full 16 hours after the first incident happened! WTF!? If we have learned anything about social media, it is that it works best in real-time.

What does this situation teach us about the handling of social media when things go wrong:

It doesn’t matter what you want the account to be used for – it looks as though the @Little_Break account was being used for some sort of social media marketing campaign. Which is fine. But the public don’t put brands into boxes like this. If you have a social media channel then the public will see this as your brand on Twitter. So expect them to get in touch with you as they see fit, and not necessarily in the way you would like
Monitoring, monitoring, monitoring – it doesn’t matter if it is a Friday night before Christmas, the public will still use social media and will expect companies – if they are using the channel, and increasingly even if they are not – to be listening
Social media is real-time – we all know this, so why did it take Eurostar 16 hours to update their Twitter account? There is no excuse, especially as real-time take centre stage with Google transmitting the whole story as it unfolds
Social media shouldn’t be an afterthought in crisis comms – as all good PRs know, in an emergency, you need to get clear, transparent and helpful information out to people as quickly as possible. And that means social media too
Advanced planning is crucial – when something like this happens, there isn’t time to start putting plans together, it needs to have been thought about in advance. It looks as though this didn’t happen. Having social media as part of your crisis communications action plan is vital
When things go wrong, who’s in charge – with this confusion over ‘who is best placed to use social media’ within organisations, it is no surprise that when things go wrong, social media could fall through the cracks. Is it the PR, ‘social media’, SEO, marketing or customer service team that should be in control, pushing the agenda to the fore?

Obviously this is a horrid situation for Eurostar and it is easy to sit and criticise from a distance. But the fact is that this has not been handled at all well and their reputation, their PR, has taken a serious knock.

UPDATE: It seems this is a topic that isn’t going to go away any time soon. Already there are some great posts from Dirk, Rachel, Mark and Neville on the subject. As Dirk says, expect this to be coming to a social media case study near you soon…

UPDATE: Eurostar CEO Richard Brown has released a video apology on the Little Breaks blog site – it’s a good effort and sounds pretty sincere.

UPDATE: I was very careful not to mention any agencies associated with Eurostar in the above post. At a time like this, decisions will be made at a senior level within the business. An agency will only be able to sit and advise to their best ability. If this is ignored, there isn’t much to be done. And it seems this is pretty much what happened. In a very honest post, Robin Grant from Wearesocial, a social media agency, has given a very open overview of things from their perspective. It’s worth a read as it perfectly highlights some of the organisational challenges I referred to above.

Danny Whatmough

Will marketing die in 2010?

I like a good prediction post as much as the next person and so I was intrigued to read an article by Augie Ray from Forrester entitled: 2010: The Year Marketing Dies…

In it, Ray asserts that, due to a number of factors (including the demise of traditional media, the growth of technologies like PVRs that are rendering TV advertising obsolete and the growth of social media), marketing as we know it is under going a dramatic sea-change.

And 2010 is guaranteed to be the year when social media has its biggest impact on brands to date. The recent real-time search changes will only quicken this as I’ve already suggested and as Ray states:

The search engine changes mean that 2010 will be the year when brands can run but they cannot hide. Gone are the days when marketers could carefully craft messaging and then broadcast that message in a few channels to huge portions of their audiences. Oh, you can still spend money that way if you want to but in our transparent world, no marketing budget can possibly overcome the actual experience consumers have (and share with friends, followers and Google) with the product, service, or organization. It no longer matters what you say; in 2010, your brand will be more defined by what you do and who you are!

So actual experience will replace the image that brands want to portray about themselves, especially as we all get more involved in social media and climb up the social technographics ladder (see above). What does this mean in practice?

customer service and customer experience becomes vital
product development needs to be more user focused
marketing and PR teams need to be ready to act and react to issues; crisis management becomes crucial, but harder
marketing and PR campaigns need to focus on engagement rather than trying to enforce brand values
no part of the business can afford to ignore the audience

Central to all of these is the ability to understand your audience. One line in particular in Ray’s article is fundamental to this too:

“in 2010, your brand will be more defined by what you do and who you are”

It’s a challenge.

Danny Whatmough

The top 70ish people to follow in UK PR

So I’ve been playing around with a great little website called TweepML. The site basically allows you to create and share lists of tweeters that anyone can then follow at the click of a button.

It’s a great way to find new people to follow as recommended by others. Of course I’m sure some people will start complaining about spam, but becuase Twitter is ‘opt-in’, I get a bit confused by this argument (not DM spam of course, I get that). If someone follows you and you don’t want to follow them, it’s simple – don’t!

Anyway – rant over! – to put the service through its paces, I put together a list of the people I find most interesting/useful/entertaining as a tech PR person on Twitter.

You can check out my list here. And please do let me know who I have left off…!

Danny Whatmough

The why, what and how of social media measurement

One of the problems about writing a personal blogs is that you don’t have any deadlines to force you into writing! I wrote this a week or so ago and meant to return to refine it, but I’ve only just got round to it. Excuses over! Here’s the (belated) post…

I’ve been closely following a debate that initially stemmed from an article in Research, where the IAB’s Amy Kean and Nielsen’s Brad Little locked horns.

I’ve been meaning to blog about it, but have failed to do so until now, when a thoughtful post from Michael Litman stirred me into action!

I can see what Amy is saying: that measurement for measurement’s sake is meaningless. And she is right. Whereas measurement tied directly to business value (could be) meaningful. And again, she is right. Amy concludes:

“If your social media activity generates 100,000 views on YouTube, gets you 40,000 Facebook friends and 20,000 positive blog mentions over the period of a month and your net promoter score rises, this may show incredible brand engagement. But what are we to measure it against for the campaign to be deemed a success?”

She answers this last question with ‘case studies’. And yes, case studies are certainly a useful self-improvement vehicle. But I can’t help but think she misses the point here.

What is really missing from the example given is a concrete business aim or objective that has been put in place from the start.

And this aim can be different from campaign to campaign or from company to company (and/or both).

For me, there are three questions that need to be asked – the why, what and how of social media measurement.

The answers are not straightforward and will change from case to case and even within projects or campaigns, but are in my mind a good starting point. It is worth also stating that these aren’t mutually exclusive for social media, but the answers often will be.

Why?

This first question – why? – seems straightforward; why are we doing this? It’s crucial though and so often neglected. Why do we need/have/want a Twitter/Facebook/Myspace account or blog? Is this right for our business?

So much of this stems from proper audience insight. Social media is dependent on conversation amongst communities, either already in existence or that are created or nurtured by the brand or business. So the question here is, will social media work for your target audience (or their influencers)? Are they where you think they are, and if so, where is that?

This is one of the reasons why I think there is much value in having a non-specialist agency (or an internal department) at least initially in control of social media strategy. It’s sometimes tough to say: “no, social media isn’t right for us/this business objective”.

So how does this affect measurement? Well, if you don’t know why you are doing something, then you won’t be able to measure it. And if you don’t have a sound business reason for doing something, then it probably isn’t worth doing.

What?

Intrinsically linked to the previous question is the decision about what to measure. A brand looking to increase brand awareness in a community will likely be looking to measure something different that a brand looking to maximise web sales.

How?

There are many different ways to measure things. There is no right or wrong here necessarily. Social media is still a (relatively) new thing and an agency that tells you they have all the answers is worth dumping.

Again, we come back to the previous two questions – what do you want to achieve and what will indicate success. Then they question is: how will you measure this success?

No golden bullet

There is no shortcut to success here, but it’s worth trying and worth persevering with. If we don’t measure what we are doing, then we have no way to demonstrate success and no way to improve.

Amy doesn’t really mean measurement is meaningless, she means that meaningless measurement is meaningless. And this is spot on.

As Michael states:

“It may not be in the traditional marketing sense of what ‘value’ is but for me, social media requires new metrics and benchmarks than to what has been tried and tested in years previous. Success now looks different. Instead of looking purely from a numbers perspective and at additional sales, is there value in increased levels of brand perception and awareness, along with the conversations and connections made because of the company activity?”

Just as social media is a new and emerging discipline, so is the way we measure it. But measure it we must, even if the way we go about it needs us to ask more and more questions – the why, what and how…

picture credit

Danny Whatmough

It’s PR, but not as we know it

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)

Working together to make a happy car…

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

Danny Whatmough

I HATE SOCIAL MEDIA (only joking)

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…

Danny Whatmough

TWITTER LINKEDIN TUMBLR GOOGLE+ ABOUT CONTACT

Danny Whatmough

PR spam – it’s tricky, it’s a losing battle but education is needed

The top 70ish people to follow in UK PR

It’s PR, but not as we know it

Working together to make a happy car…

My posts

Contact

About