Archive for the ‘public relations’ Category

I’ve finally arrived!!!

Monday, April 12th, 2010

Yes, it’s finally happened.  I’m now on YouTube.  I was recently part of an amazing evening at Ignite Bristol – an import from the Ignite concept that first happened in Seattle in 2006.  As anyone who has been through any Net.Mentor training will know, I hate PowerPoint with a passion.  However, the concept of a timed 5 minutes with 20 slides in quite a buzz and some of the presentations on the first evening were stimulating, moving, funny or just completely off the wall.  In the end, I went for the serious topic of handling crisis, but I hope it was light enough to be all of the above.  You be the judge…

  • Share/Bookmark

Crisis and the power of social media

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

There have been plenty of examples recently of the power of social media and the internet in creating and overcoming corporate crisis.  Most recently the Greenpeace and Nestle spat demonstrated more than just the development of the original issue itself  (the environmental effects of the palm oil manufacture).   The handling of the initial feedback by Nestle showed that if you are going to get involved in the debate, you need to keep your cool and stick to the issues – as highlighted by this excellent presentation from Scott Douglas.

The result of nestle’s fan page moderator getting personal went way beyond the original issue and became the story in itself. It reminds me of the classic West Wing episode where Josh Lyman decides to comment personally on the Lemonlyman website, only to wonder why he suddenly turns from hero to villain and CJ threatens personal injury with a motherboard.

The lesson? Stick to the issues; stay focused on the facts and look for the collaborative option. The best communication is two-way and changes behaviours on BOTH sides. This is a prime example of how to get the balance completely wrong and pay the corporate consequences. Ironically, KitKat was originally a Rowntree brand – the organisation that was set up by staunch Quaker, Joseph Rowntree.  Interestingly, they were equally censorial back in the early ’80s when I was a Student at York University – York being Rowntrees’ home.  Whiel News Editor of the student mag, Nouse, we decided to run a fairly derogatory front page about Kitkat and Rowntrees latest union activities in South Africa.  Strangely, Rowntree asked us in less than polite terms to pull the publication.  Clearly we were being more than provocative and now, with corporate communication experience under my belt I can appreciate the issues of brand and reputation management.  However, a collaborative approach would have had a far better impact on student and company behaviour than heavy-handed corporate ‘big brother’.   Joseph Rowntree must be rotating gently in his grave.

  • Share/Bookmark

US on the path to health self-destruction – I blame the Danish!

Sunday, February 28th, 2010

As holder of an Honours Degree in Politics and self-confessed West Wing obsessive, I can claim to know just a little about US politics.  Now, there is an argument that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but let’s skip over that minor detail for the sake of this particular blog.

A combination of diverse, yet related issues has reduced me to the point of wanting to book the very next flight across the pond, find a number of the so-called leaders of the free world/captains of global industry and beat seven shades of stupidity out of each and every one of them.  This reaction is in response to some recent news from the US political scene.

The first is a via a clever piece of writing by Martin Luz in the Huff Post about the ensuing sugar tax battle.  He talks about the war between the sugar refiners, food manufacturers and retailers and the increasingly large number (in more senses than one) of Americans try to understand why obesity is such a problem.  Within this is the role Coke is playing, using its massive Social Media PR budget to fuel the war of words and demonstrate that fructose really isn’t any worse than sugar which, as Luz so eloquently puts it, is “like saying heroin is no more addictive than cocaine”.  The potential for social media to play such a major role in dictating both social policy and consumer behaviour in a single campaign is fascinating while being, at the same time, saddening for a subject that should be a no-brainer for any rational thinking person.

Next up is the latest and, despite the spin,  apparently fruitless efforts by Barack Obama to convince Congress that the health of one of the largest populations in the world really does matter more than the shareholders in the medical insurance, hospital and pharma sectors – a point supported by civil rights campaigner, the Revd. Jesse Jackson.  For a moment, the rest of the world held its breath, believing that he might succeed where his Democrat predecessor, Bill Clinton, had failed.   He may yet, but only through a legislative loophole.   Again, to many, US healthcare reform would seem a no-brainer.

And finally comes the recent announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency that it is going to delay the implementation of emissions regulations for stationary sources and raise the previously agreed thresholds after it had received deputations from Senate Democrats.  Apparently, the Democrats are trying to pre-empt a move by the Republicans to block the legislation altogether.   The most telling comment, however, is from “industry officials” who claim that “regulating emissions such as carbon dioxide with the Clean Air Act could be overly burdensome to many energy-intensive sectors” and trotting out the “increased costs=lack of investment=lack of job creation” argument.   To which the response of any right-minded individual who cares about their health or that of the planet would be “Diddums!  It’s about time responsibility outweighed fiduciary”.

Which leads me back to my favourite TV programme.  West Wing is a superb look behind the scenes of the White House during the Clinton era – even predicting Obama’s candidacy some four years before it became a reality.  Through it’s insight I’m under no illusions about how complex major legislation creation actually is.  However, for the keen observers amongst us, I think it presents a a far greater and more fundamental  into the US’ relationship with sugar, obesity and its approach to healthcare.   Pick an episode, any episode.   Watch no more than 10 minutes and note in how many meetings there is an array of pastries, muffins and other sugar-ridden foodstuffs liberally placed on conference tables or the Oval Office sideboards.  Can you begin to imagine just how much Danish was consumed during the inconclusive 7-hour White House bi-partisan health ’summit’?  Constructive debate?  It’s a miracle those locked in the room didn’t succumb to diabetic comas… or maybe they did.

  • Share/Bookmark

Does my head or my heart rule my feelings over Toyota?

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

In 1989 Toyota ran an advert with the headline “Why We’ll Never Make the Perfect Car”.  It was an ad accepting the fact that perfection can never truly be achieved, only strived for – and led me to an exchange of views with the then boss of Toyota (GB) that turned out to be a career changing one (for me at least!).

Sadly, Toyota’s brave statement is all too real as its goal of near perfection fades a little further into the distance with more than 8 million of its vehicles being recalled and questions being asked by world leaders of our supposedly super-ethical governments.

Trust me, this is not “I told you so” time!  With experience in crisis management, my head says I should feel angry that road users have been put at risk by another corporate giant trying to cover up its mistakes.  My heart is in an entirely different place.  As a former member of the Toyota (GB) PR team I can only marvel at the way Scott Brownlee and his colleagues have taken on an extraordinary task as they struggle to keep up with the deluge of information and meet the requests that face them in the battle to provide accurate information to the UK’s media.

The issue has allowed the world’s media to hunt down another global corporate giant – strangely the one which has recently become the world’s leading automotive producer with accelerated (sorry) growth at a time when the world’s economy is going to hell in a handcart (or GM vehicle); turning its insatiable search for “public interest” and the next moral panic into a feeding frenzy of high-handed hysteria.  Oh, and now the bandwagon (manufactured in America) is well and truly rolling, with news that apparently Corollas veer to the left.  I’ve been there and worn that t-shirt too in the late ’90s  -  BBC Watchdog’s Ford Sierra steering problem garbage anyone?

So is my sympathy out of misplaced loyalty, a subconscious twitch from my PR ’spin’ muscle, or something more tangible?  From experience, the public and media fantasy completely overwhelms reality and irreparable short, and possibly medium, term damage is being inflicted on Toyota’s reputation.  Sure, they have had quality issues – when you are mass producing that number of vehicles for owners who want to continually pay less and get more for the price, what do you expect?  But they admitted they had quality issues, in their starkly contrite way, nearly two years ago.  Whatever they say or do now, they can’t win.

But let’s just look at the numbers for a moment.  More than 8 million Toyotas are being recalled.  8 MILLION.  The number of worldwide reported serious incidents relating to the alleged problems will be a fraction of one percent of that figure.  Yet Toyota are recalling 8 million vehicles , with all the related costs, because of a problem that may never affect many of those cars.

As Head of Public Relations at RAC Motoring Services I was frequently under pressure to reveal the ‘most reliable/unreliable vehicle’ data.  It just doesn’t work like that!   Reliability, like car technology and the automotive industy in general, is a complex issue.  A point eloquently made by Heather Yaxley, another Toyota PR alumni, in explaining the frustrations facing the current Toyota  PRs. I can also report first-hand that, as pointed out by fellow RAC communicator Edmund King – now President of the AA – there are millions of vehicles recalled every year and many millions more that are subject to component replacement during routine servicing to rectify minor faults identified by manufacturers.  Very few motorists,  and only the better informed journalists, are even aware this happens.  It’s certainly no big deal, even if it’s a big cost for the carmaker.

In reality, regardless of how much testing is done in the lab or in quality control, some faults will only appear once a vehicle is on the road.  The good news is that almost all of these faults are picked up early – often by RAC, AA and other roadside technicians -  and manufacturers take action quickly.

In this case, Toyota have unquestionably been too slow off the mark to deal with an issue that has now incubated into a crisis.  They’re certainly not alone – look at Cadburys in 2006 with a Salmonella scare that took too long to report.   But again, look at the Toyota timeline.

While they have clearly been aware of the issues for some time, an 8 million product recall is not something that any right-minded organisation will undertake without irrefuteable evidence.  Add to that the heirarchical, procedure-driven,  and generally inflexible culture of Japanese corporations (something I’ve witnessed first-hand).  Combine it with hyper-litigious American culture fuelled by insurance urban myths, and you have a crisis waiting to happen and a virtually impossible mission for the communicatiors.  But once the tipping point of evidence plus pressure was reached, Toyota initiated a global recall and repair programme in a matter of DAYS.

But most important of all, with 3,500 road deaths and 65,000 injuries  daily on the world’s roads, it’s time to stop worrying about possibly faulty accelerators, questionably dodgy car mats and mildly inconsistent brakes.  The biggest technical threat to all of us, and the real reason people should be forced to stop driving cars whoever makes them, is the nut behind the wheel.

  • Share/Bookmark

Baby Peter – public interest or moral panic?

Friday, August 14th, 2009

The social work view of the latest media frenzy around Baby Peter once again raises the spectre of the media’s motivation for using the defence of  ‘public interest’.  The release of the names of those convicted of the murder of this child was driven primarily by a range of media claiming that publication was in the public interest.

Predominently the ‘interested’ are:

  1. those whose primary job it is to line the pockets of their billionaire proprietors or cling on to their audience ratings
  2. the ignorant minority who has nothing better to do than reportedly demonstrate their ‘interest’ on Facebook  with calls to persecute, torture and kill those who are no longer afforded legal annonymity following pressure from… see 1. above.

Let me state, very clearly, that I carry no torch for child abusers or abusers of any kind.  Net.Mentor is involved in the training of foster carers and other adults who devote themselves on a daily basis to working with vulnerable children who have suffered abuse in their formative  years; abuse which – even if non-physical – can lead to physical changes in the brain.  Recognising and understanding the issues surrounding these children, and the people that have abused them, will positively transform the lives of both the children and their carers and properly protect others that may be at risk.  Firebombing people’s houses will not.

I have also worked as a journalist and in media relations long enough to understand what makes a ‘good’ story.   However,  I have witnessed first hand the devastation caused to individuals and their families ‘identified’ by the media and/or  ‘interested’  neighbours as being connected with child abuse.  The News of the World naming and shaming campaign in 2001, which used indistinct (and often out of date) images,  led to many completely innocent victims of lynchmob hysteria.

I spent three depressing days working with a crisis management team to help one of those victims as they were hounded by both media and neighbours bent on misguided ‘revenge’, based on wrongful identification from an image that bore no possible resemblence to the individual concerned.  All, of course, in the name of ‘public interest’.

Those involved in the tragic Baby Peter case have been found guilty of their crimes – fact!  They face long prison sentences – almost certainly in isolation – I hope they are never allowed out.  But what benefit, or interest, is there in publishing their details?

Moral panics are nothing new – Stan Cohen first coined the term in 1972, refering to the Mods and Rockers battles in the 1960s when reaction by Brighton’s chattering classes developed into government debates and mass, UK-wide hysteria.  Asking the media to act responsibly to prevent fuelling, or even starting, the fires of moral panic is like asking them to stop breathing.  Witness the recent coverage of the credit crunch and swine flu.

So what hope?  It can only be the small voice of informed reason continuing to shout as loudly as possible in the vain hope that mawkish, voyeuristic  ‘public interest’ might turn into better informed audiences demanding better reporting standards from its media and better trained professionals to prevent cases like Baby Peter being allowed to happen in the first place.

Peter Brill

  • Share/Bookmark

United we band

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

Yes,  another sorry tale of a large corporate really not getting the whole customer service thing and getting ’social media’d’ in the process.  This time, it’s United Airlines in the US whose initial baggage handling ineptitude was apparently compounded by the usual customer service response of …….la la la la……………….. No!

Unfortunately for United, the classic big corporate response was met with a musical retort which has left their reputation whistling in the wind.  The victim, Dave Carroll of Canadian band Sons of Maxwell, or more precisely his $3,500 Taylor guitar, has become the latest YouTube-driven people-powered distruction of corporate credibility after Carroll wrote and videoed a brilliant song on the subject.   “United Breaks Guitars” has now had more than 3 million viewers and catapaulted Carroll and the band to world fame including an article in Rolling Stone.

To his immense credit, Carroll, after being offered compensation from United which he declined, then posted a humble and conciliatory statement on YouTube, even defending one of United’s employees.  New songs are planned to complete the story.  Even Bob Taylor, the guitar’s manufacturer, got in on the act with a clever piece of support marketing.

There is a phrase that has been used against me a few times as a consultant:  “The customer is always right”.  Well, no, they aren’t actually – it’s the reason why they bring in external expertise!  But the customer most definitely is king/queen.  The sooner corporates – and particularly airlines – realise this, the less work their public relations teams will have in facing social media crises and reputation disasters.

Still, at least United can take comfort from the fact that they’ve stratified the career of a jobbing country band from Canada.

  • Share/Bookmark

PR in a recession podcast

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

The Net.Mentor Podcast

Simply click the play button to hear the podcast  

The Net.Mentor Podcast

Simply click the play button to hear the podcast  

Today was spent training a group of PR professionals on behalf of Talking Heads in the South West.

The theme is “PR in a Recession” and as the delegates learnt the art of podcasting, we also gained some insight on how the consultancy, commercial and public sectors are viewing public relations in times of credit crunch.    The delegates also created blogs to match!

  • Share/Bookmark

Strangely compelling transition

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

There’s something strangely compelling about Barack Obama’s Change.Gov website which includes video updates of his meetings with various key target audience groups and some fairly democratic posts at the bottom of the page.  We’ve all known for a while that the President elect ‘gets’ new media and web 2.0 – or at least his advisors do – but with just 6 days to go before he gets his feet on the rug in the Oval Office, the administration to be continues to project the image of momentum, dialogue and desire for change, as well as a bit of excited new puppy.

I can’t help but compare this with our own government’s You.Tube site  where the use of technology allows a question from a member of the public followed by an video answer alongside by the PM.  It’s clever, it’s certainly democratic, but sadly I find the compulsion to view less about the PM’s clearly rehearsed and political answers, than waiting to see what’s going to be in the background of the next questioner’s living room.

Yes, No10.gov  does all the right things, it’s easy to navigate and there’s all the right social media bells and whistles…but,  and maybe it’s just my West Wing brainwashing and my rose tinted spectacles getting misted up again, I look at the dynamic energy of the Obama administration’s communication and wish for something a bit more dynamic in my own back yard.  I’m not naive enough to believe the PR or expect any massive, world-shaking changes to occur in 6 days, or even 6 weeks, but looking at Change.Gov, you do get a feeling that there is something that might induce a slight tremor in a few months.

Sad to say, maybe we can still learn something from those damn Yankees!

  • Share/Bookmark

Facebook – it’s business, as usual

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

 Matt, a regular contributor to the PRBristol site, picked up an interesting Comscore graph about the rise of Facebook against other social media sites.

Although interesting in itself, it also offers a standard business insight into a social media entity that many people are claiming to be “bored” with.  As with so many products and services on and offline, Facebook is showing the traditional curve of business maturity.  As the innovators and early adopters move away to tell everyone about their every move on Twitter,  the early and late majority have moved in to boost Facebook’s growth.

I have to admit to having been a fully signed-up member of the “I really can’t see the point, get out more”  school, but my fascination with Facebook has, like the graph, risen over recent months and find I am using it more and more for business networking, along with LinkedIn, which seems to be going through a dramatic rennaisance.  So I guess I’m just another member of the late majority.

Ho hum, one day maybe I’ll innovate!

  • Share/Bookmark

A great source but not in a crisis!

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

Frank Oviatt has picked up on a useful source of PR academia, with the new Essential Knowledge Project from the Institute of Public Relations in the US. As much as the articles are interesting in themselves, the bibliographies are equally, if not more useful. It also led me straight into some great reading.

Timothy Coombs’ paper on Crisis Management and Communications presents some fascinating, and at times surprising, research. There are some very helpful lists of best practice and an excellent bibliography. However, I do question the blame response as the best method of reputation repair, even though several of these strategies appear to be high on the Master List of those used in real crises. I can’t question the research, or that these strategies have actually been used on many occasions. What concerns me is that so many organisations in time of crisis turn to, or turn up, the ‘blame culture’ rather than taking responsibility and being open in crisis.

Professor Denis Smith, now at Glasgow University, is one of the UK’s leading authorities on crisis management and talks about ‘crisis incubation’ – i.e. issues that are left un-managed which incubate and eventually manifest themselves as apparently unrelated crises. One of the main reasons he cites is an inflexible management structure and a corporate ‘blame culture’. In Sjoberg’s recent article in Risk Management, he clearly shows that antagonism erodes trust faster than even competence or honesty.

So why on earth would any organisation hoping to protect its fragile reputation at the most critical time, choose a blame response to repair the damage?  is this a culture that is being encouraged or unsuccessfully combated by their public relations advisors?

  • Share/Bookmark