Guess where your TV licence is going.

Is the the identity of Top Gear’s The Stig really a matter of national security?

The BBC seem to think so.

For you and I, the unknown identity of The Stig thing was mildly amusing a few years ago perhaps. But we’re over it now. Now it’s all just a bit of a bore.

But the BBC doesn’t agree.

In fact, in a bid to prevent the ‘revelation’ of the identity of Top Gear’s mystery driver being revealed, the Beeb took matters to  the High Court today. They’ve taken legal action to block HarperCollins’  publication of an autobiography which will reveal The Stig’s real identity. 

The guy in the costume is apparently bound by a confidentiality agreement and according to the BBC, revealing who he is would ’spoil viewers’ enjoyment of the programme’.

Sure.

It all started with a self-important warning delivered by the BBC’s lawyers to newspaper editors a couple of weeks back. They emailed an urgent notice, forbidding any disclosure of the identity of The Stig. As a result, his imminent anonymous autobiography has triggered this latest round of media authoritarianism, as his contract apparently contains said confidentiality clause, designed to protect the mystique of his identity – and, presumably more importantly, the lucrative merchandising opportunities he represents for the BBC…

The latest candidate for the identity of the character is a Formula 3 driver called Ben Collins. He’s a former TV presenter who has raced in Gran Turismo cars at Le Mans, on the Nascar circuit in America and won seven races in Formula Three. He’s yet to comment on the matter.

It’s widely rumoured that the BBC’s lawyerly missives are just another round of clever marketing for the show, designed to stoke up the “great debate” again. It’s certainly done just that.

Back to the hearing, and, unsuprisingly, there’s been much dispute over whether the press and public are to be privvy to the legal arguments. The BBC’s counsel, Richard Spearman QC, argues that they should be entirely excluded (no suprises there then), whilst Hugh Tomlinson QC, for the publishers, said they should stay but be ’subject to extensive restrictions covering the disclosure of any confidential information pending the conclusion of the matter’.

Ordering that it was appropriate to proceed behind closed doors, the judge said publicity would defeat the object of the hearing. “It seems to me that having the hearing in private is a much more effective barrier to information which might in due course be the subject of an injunction passing more widely into the public domain.” He added that the public interest in “having justice in open court for all to hear” could be dealt with by a public judgment being given “in due course”.

This Stig is the second in the role. The first, Perry McCarthy, was dropped in 2003 after his identity was uncovered.

HarperCollins has criticised the BBC for using licence fee cash on the moves to block the book and said it would “vigorously defend” its right to publish it. From their statement:

“We are disappointed that the BBC has chosen to spend licence fee-payers’ money to suppress this book and will vigorously defend the perfectly legitimate right of this individual to tell his story.”

Quite right.

And as for the real identity of The Stig? I’m not sure that anyone really cares.

Gemma Carey, Bluewood Training Ltd www.bluewoodtraining.com

Repairing your public image? Don’t do this.

One’s fresh from giving evidence at a war crimes trial, the other trying to avoid bankruptcy. And yet they’ve just been pictured on the same luxury Mediterranean holiday, as if they hadn’t a care in the world.

Their PRs must be banging the heads against a wall right now.

‘Sipping a cocktail whilst surrounded by celebrities in the Med, it’s hard to believe that the ‘penniless’ Duchess of York is ‘doing everything she can’ to stave off bankruptcy’ said the piece in today’s Daily Mail.  Further still, she’s doing it in the company of,  not exactly flavour of the month, Naomi Campbell.

They were pictured partying at the 75th birthday party of billionaire hotel magnate Sir Sol Kerzner.  The eighth foreign trip of the year for Sarah Ferguson. Furthermore, ‘the last time Fergie holidayed with Campbell she had to cut the trip short after the news broke that she had accepted £27,000 from an undercover journalist after promising access to Prince Andrew.

Her spokesman said she is ‘actively considering all options’ to raise money – including book deals and rejoining the public speaking circuit – while a review of her finances is carried out. She ‘works hard’ and ‘negotiates contracts’ while on holiday, and is understood to be planning to return to the UK ’shortly’.’

But she’s coming under huge criticism for it: Graham Smith, of anti-monarchy pressure group Republic, said: ‘It’s crass to behave like a millionaire given the recession, the dire financial strife she’s in and the fact that she’s looking to Prince Andrew to rescue her. You would expect someone facing bankruptcy to be pursuing work and doing all they can to save and make money. It makes a mockery of that and any ounce of sympathy left for Sarah Ferguson must surely have drained away.’

It continues – ‘in early June she spent eight days at the £1,500-a-night Aquapura spa resort in Portugal, on a £3,000 weight loss and anti-ageing health programme.’

She also took part in ‘media awareness work’, apparently. Really?! I’d be asking for my money back.

Here’s the full story in today’s Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1305872/Duchess-York-Sarah-Ferguson-eighth-foreign-break-year.html#ixzz0xd79jXXL

Damned if you do..

There’s been much made this week of Tony Blair’s pledge to donate the proceeds of his upcoming book to the Royal British Legion.

He and his PR advisors probably though it would appease his critics. The perfect antidote to his highly-unsavoury reputation perhaps? Rather unsuprisingly though, he came under huge criticism for it. As this PR Week put it, it’s a ‘classic PR idea gone bad’:

http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1022490/Tony-Blairs-46m-charity-donation-branded-classic-PR-idea-gone-bad/

He no doubt thought it was a case of “damned if I do, damned if I don’t”.

Not quite sure everyone else is seeing it that way…

Gemma Carey, Bluewood Training Ltd – www.bluewoodtraining.com

Crisis communications training – a vital insurance strategy

If you need another example (after BP) of the true value of good crisis communications skills, and more to the point, the price to pay for not having them, then look no further than this recent blog entry by Adam Clyne in PR Week.

Clyne had only ever had positive experiences with his vet – Medivet – and yet BBC1’s Panorama portrayed them in the most negative light imaginable.

But as Clyne points out, it was Medivet’s mishandling of the situation that made it all the more damaging for them.

“No matter how big or small – a crisis plan that maps out potential eventualities and appropriate responses is an important process to work through. Businesses provide protection for themselves through insurance policies  – that include business interruption cover – but they don’t invest the same time or resource into a crisis communication programme. Yet the effect to their businesses could be disastrous.”

http://community.prweek.com/blogs/whoknew/pages/it-shouldn-t-happen-at-a-vets.aspx

Pickles’ ill-informed rant

I was reading recently that the Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is planning to ‘name and shame’ councils that use PR agencies.

In a strange and mis-targeted attack, he proclaims that the use is an ‘outrageous waste of taxpayers’ cash’, and wants to list 59 councils and the agency that represents them.

Among others, Pickles is intending to criticise Surrey County Council for its use of Grayling, Sunderland City Council for using Weber Shandwick, and Norfolk and Devon county councils and the County Councils Network for using Bellenden Public Affairs. ‘We are calling time on the scandalous practice of government lobbying government. It is an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ cash and contributed towards the corrosive culture of spin that Labour cultivated. Cutting this pointless practice should help councils protect frontline services. We are keen to maintain an open dialogue. However, this can be done by simply picking up the phone’.

Bell Pottinger’s Lord Bell has argued that Pickles’ comments ‘opposed to freedom of speech. It’s a load of sweeping generalisations that have no great merit when you look at them case by case. It’s the same old issue of someone condemning everything when they should just condemn some of it. I don’t understand the rhetoric they use. I hate these generalisations.’

Similarly, Jon McLeod, Weber Shandwick chairman of UK corporate comms and public affairs said: ‘For ministers to stifle the voice of local communities is laced with irony, especially when many local councils’ campaigns have been to prevent central government-inspired waste.’

In response, a Local Government Association spokesman said that ‘Local authorities only use public affairs agencies to win government support for major projects that are of vital importance to their residents.’

Surely it’s obvious that, along with any other service, using an outsourced public relations agency will add value providing you’re getting value for money and a decent return on your investment – which I do not doubt that these councils are. This common sense applies whether in the private and public sector, and after all, the coalition is about cutting waste and getting a proper return on investment.
There were some very valid comments left by readers on the piece in PR Week:

“Indiscriminately blitzing the PR landscape cannot possibly be a good long-term strategy. Effective communications between politicians and the communities they operate in leads to a more informed electorate. More of an investment than a waste…”

“It seems masochistic for a government led by PR people to cut PR, particularly when most local councils are using local agencies to cost-effectively engage with their communities.”

But the best by far: “I’d be intrigued to understand how the Communities Secretary got this message out. Did he ring direct or, ahem, did he use professional media relations advisors?”

Eric Pickles should be think much more carefully in future before making such ill-considered criticism of the PR community in a bid to improve his own reputation.

Gemma Carey, Bluewood Training Ltd, www.bluewoodtraining.com

Airbrushing: ASA give it the brush-off

The ever-contentious subject of airbrushing made numerous headlines again today.

It came in light of a campaign aimed at forcing the media to be open about its use of airbrushing – requesting airbrushed images of celebrities be labelled – by Girlguiding UK.

And they’ve received support from the equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone MP, who wrote a blog post praising the organisation’s petition. In the blog, Featherstone warned that it was becoming impossible for young people to avoid unrealistic images and praised Girlguiding UK’s work in raising awareness of the problem: “I have sent them (Girlguiding UK) a message of support – and was pleased to see Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson talking about the importance of transparency and honesty in advertising,”.

Ultimately, they want David Cameron to introduce compulsory labelling so people can tell the difference between airbrushed and natural images.

Of course, one can see their point. But would this realistically make a difference? Advertisers are always going to use airbrushed images of perfection since it sells. And a small label to flag what we already know is not going to change the inadequacy it may evoke in its audience.

An interesting piece on the topic came from the Press Association’s Tom Morgan, writing in The Independent. Among other things Morgan looked at notorious airbrushing-related incidents in which celebrities have objected to their airbrushing. Like that of Kate Winslet, who in 2003 complained about an unrealistically slimmed down image of herself, saying of the image: ‘I do not look like that, and more importantly, I don’t desire to look like that’. And more recently in the case of Keira Knightley – following controversy over an airbrushed poster for the film ‘King Arthur’ in 2004, Knightley refused to be airbrushed in any publicity pictures for the film ‘The Duchess’.

The Advertising Standards Authority’s response, for the most part, shirked any responsibility, describing airbrushing as a “accepted creative practice”.

They continue: “It is our role as the advertising watchdog to remove any ad that goes too far and uses any technique in a way that is misleading or irresponsible. The ASA receives only a small handful of complaints about airbrushing in ads. Although this suggests it is not an issue of concern to the majority of consumers, we take the complaints seriously and can and will act where necessary to have problem ads withdrawn.”

There’s no question that airbrushing creates unrealistic images (mainly of women) that just don’t match reality. But realistically, no amount of outcry is going to change the fact that if un-touched images don’t sell, advertisers just won’t use them.

It’s a tough one. What do you think?

Gemma Carey, Bluewood Training Ltd, www.bluewoodtraining.com

BP: finally plugging their PR leak

The announcement of the departure of BP CEO Tony Hayward was the final nail in the coffin today of what has played out as the ultimate ‘how not to do it’ crisis scenario.

Gaffe number one came when he very foolishly (albeit very honestly) told the media “I want my life back” in an interview. It looked as though he was caught off-guard in a ‘doorstep’ interview, but even so, he should have known better than to make such an ill-thought off-the-cuff comment. I’m sure his (now former?) PR team would agree.

Next, he was quoted as saying that the environmental impact of the spill would be “very, very modest”. No doubt in a bid to try to calm things/play the crisis down. It did not work.

Then, in what came across as an act of sheer irreverance in the middle of such an almightly environmental disaster, Hayward was photographed gallavanting on a yacht off the coast of the Isle of White.

In short, his handling of press relations after BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year has been nothing short of disastrous.

As what seemed to be the the entire US nation drummed itself up into a frenzie over the spill (no thanks to the anti-British sentiment stirred up by Obama), Hayward showed a distinct lack of compassion that no amount of nerves or intense pressure can explain away.

One PR sums it up well: ‘Tony Hayward had to go. It could have been different had he communicated better. Whether he meant it or not, he displayed a distinct lack of care for the victims and their families; nor did he seem to be prepared to take responsibility for the disaster, which is the ultimate role of a CEO in such circumstances.”

So, what of the imcoming CEO, Bob Dudley? Is it as simple as an American stepping in to save the day? Given the attitude among the US people at the moment, it probably is. BP has a lot of ground to make up. A new CEO with the right attitude and much-needed advice could bring about a much-needed turnaround.

“Tony Hayward’s departure is not so much a good PR move as the inevitable consequence of his poor communication during the crisis: it was simply not in BP’s best commercial or reputational interest for him to soldier on. Assuming his replacement is indeed Bob Dudley, an American accent and links with the southern states will play well in the US and provide a starting point for reputation recovery in the States. Given that Tony Hayward was seen to be a key contributor to this crisis, his removal will be seen externally as a positive step towards BP protecting what is left of its reputation.”

Another corporate communications and issues management expert said: “BP will hope that Hayward’s departure draws a line under the incident. However, his successor will need to show that BP has learned the lessons from the past few months to begin to rebuild reputation in the States and further afield.”

Hayward had to go, there was no question of that. It could have been different had he communicated better, but sadly for BP, this is yet another example of the untold damage a tragic crisis poorly handled can do to a company’s reputation.

For information on Bluewood’s crisis-handling media courses, visit our website: www.bluewoodtraining.com

Gemma Carey, Bluewood Training Ltd

New, social, and worth investing in

Not long ago it was being said that social or new media was just a fad and that it would soon vanish, even more recently the same was being said about Twitter. While Twitter’s use is clearly still dominated by the likes of Britney Spears  and Stephen Fry telling us what they had for breakfast (and let’s not forget building their own ‘brand’ in the process), we are now seeing more and more businesses and organisations using the platform for their own PR and communications purposes.

For a while plenty of firms have been using Twitter to tell us about their ‘latest sale’ or as another distribution point for their press releases, but the smarter ones have come at new media with a willingness to engage, rather than just ‘sell’.

One solid business ‘endorsement’ of the Twitter platform was announced a few days ago by Gatwick Airport who are going to actively encourage live feedback on their service via Twitter. While this is initially just a trial, it is hoped that this 24 hour customer service approach will take-off, so to speak. What is interesting about this communications move is that if a company like Gatwick Airport is taking the plunge into using Twitter in a fairly serious way, then surely many others will soon follow their lead.

It’s undoubtedly the case that organisations can and have been using a range of new media tools to assist or even define the way they communicate but as with more traditional methods, it can horrible back-fire when done badly.

BT Care gained some good PR out of a potential crisis last year by responding very quickly to a customer complaint. The frustrated customer had no luck calling the BT helpline (ironic?) and so made himself heard by tweeting his problem. BT Care was quick to reply and show they wanted to help resolve the situation. This case of course highlighted the failure of one part of the company while showcasing the effectiveness of BT’s in-house social media team – not exactly an overall success but it did stop a problem from getting worse.

Another company who you might expect to be on top of social media, claimed that they achieved over $1m of sales, in just one year, thanks to Twitter. As a ‘reward’ to all their Twitter followers, Dell released specific discounts and deals on their feed which ended up handing them a massive revenue boost. Even if you are cynical about this claim and about Twitter itself, this is certainly a sign that companies are putting their weight behind social media.

Gatorade has even gone as far as to create a veritable ‘war room’ which monitors everything that’s being said about their brand in real-time. The fact that they have devoted such resources to social media interaction is another example of the shift in marketing methods that businesses are now taking.

However, for all the positive stories on the web, there are of course plenty of negative ones, for example the Nestle fan page on Facebook which eventually caused one of their PR advisors to apologise for making mistakes and for being rude.

Another company which has faced a backlash is BP, which was the subject of their own spoof video; ‘BP Spills Coffee’. The clip swept across YouTube pages like wildfire and showed a group of executives displaying utter incompetence when trying to clean up a simple spillage. Also, a fake BP Twitter account set up to mock the company’s crisis response has almost 200,000 followers and is still growing.

Using social media platforms to build a client, or customer relationship and market a brand is clearly able to pay dividends for many organisations but as with all communications strategies it needs to be approached with some care, thought through properly and then persevered with, otherwise you may find your brand is the butt of a joke in the latest viral video.

Written by Will Edwards – www.bluewoodtraining.com – July 2010

The £7,000 car wash

Despite what you may think this is not just another PR stunt.

This Derby-based car cleaner really does charge £7,000 for its four-week supercar cleaning treatment. Now, I understand the sentiment that you get what you pay for…. but really?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10700893

What’s in an iPad?

There was a very excitable person with a new iPad in the office today. Several of us gathered around to coo at it as though it were a new baby.

But after coming across a piece in The Independent on the ethics of the iPad’s production, all of a sudden, the baby wasn’t looking so cute anymore.

It adressed something that I am ashamed to say, before now, I hadn’t given much thought to; the ethics behind technology.

“While the ethical implications of low-price food and fashion are now ingrained in the collective consumer consciousness, the same does not follow when it comes to technology.”

It’s true isn’t it – our conscientious considerations rarely come into play with purchases of computers and televisions. Even though historically these goods have been getting cheaper, we rarely stop to think about the ethical impact of that price drop in the same way that we do with cheap clothing retailers.

A survey carried out by Covalence – a company that tracks the ethical reputation of multinationals – reportedly found that technology companies were portrayed as the most ethical in the world – IBM, Intel and Cisco were at the top of the list.

But of course cheap technology, like cheap clothing, comes at a price.

A wave of employee suicides at an electronics manufacturer in China brought this to our attention earlier this year. In a factory producing iPods, Dell computers, Nokia mobile phones and Nintendo Wiis, there were 13 staff suicide attempts. They were blamed on inhuman hours and gruelling working practices enflicted on those working there. And the deaths were hugely embarrassing for Apple; they came on the eve of the much-hyped iPad launch (the managers at the factory have since responded with a 30 per cent wage rise).

These incidents should have set alarm bells ringing for ethical consumers. But instead of concern however, Apple devotees still queued overnight last month to be the first iPad. No one mentioned overworked Chinese factory workers. Perhaps they were oblivious, who knows.

So why do we appear to care so little about moral dimensions when we buy technology? Xavier Petre, of United Pepper, an ethical electronics firm, pointed out that our relationship with technology is not as personal as it is with other everyday goods:

“We care less about technology from an ethical point of view because in most cases our ethical awareness starts with the products we use the most. Food and clothes are products we need to survive, they are necessary, unlike electronics which not everybody uses. On a corporate level, there is more auditing and companies now want to be seen to be ethical. For consumers, awareness is less but it is starting. Some people cannot afford to spend 10 to 15 per cent more for ethical goods and others simply do not want to pay extra. Price is often the top consideration.”

The increased consumer and corporate ethics-awareness then is encouraging. As the Independent puts it, “a conscience-clear iPad, mobile phone or games console really would be worth queueing up for.”

What do you think?

Do ethics come into it when you’re buying gadgets in the same way that they may do when you’re buying clothes or free-range food?

It’d be interesting to know your take on the matter…

 

Gemma Carey, Bluewood Training Ltd, www.bluewoodtraining.com