Brand

1. Where do some of the big issues sit on your Relevance Index?

   Published on Tuesday, May 24th, 2011
   Even without realising it, relevance dominates our thinking every day.  The more relevant the communication, the more likely we are to first become engaged and then respond.

   My personal Relevance Index (RI) is based around

   • Do I have a choice in the matter? Who ignores an IRD letter or one from the Ministry of Transport? 

   • Is it something I need or want? Not always in that order either.

   • Is there something in it for me?

   • Should I be paying attention to this? Which is influenced by my values, beliefs and ‘norms’.

   Human nature means there are also a mass of confounding factors that influence where something sits on the RI , and some are ranked well outside what common sense suggests. 

   Look at Princess Beatrice’s wedding hat which offers no benefit other than entertainment, but there it was again on the morning news and featuring in today’s Herald cartoon. 

   Given the host of different demands on our relatively short attention spans, the ability to establish relevance is one of our greatest challenges. For example, for those of us who don’t live in Canterbury, how long will the rebuild be top of mind. 

   As we go about our lives we should make a conscious effort to ensure some of the big issues facing the nation (such as child abuse or the fair sharing of the pain caused by the global financial crisis) make it on to our RI.

   And if we are in the business of communicating we should take every opportunity to put the big issues up the rankings – just as I have done here.

2. Litany of apologies, but no humility

   Published on Wednesday, April 13th, 2011
   If you watched Close Up last night you’ll know all about the problems encountered by wheelchair-bound Tanya Black and Dan Buckingham in trying to take a Jetstar flight to the Capital.

   You see, Tanya and Dan ended up ditching their tickets and flying hassle-free with Air NZ.

   There are many aspects of this episode that deserve scrutiny, from staff training to the airline policies, but we think there’s one lesson that can be quickly learned by any aspiring spokesperson.

   Jetstar’s CEO David Hall fronted up to the programme, but despite his litany of “unreserved and absolute” apologies and admissions that his airline did not get it right, he failed to stem the flow of damage to the Jetstar brand. How come?

   Although having pretty much all day to work through with his advisor(s) how this might best be dealt with, he came on Close Up in promotional-mode, when the situation required humility.

   How much of a difference it would have made had Hall referred to Tanya and Dan by name and apologised to each as individuals, rather than referring to them as “those passengers”.

   How much of a difference it would have made if he started the interview the way it ended by saying: “where we fail, I take personal responsibility”. Unfortunately by this stage, judging by social media postings, viewers were totally enraged by his wooden performance.

   Television is an emotional medium, and in issues such as this, spokespeople have to respond emotionally, rather than as a defensive talking head.

   Frankly when two people are treated the way Tanya and Dan were by Jetstar, most of us are not remotely interested in Jetstar’s messages about their “absolute commitment to providing low fares, all-day, hassle-free travel for all our passengers, including those with wheelchairs”.

   We want to see genuine humility, but apparently, Jetstar doesn’t “do” humility. Cheap and nasty are what people are saying.

3. Obituary – British humour and satire has died!

   Published on Thursday, February 10th, 2011
   Is global communication sounding the death knell for national humour and satire?

   British humour has certainly taken a buffeting in recent weeks with the Top Gear team and Stephen Fry being castigated internationally for their ‘zany’ comments, the type of which is beloved by many in the English speaking world.

   Fry’s offence was for pondering whether Tsutomu Yamaguchi was the ‘unluckiest or luckiest man in the world’ for surviving two atomic bomb attacks.

   The Top Gear team got into deep water for making ‘outrageous, vulgar and inexcusable insults’ about Mexicans.

   The problem with humour and satire when covered out of context in print or digital form is that you miss tone, delivery and most importantly the ‘gleam’ in the eyes of the comedian. And if English is your second language, you’re likely to be totally lost.

   For me, the world will be a more mundane place if we have to forgo the likes of The Life of Brian, Blackadder and The Office, to be replaced by American sitcom humour.

   Could our own Billy T James have risen to prominence in today’s more sensitive world? In his day that ‘evil’ chuckle and the cheeky smile at the end of his delivery was enough to smooth over any ruffled feathers. But would he get away with it today?

   For those who believe the Stephen Frys of this world should be censored for taking pot shots at ‘foreigners’, my response is have a look at what they say about the English. Surely ‘the foreigners’ are getting off lightly!

   English humour and satire has made too great a contribution to literature and the development of communication to be hobbled by it being labelled ‘racist’.

4. Communications shouldn’t mean altercation

   Published on Thursday, October 14th, 2010
   Hopefully an altercation is not the only way to get Jetstar’s attention, but it may be.

   Our experience is as follows – after booking a flight to Christchurch to see the Ron Mueck exhibition with members of an art group, a later visit to an orthopaedic surgeon resulted in a fixture at Ascot hospital for a total knee replacement for the same dates. Yes, the knee had been dodgy for some time, but had not stopped other outings in previous weeks and months, like trips to the Sydney Biennale, to Melbourne and Hawke’s Bay.

   On recognising the clash of the dates for the Jetstar trip to Christchurch and the knee op, the appropriate action was to contact both the airline and the insurer of the flight insurance.

   While a call to the insurer was, if not satisfactory, at least a sense of “communicating”, Jetstar proved impossible. Eventually, after a 50-minute wait on their 0800 line to explain the flight could not be taken, the advice was to explain by fax the reason for a fare refund.  This was done a full month before the scheduled flight, and followed up with a second fax. 

   Has there been any response from Jetstar?  No, that’s if you don’t register the countless “no-reply” emails and text message reminders of the flight it was no longer possible to take.

   Person-to-person contact with Jetstar is nigh impossible it seems, unless you’re a shock jock at the airport.

   It is appreciated that Jetstar is a no-frills business model, but that does not excuse it being such a black hole when it comes to trying to talk about legitimate refunds.

   Perhaps the only way to address this is to take the matter/issue directly to the checkout desk, with boxing gloves in hand!

5. There’s news and views. Is responding to an issue with an ad the way to go?

   Published on Thursday, August 5th, 2010
   Are big bold ads now the immediate way to address real or perceived injustices thought to have been perpetrated through the columns of newspaper?  On July 2, the New Zealand Herald ran a story stating that an investigation found a couple of eco-friendly laundry powders had high pH levels which could pose a health risk. One of these was an Ecostore product.  The very next day Ecostore ran a full page ad in the NZ Herald claiming, There’s no Dirt on our Laundry Powder.

   Advertising your side of the story in response to editorial coverage is not new, but until now it has normally been used when a publication has refused to run a ‘correction’ or adequately covered your side of the story.

   Basically Ecostore ‘s response was: yes we did have some laundry powder that was found in May to register a high pH level, but that “honest mistake” was remedied in four days. It insisted the out-of-spec powder was never unsafe, and for that reason no recall from the market was warranted, although Consumer NZ thought it should have been.

   The Newspaper Advertising Bureau thought Ecostore’s response to the Herald article was pretty cool, and awarded it “ad of the month”.  The judges commented: “The ad’s got topicality. That’s how a newspaper should be used to make a statement.”

   Putting aside the issue of how Ecostore’s agency managed to secure that much advertising space in the NZ Herald the next day (when those of us who’ve tried unsuccessfully to get recall ads placed within a couple of days), was this full page a sound strategy?

   Yes and no.  Ecostore did address the issues raised in the same paper the previous day, but not in the same medium.  And people who read news items do not always read ads, even the full page ones.

   From its point of view, Ecostore may have put the record straight. We don’t know what effort Ecostore made to redress the issues raised through the editorial columns and/or whether the NZ Herald lost interest in the issue.

   We do know Ecostore did not meet its own expectations – it made a mistake with the product specs – but they did not recall the product because it did not represent the danger alleged by Consumer NZ. When building and protecting a brand, surely product integrity is as important as disputed issues of safety.

   I’m not convinced that the ad adequately resolved the issue at hand, i.e. mistakenly high pH levels. 

   There’s news and there’s views. The ad was a view.  I’m sure Ecostore recognises that news can and does shape opinion more sustainably than views.  On this basis I would counsel an editorial response, rather than an advertising one.

   And there is also the issue of whether a precedent has been set where newspapers might deny a person the right of reply on the basis that they can ‘take out an ad if they want to correct the content or tone of coverage’!

6. How you respond is a measure of your mettle

   Published on Friday, July 30th, 2010
   He didn’t get it then, and he doesn’t get it now. “Then” was when he fronted up to the affected communities, the media, and politicians over the Gulf oil spill disaster; and “he” is former BP chief Tony Hayward.

   It is almost beyond comprehension that he would say, when exiting the top job, “Life isn’t fair”.

   How could a person with the experience and credentials to lead Britain’s biggest industrial company think such a thing, let alone say it!  It’s apparent he’s been insulated all his life from the world where most of us live…because we all know life’s not always fair. That’s a given; it’s how you respond that is a measure of your mettle. 

   Yes, he did admit making mistakes, and stated that it (managing the disaster) had not been a great PR success (if he was honest he would’ve have admitted it was a disaster).  But patently he learned nothing from the grueling experience of the past 101 days; and he has absolutely no empathy for those who lost their lives on the rig and their grieving families, for people whose lives and dreams have been shattered by the spill, for the havoc wreaked on the environment.

   A primary rule of managing the media is: know what you are going to say. Did he? It’s hard to believe.

   No, life is not fair when a person like Tony Hayward can walk away with a £1 million lump sum, and a pension of £600,000 a year!

   I expect you agree, life’s just not fair.

7. Should governments have the right to censor Facebook?

   Published on Thursday, July 22nd, 2010
   Major tragedies are usually followed by a host of different reactions and responses. These are frequently played out in public as individuals try to connect with other like-minded people to affirm their own reaction to a situation. Naturally the online world offers many forums in which to do this.

   Most recently, British PM David Cameron came under fire for demanding a Facebook tribute page in memory of gunman Raoul Moat, named “RIP Raoul Moat you legend”, be taken down. The creator claimed the page was not to “condone what he did, as what he did was wrong. [I] Feel sorry for the families, but he was still a human being at the end of the day. He had problems and he didn’t get any help.”

   Despite this explanation, David Cameron condemned the page, categorically stating that he could not understand any sympathy towards this man. The UK government directly contacted Facebook and its creator, Mark Zuckerberg, asking that the page be taken down. 

   Facebook’s initial respone was that it is a “place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way …as such there were times when people discussed topics others sometimes found distasteful. However, this is not a reason in itself to stop a debate from happening.”  So long as Facebook’s terms and conditions were not violated, the social media giant felt there was no case to answer to.

   Eventually the creator herself backed down, presumably in light of the outrage across the UK, and taking down the page earlier this week. 

   On one level, it seemed to me that David Cameron is possibly naïve in his belief that a government has the right to censor public opinion, and to do so in such a public way potentially has future ramifications. On the other they are representing the interests of their people, and when the brutal actions of one person look as though they are being celebrated, surely they can and should look to shut down that particular discussion.

   But Facebook also has a point. There are any number of distasteful and immoral topics being discussed on the internet and through social media even as you read this. Where is the line to be drawn? What if a corporation’s facebook page had negative messages written on it? Does the fact they have a Facebook page mean they are open to comments and criticism, or should they have the option to decide what is posted on their ‘wall’?

   How do we protect people’s right to free speech while ensuring it doesn’t result in the unreasonable victimisation or stigamitisation of others – be it an individual, brand, or an organisation?

8. Lying as part of your strategy

   Published on Friday, July 9th, 2010
   Will we believe anything they say from now on? Possibly not. I’m talking about the Sea Shepherd organisation announcement publicly severing its relationship with the incarcerated Pete Bethune.

   No sooner had Bethune received what was widely regarded as a light two-year suspended sentence from the Japanese courts, than Sea Shepherd tells us that its statements about casting Bethune adrift were a “strategy”. Rather than being dumped, Bethune is coming home to a hero’s welcome and big party.

   The strategy was to tell a big fat lie. This from an organisation which from the Southern Ocean tells us nothing the Japanese whalers are saying is true.

   Sea Shepherd was out to fool the Japanese, and probably did.

   I have to question whether this was a good strategy.  Certainly it is not one I would be comfortable with, as I’m not sure I will ever believe what this organisation says again.

   What about the next Kiwi who finds him or herself in front of the Japanese court that has been humiliated by Sea Shepherd and Bethune.  They insist that good ole Pete knew nothing of this. Really?

9. Are PR professionals worth the money?

   Published on Thursday, July 8th, 2010
   Naturally as the GM of a major PR consultancy my response is yes. The range of PR services available in New Zealand are as wide and varied as the needs of the individuals and organisations who procure these services. Anyone who spends money on PR rightly expects a meaningful communication outcome. I was therefore intrigued to find out more about a DIY PR programme and service which claimed to be a ‘threat’ to PR.

   Presumably the claim, made in a media statement that PR consultancies are under threat, was designed to get attention, as was the statement suggesting that companies currently pay exorbitant amounts of money to generate publicity.  For what is apparently a much lower fee, organisations can learn how to do it themselves and save money in the process.  ‘All it takes’ is an understanding of the publicity process and you can ‘do your own’ PR.

   An interesting proposition, and let me make it clear,  I am not criticising the premise of people doing their own PR, nor deriding the author of this media statement who might  offer a good service for the right people. 

   There are a good number of people who drive their own publicity and others who, if they had the knowledge and inclination, could also do so. But there are some who should not and plenty more who, while willing and possibly able, will simply never get around to it.  

   The DIY advocate focuses on the common misconception that PR is simply about generating publicity via the media. Today, PR is about building strong relationships with publics; effective, authentic and mutually beneficial relationships. Thus the term: PUBLIC RELATIONS.
    
   One of the key benefits brought to a company by an external agency is the third eye and an independent perspective. We are experts in the PR business while the client is the expert in their business. 

   Sound PR, focused on building relationships, is most certainly worth the investment and will contribute to long-term success. 

   Even positive publicity does not necessarily build great relationships or add value to your business. It can, but simply looking to generate publicity for the sake of column inches is not always good PR.   

   Whether you DIY, or engage experts – internally or externally – at the forefront of your mind should be an understanding of the needs of all target audiences. Great PR people will develop strategies that ensure a company addresses all audiences, and will help develop a programme that is genuinely mutually beneficial to all.

10. All associated with the BP oil spill are acting incomprehensibly

    Published on Friday, June 18th, 2010
    From a communication perspective, it’s impossible to make sense of what is taking place with the BP oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico.

    The BBC describes the issue as a ‘PR disaster’ for BP while international financial analysts talk about it undermining the competitive advantage of the world’s 5th largest company ‘into the foreseeable future’.

    It’s inconceivable that BP is not employing the best PR professionals in the business, so why on a daily basis are they staggering from one communications blunder to another? Why is there no belief BP has answers? Why the apparent indifference to its corporate reputation?

    For all his ‘tough talk’, President Obama is struggling. Political commentators from the left, middle and right are calling his performance inadequate and lacking leadership.

    Even American media is questioning why the American administration is not putting its national resources into working alongside BP to minimise the damage being done to people’s lives and the environment; why an administration that poured unlimited money into the American banking system during the financial meltdown is now insisting that it’s ‘BP’s problem to fix’.

    Perhaps it’s all about money. Remember, while Exxon was ordered to pay billions in compensation for the Exxon Valdez spill, American courts eventually capped the payout to $500,000 because ‘it was an accident’.

    Could it be that BP is gaming the US administration, with the lawyers running a strategy based around taking the heat on corporate reputation in the short term while preparing for the inevitable 15 to 20 years of litigation in the American courts as claimants try to get their hands on the $20 billion in the compensation fund.

    Given BP’s actions to date, it certainly hard to believe it’s the communications people that are in charge of strategy.
     
    As for President Obama, he may well be the ultimate loser if this adds to the belief that he is a talker rather than doer.

    Postscript. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is not the world’s largest – not yet anyway. That dubious honour is vied for by the 1910 Lakeview Gusher (USA) and the 1991 Gulf War. To take the number one spot the BP spill needs to eclipse 9 to 11 billion barrels.