A PR Learning Curve

I love hearing about people's experiences of working with PR companies, they vary so wildly. Most people, regardless of whether they have worked closely with PRs or not, consider it to be an industry full of one-sided agendas, manipulation and what my PR lecturer called The Dark Arts of PR. One such complaint has recently come to light from a Tech Crunch journalist talking about the Facebook PR team. He goes as far as to say:

How do I know when Facebook PR is full of shit? Their mouths are moving.

That's a pretty strong statement, but from his experience of them, probably a fair assumption. And Facebook PR is giving the whole industry a bad name, considered the smear campaign against Google. But I'm not here to judge what the Facebook guys are up to. I'm interested in what journalist MG Siegler, or parislemon as he goes by in his downtime, thinks of the PR industry in general, rather than his experience with the Facebook in particular.
In Siegler's post he starts out by bemoaning the fact that there are now 3 PRs to every journalist, citing this source. There is a simple misconception of the role of PR straight away; being a press agent is only one function of a public relations department/agency. With that in mind, 3 PRs to every journalist doesn't seem like such a shocking figure, in fact it is pretty much irrelevant.
But for all of his slating of PR, there are some important lessons to be learnt here, especially for someone like me just entering the world of PR. To many journalists/bloggers PR people are seen as pushing their own agendas, that must be kept in mind when selling stories. You are starting from a standpoint of negative reputation within the writers world without opening your mouth.
Journalists/bloggers will also be likely to be loyal to their own rather believe what you have to say. And many will check their facts/loyalties with others in the industry before writing a single word.
There are so many things that Facebook appears to have done wrong in this case-study, of course it is only one side of the story, but it seems important to highlight a few aspects, it would be interesting to hear other views on what Facebook did. Trying to deny to journalists that you are working on a project that you will later launch, and probably need those same journalists to help you launch, seems pretty counter-productive to me. It might buy them some time in the race against Apple, but it will mean a lot more work with other stakeholders in the long run. And not to mention damage to the overall reputation of the company.
Denying to comment when they were reached out to also seems like it was not the smartest move. It seems that Siegler would have, at that point, been fairly open to writing about what they had to say. Not any more. So from the lessons learnt from listening to the journalist side of the wall, and what not to do from Facebook, what are the main Dos and Don'ts for someone just entering the PR arena?

The Next Chapter in the Facebook Saga

I'm sure most of the people reading this post will have heard something or other about the barrage of bad press that Facebook gets for the way that it deals with privacy issues. The latest onslaught comes after Facebook revealed yesterday that it is rolling out its facial recognition service across the globe. It appears that many people, including Sarah at PCWorld, are angry with the lack of communication about the change and the fact that, yet again, you must opt-out rather than opt-in to the service, meaning that unless you know it is coming it is unlikely that you will find it.

For me this issue is not as cut and dry as that, for the solution to this problem would simply be for the public (if Facebook itself won't) to communicate to everyone else on Facebook that these options are out there. Easy. The problem that I have is the terms of the opt-out. If you disable the recognition option Facebook will no longer suggest to your friends that you are in pictures. Great. What it does not do is stop collecting the data about you in the first place. It will still look at pictures that you are tagged in and create a profile of what you look like. Naughty Facebook.

On the other hand I am so relieved that Google has come out and said that they will not be creating a specific facial recognition database. That is such a relief to me when we know that they are investing hugely in technology that can identify all things visual. One can only presume that this includes faces. Thanks Google, you have saved the day again.

So once again it is the Facebook vs Google privacy fight, and who will come out triumphant? Well, that's like asking if in a fight between Hitler and Stalin who you would like to win. Maybe that's a bit melodramatic, but you get the idea.

A Brief Look at Packaging....

Last month saw the announcement of the 2011 DBA Design Effectiveness Awards, which got me thinking about the role of packaging in the marketing mix. When I think about packaging there are three elements that spring to mind immediately, and I have so far failed to think of many that have successfully achieved all three.

The first and most obvious role of packaging is Function. Does it hold cereal? Does it ensure that the cereal doesn't go stale before it is bought? Is it easy to get the cereal from the packet into the bowl? And so on...

The Visual aspect comes second. Does it look appealing to the target audience? Is it on message? Does it stand out from the other "noise" on the shelf? Is it quickly and easily identifiable?

And lastly, Environmental. These days most people feels guilty stuffing a plastic bottle into the rubbish, rather than the recycling; so, is it recyclable/reusable? Is it made from recycled materials? How many airmiles does it have? How many chemicals were used in creating it? Is it going to leak mineral oils into my food?

Everybody's current favorite example of packaging that hits all the boxes it Kenco's new design. The packaging is not simply aligned with the marketing, but the marketing is centered around the packaging. The look of the packet still has the legacy of the Kenco coffee jar image on the front. And it has 97% less packaging that a jar of coffee. And it is more functional than other ways of reducing packaging, as can be seen in the amusing adverts.

Of course reducing packaging is not the only way to make the product or even the packaging more eco-friendly, but it is probably a good place to start.