blog

THE OLD RULES STILL APPLY WHEN PITCHING TO JOURNALISTS

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:38:25 +0100

Donald Steel - the BBC's former head of press and, for my money, one of the best corporate communicators in the business - wrote recently about the need for PRs to truly understand the media to whom they are targeting stories. It was, as we've come to expect from Mr Steel a viewpoint full of wisdom, common sense and salient advice. And it got me thinking - again. As traditional media evolves, social media increasingly dominates and everyone, it would seem, has an opinion, it's important to remember that many of the good, old-fashioned tools in the armoury of the PR and media relations professional remain as relevant as ever. In fact, as journalists have access to more information and opinions than ever before, those core skills are even more important.

Too often, however, PRs simply fail to understand what a journalist needs or how to approach their pitch.

The number of journalists who tell me the cardinal rules that still get broken on a daily basis is staggering. Now, don't get me wrong. Some journalists are difficult, even downright rude to deal with and some are, dare I say it, staggeringly lazy.

A fine journalist on the travel desk of the UK's largest selling Sunday broadsheet told me recently, somewhat depressingly, that there are probably just three PRs working in the travel industry who he knows will give him what he needs, when he needs it and in the format he needs it.

Something which I've always felt vital to an effective PR is really getting to know your media - and I mean REALLY know, so that you have a grasp on what a particular publication likes (and, just as importantly, doesn't like) and, crucially, how key journalists work, their interests and what they respond to when considering news or feature ideas. It’s not difficult – read, watch and listen, and do so daily.

This is something Donald Steel majors on, suggesting - and quite rightly - that in medium to large-scale PR departments target media should be divided up among the team with each person responsible for acquiring an in-depth insight into those papers, magazines and online media they've been charged with monitoring. How can you begin to pitch a story or an idea without that knowledge? You can't.

The other bug bears of journalists - and with some justification - including calling when they're on deadline (of course, you won't always know that but a simple "is it convenient or would you like me to call you back" can go a long way); the mis-targeting of material (homework is vital; there is nothing more irritating to a journalist - and more certain to be met by the "delete" button - than to send something they could not possibly be interested in), and the dreaded "Have you received our press release?" Fair enough, there are times when you will need to, or must do, follow-ups but in most cases if a journalist has your release and is interested they will either call you for more information, or simply use it.

Clients and in-house colleagues also have a role to play in helping their PR department or consultant build good, effective and long-term relationships between their organisation and the press. Put simply – take the advice of your communications professional, be prepared to act – and act quickly – when the proverbial hits the fan, and the next time you’re berating your PR for lack of coverage just sit back and ask yourself (a) how strong a story really was that in the first place? and (b) would I have been interested in reading about it?

When a good journalist and a well-researched and prepared communications professional work well together it can be mutually rewarding and potentially have huge benefits for both parties. But these are relationships that require work, they need nurturing for the long-term and they need to be based on honesty and transparency.

Check out Donald Steel’s excellent and always entertaining take on the world of corporate and crisis communications - http://www.practicenottheory.blogspot.co.uk/

SIR ALAN, YOU’RE NOT BIG…AND YOU’RE NOT CLEVER

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:29:38 +0100

I’m picking up where I left off last time. But I’m not going to make any apologies because it is just worth reflecting on the messages sent out by elements our media when it comes to respect. Yes, I know that for some that is an alien, even an old-fashioned, concept but it is pretty clear that what we see on our screens, and in parts of the media, has impacted on how some people believe they can now behave.

In my last missive I reflected on the Simon Cowell-propelled brand of reality television – one that always seems to have a foot dipped in a murky pool that dictates that to entertain there has to be an element of the insulting and the patronising laced with a bit of nastiness and overtones of bullying.

But that cult of “nastiness” and the delivery of cheap shots in the absence of intelligence, wit or adequate communications skills can be seen elsewhere on our screens.

I think primarily of “The Apprentice”, a format that at best raises doubts about the calibre of the next generation of businessmen and women (have you ever seen such an assembled bunch of arrogant incompetents) and, at worst, gives out a message that to be rude, mouthy – and a bully – is the way to encourage people and lead a team.

No, it’s not, and someone like Alan Sugar should know better. Okay, what we see on ‘The Apprentice’ is edited and “dramatised” for impact. I think we all understand that but, apart from the fact it is now just monotonous in the extreme, it does portray a business world in which to succeed you have to be arrogant, incapable of working as part of a team, have an ego the size of an ocean liner (with sod all justification), be unable to admit when you’ve got it wrong, or have the humility to accept (even praise) when a colleague has done a good job.

Contrast events on ‘The Apprentice’ with those on the excellent – and vastly superior – ‘Dragons’ Den’. Each of the entrepreneurs there who sit in judgement on an array of business pitches has huge gravitas. Yes, they can be ruthless in their evaluations, tough when someone is inexcusably ill-prepared and their line of questioning can be forensic-like, but if someone has “done their very best” (remember when that was widely acceptable?), has obviously worked hard and demonstrated great passion and commitment they are, on the whole, encouraging and supportive.

You get the best out of people, yes, by being tough when the situation dictates but also by being fair, in leading by example, by inspiring those around you, by nurturing those new to your business or to the working world in general, and by demonstrating that you have the emotional and intellectual intelligence to deal with a whole range of issues.

Sir Alan, you’re not big and you’re not clever and the business style you peddle (albeit within a reality television format) is one of the reasons we have pockets of British management who appear singularly unable to talk properly to their staff never mind inspire and propel them forward. If you worked for me, I’d have just two words for you!

HERALDING A MORE POSITIVE REALITY TV

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:50:09 +0100

Something quite interesting has happened on our television screens the past couple of weekends. After years of what has seemed like an ever-increasing descent into mediocrity, the complete devaluing of real talent - and a culture based largely on demeaning people - we have a talent show reality format that seems solely concerned with encouraging, nurturing and engaging with performers seeking a break.

"The Voice", the American import via the Dutch broadcaster Endemol, has come to BBC1 and - if initial audience figures are anything to go by - we quite like this softer, kinder approach to our Saturday evening light entertainment fix.

The format, as many of you will know by now, involves contestants performing to a panel of four judges, all of whom have their backs to the singer. If a judge pushes his button and turns around he wants to represent that singer. If more than one judge turns around, the contestant gets to choose which of them will be their mentor. And if no judge swivels in their chair, the entrant is sent home but, crucially, with positive criticism, encouragement and practical advice.

The big difference here is that the process is devoid of that Simon Cowell-esque brand of ridicule, mickey-taking and plain nastiness.

There can be little doubt anyone entering a Cowell show will know what they're in for (unless they're completely stupid) but I find elements of these formats frankly verge on freak show. They are distasteful and, importantly, cheap, lazy, unimaginative television.

I am delighted Susan Boyle went on to become extremely wealthy as a result of her global success on “Britain’s Got Talent” (although there are hundreds of women singing in the West End or on Broadway nightly with far better voices), but I still find the way in which she was treated by some elements of the panel, audience and the press to be snide, cruel and unnecessary.

And it goes on. Graham Norton, of whom I am a fan, regularly takes a pop at Boyle in the intros to his excellent chat show. I am sure it’s all meant in jest, but three years after her appearance on “Britain’s Got Talent” do we really need more images of the windswept, unkempt Ms Boyle pre-“BGT” accompanied by deeply personal asides?

The early weeks of “The X Factor” are, each year, a sort of circus with what surely must be the manipulation of deluded, talentless people who appear “set-up” in the audition format before going on to something akin to bear-baiting in front of live audiences.

What also sets "The Voice" apart is the choice of judges/mentors. The BBC has chosen wisely. Sir Tom Jones has a formidable track record of success and longevity (which performer starting out wouldn’t want his guidance?). The Script’s Danny O’Donoghue and will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas have gravitas in the areas of singer-songwriting and hip-hop/R&B/rap respectively, and Jessie J combines a tremendous likeability perfectly balanced between nurturing and realism.

What they each manage to do is to be constructive with all the performers, highlighting their strengths and giving them valuable pointers on areas needing work. It is perhaps a slightly old-fashioned approach to talent shows and it will be interesting to see how it plays with audiences long-term.

I hope it succeeds and paves the way for others in a similar vein because, as we all know, any idiot can criticise, but to encourage, nurture and inspire someone requires real experience, talent, patience and understanding.

TAKING A LEAF OUT OF STEPHEN FRY'S BOOK

Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:55:14 +0100

In his own unique and always engaging style, Stephen Fry recounted on Twitter a few days back that he had bungy-jumped. "Holy suckmothering arse. I did it. I cocking did," he Tweeted. "Bungy-jumped. Twice. Once solo and once in a Welsh sandwich with two girls".

And therein lies the appeal of the 54-year-old writer, actor, author, entertainer, game show host...and, of course, I could go on. Fry is admired, loved and respected by the British public. He is - even if I'm not much keen on the (overused) label - "a national treasure".

I'm convinced part of the reason for this is the almost childlike enthusiasm this hugely intelligent man displays for most of the things that cross his path in life.

Whether it's a Wagnerian opera that goes on for days or his passion for Norwich City Football Club; his great interest in popular culture or an encyclopaedic knowledge of the classics; his love of obscure works of literature or a Twitter commentary on the World Darts Championships, Fry is positive, interested, enthusiastic, analytical (but never destructive) and has an obvious passion for the world around him.

In an age that appears increasingly jaded, cynical and, quite often, superficial and shallow, Fry is a breath of fresh air. You just know he would engage with heads of state as well as he would a bunch of lads after Saturday's match and, I suspect, enjoy the latter far more.

And he appears to transcend barriers. Quite an achievement when you consider he could easily be labelled and consigned to the posh public school boy folder. I heard a couple of guys in their mid-20s describe him the other day as a "legend". Says it all really.

Fry's fascination and genuine interest in the world around him - whether it be high art or lager and crisps sport - is a lesson to us all.

Be inquisitive, be engaged, be positive and be inspired by all of life and its many mysteries, challenges, obstacles and opportunities.

BEWARE THE MARKET.COM

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:28:14 +0000

Isn’t it staggering how idiotic some companies can be when implementing a potentially unpopular policy and then, to compound things further, they handle the resulting disgruntled customer fall-out with all the subtlety of John Prescott at a Jedward concert. Our banking sector occupies a position in the mind of the general public a little north of Satan and, let’s be honest, it’s a reputation they appear to fully and richly deserve. Whether our banks are the big bad monsters they’re often portrayed as is possibly open to question, but PR is largely about perception and as far banks are concerned most of us view them as huge faceless organisations big on greed and low on anything vaguely resembling good customer service.

The latest financial services institution that really could do with a good slap is Co-operative Insurance. It operates a policy (and, in fairness, it’s not alone in doing so) called “redlining” which basically means it has a list of “banned” postcodes when it comes to offering car insurance.

It – and others – deems certain streets are now uninsurable, presumably because they carry with them a greater risk of theft or vandalism. I don’t know about you but I sort of thought that was the sodding purpose of taking out insurance in the first place.

I suppose I can understand that if certain streets, certain postcodes are more vulnerable than others then insurance providers need to minimise their losses. So, why not increase premiums? It’s never stopped them across a myriad array of other factors.

BBC Radio 4’s excellent “Money Box” reported last week that a Co-operative Insurance customer informed them he had moved from Exeter to North London – a very nice street in North London according to the programme’s presenter Paul Lewis who had gone to the trouble of looking it up on Google Earth.

The Co-operative told him he was longer covered, as the address to which he had moved was “uninsurable”. They would give him no grace period (not even 24 hours) to source alternative insurance, rendering his vehicle instantly uninsured and leaving him open to prosecution.

But, wait for the best bit. They then informed him he would be charged a £30 admin fee for “cancelling” the policy! Something they later relented on when, no doubt, faced by the “Money Box” team and the prospect of being crucified on-air by the redoubtable Mr Lewis.

The Financial Services Authority says the Co-operative has not treated this customer fairly by failing to give him notice. The Co-operative declined a request from ‘Money Box’ to appear on the programme - hardly surprising given their completely indefensible position.

I always thought the Co-operative was an organisation that held itself to a higher standard when it came to ethics and fairness. Obviously not.

What is especially telling is its sheer stupidity. Fair enough, implement a policy that is in the best interests of your business and, presumably they would say, fairer to customers who shouldn’t be penalised if they live in safer, less crime-susceptible postcodes. But could they not have summoned together a smattering of common sense and given this customer even a couple of hours to find another insurer willing to cover him?

Like bankers, insurance companies have a shabby reputation with the general public. How many of us suspect they will do their damndest to wriggle out of a claim and, perhaps, more worryingly, how many of us even question the value of having insurance all together?

As customers, all we can do is be as selective and well researched as possible, even if it is a pain. While for those in insurance and banking, there are surely opportunities to be had for those brave enough to steal a march and break the mould of inflexibility, intransigence and sheer pig-headedness that is our financial services sector.

IN A CLASS OF HER OWN

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:23:14 +0000

Aside from the quite extraordinary performance of its star, the most fascinating thing about watching “The Iron Lady” in a shopping mall multiplex on an early Saturday evening was the audience. The middle-class Thatcherites from the UK’s affluent suburbs were out in force, of course, but what was really interesting was the number of people in the cinema who could hardly have been out of nappies (or even born) when Margaret Thatcher was either - depending on your take - radically reforming this land for the better or sending it forever to its ruinous decline.

Why would this demographic have any interest whatsoever in a somewhat slight biopic of a former British prime minister who hasn’t been in the public eye for 22 years? The answer is quite simple – Meryl Streep.

I hate editorialising superlatives but surely there can be little doubt that here is the greatest screen actress of all time. With 17 Oscar nominations (a record) and three statuettes to her name, Streep is a chameleon – an artist indistinguishable from one performance to another and one of those rare people whose name alone can entice people into a cinema, regardless of the subject matter or style of film she graces.

Whether a monstrous magazine editor, a 19th century Danish emigree, a vilified Australian mother, a nun hiding a dark secret, an all-singing all-dancing middle-aged single parent…even a bakery owner in a fluffy romantic comedy, Streep brings a rare combination of qualities to each and every role. I quite happily admit I will buy a cinema ticket purely on the strength of her name.

But watching Streep pick up her third Academy Award for “The Iron Lady” I couldn’t help but be struck by her enormous qualities both as an individual as well as a “truly great star” – and how nice to be able to write those words about someone who has really earned and richly deserves them.

If, for no other reason, that she gives award acceptance speeches devoid of puke-inducing sentiment, the woman is a legend. With great good humour, someone Tweeted post-Oscars that “Meryl Streep should just win everything…American Idol…the presidency…everything”!.

What is also telling are the words with which her peers choose to describe her talent and the process of working with the woman who has amassed a quite stunning 11 awards and a further 19 nominations for her latest film.

Colin Firth is typical in this respect: “committed”, “hard-working”, “curious”, “incredibly bright”, “always prepared” is how he describes his “Mamma Mia” co-star.

She has paid her dues. She always strives to do her best work, she commands huge respect from colleagues and is she is articulate, intelligent, gracious, generous, warm and funny. There are many people in this world – in the arts, business and in ordinary everyday life – who could learn much by observing Meryl Streep.

And isn’t that a sobering thought, especially in this age of micro-celebrity and in that over-used word “star” (or, even worse, “superstar”) applied to people who frankly haven’t a cat in hell’s chance of ever justifying the title.

WHY GOOD JOURNALISM MUST BE VALUED AND RESPECTED

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:18:46 +0000

It is all too-easy these days to view the profession of journalism with cynicism and scorn. And in many respects, it is a trade in dire need of having to clean up its act. Shoddy reporting, a blatant disregard for the truth (by a few powerful but hugely damaging culprits), a failure to check facts and to balance a story – and don’t get me started on slovenly grammar and a failure to adhere to even the most basic rules of good newspaper style.

But having said all of that, you only need to look at the desperately tragic killing last week of Sunday Times correspondent Marie Colvin in Syria to see a journalist who, time and time again, entered war zones to cover events with pinpoint accuracy, great humanity and a simplicity in her reporting matched with huge power in its delivery.

Part of Colvin’s trademark was to examine, often in heart-breaking prose, how war and conflict affects women and children. She typified the kind of journalism that is entrenched in old newsroom values but which is also able to react and respond to events in a complex, often frightening world.

People like the BBC’s John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen, Alan Little, Lyse Doucet and Jon Leyne; CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, and veteran reporters such as Kate Adie and the legendary Martha Gellhorn and Walter Cronkite – all committed to reaching the truth, reporting the facts and delivering a story without flannel, hype or ego.

Marie Colvin was brave, she was fearless and she was the ultimate newspaper professional. It’s desperately sad that in her quest to uncover and convey the truth she paid with her life.

And how moving was it to see Colvin’s elderly mother talk to U.S. television just hours after he daughter’s death “because Marie would have hated ‘no comment’”.

My great fear is that we are now reaching a point (or have we already reached it?) where we no longer value those selfless and courageous reporters who risk their lives to expose corruption and genocide. Instead, we appear to devour (whether we want it or not) endless drivel about overpaid footballers, individuals who are “celebrities” by some perverse default rather than talent (God forbid), and people who I’ve mostly never heard of and, quite frankly, do not give a damn about.

Please, let’s not vilify a profession that regularly incenses me but which, occasionally, makes you step back and think when faced with the work - and the bravery - of someone like Marie Colvin.

PRICED AT A PREMIUM

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:32:01 +0000

Kirstie Allsopp - she of "Phil", house-buying common sense and all things knitted - has been Tweeting of late on the supply and demand pricing policy of airlines. Ms Allsopp is, I’m guessing, investigating for a television programme the practice of airlines and their IT systems pricing seats inline with sales patterns.

Quite what the always good-value Kirstie knows about the issue I'm not entirely sure. But hey, when did having in-depth expertise ever get in the way of today's commissioning editors. She does, however, highlight what could become a growing trend in terms of pricing policy and in businesses reacting more aggressively than ever to consumer behaviour.

In New York it is a sales tactic now adopted on Broadway. Walk into a theatre box office and you will see a screen on which the next week's performances are listed and displayed in such a way they can be easily adjusted in response to consumer demand.

So, for instance, if you want to see "The Book of Mormon" - the biggest Broadway money-spinner in years and due here in 2013 (highly recommended, by the way) - on a Saturday evening or over a holiday weekend you could be looking at a ticket price tag of a whopping US$477!

I also noted producers of some Broadway productions are charging premiums for aisle seats.

What next? Food priced according to freshness? Fashion retailers charging more if you leave buying beach wear to the last minute? A pound to use the toilet on a plane? Oh, yes, one obnoxious Irish businessman is already mulling that one over isn't he?

Now, depending on your point of view this is either good commercial practice or a blatant rip-off. In these difficult economic times it makes perfectly good sense for businesses to entice customers to commit early and get revenue in the bank.

Go back just a few years and it was accepted you could pencil holiday dates in advance and nearer the time make the purchase - sometimes having to compromise, occasionally bagging an amazing deal but hardly ever being totally disappointed.

And while there are still late availability offers, if you are at all restricted to dates or have a particular preference in terms of destination or accommodation, you could well end up struggling to find anything acceptable or within budget.

But what does all this mean for marketers and also for consumers?

As customers we will have to be more forward-thinking - difficult when we are all cautious about spending and often prefer to "wait and see", especially when it comes to discretionary spend items.

For businesses? Well, pricing has, of course, always been an integral part of any marketing strategy. But to devise and implement it well requires both a forensic like insight into your sector and an on-going and dedicated investment into understanding your customers/clients, how they spend and the numerous factors that can influence their decisions.

One thing all this does make crystal clear is that, whether marketer, sales director, CEO or consumer, we will all have to be smarter than ever before in our behaviour and in the way we plan, sell and purchase.

REST IN PEACE - IF ONLY

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:23:35 +0000

The death of Whitney Houston, announced here in the early hours of last Sunday morning was another of the seemingly all-too regular reminders of how prodigious talent can be tragically snuffed out before its time. From Edith Piaf, Billie Holiday, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison to Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson and Amy Winehouse, it seems clear there are some talents for whom the burden of fame and creative pressures are just too much.

Why is it that some people find it impossible to reconcile the considerable natural talent bestowed upon them with a world that often fails to match up to their own demanding high standards?

Within three days of Houston's death (surely one of the greatest voices in popular music), the British tabloids were carrying photos of the bath in which her body was found, speculation about her mental state and rumours about a "dark" side to her sex life.

When, in pursuit of a story, did we find it acceptable to trample across the character of someone barely cold on the mortuary table - and singularly fail to recognise that here is a person tragically taken from this world and who has left behind family, friends and, most importantly, a young daughter.

Back on topic – it’s interesting to speculate why great talent often results in the production of a damaged and tortured soul. I am sure we all have a theory.

Sadly, we see great sadness and tragedy in our world day-in day-out. It does need to be further propelled by newspapers, journalists and some sections of the media who need a voyeuristic and salacious take on events to justify their own existence.

And yet you only have to look at events in places such as Syria and Afghanistan, to see we have wonderful and heroic examples of fine journalism and brave reporting.

In many respects I do subscribe to the notion we get the press we deserve so, for heaven's sake, is it not time we stopped buying these pitiful excuses for journalism that sink below the gutter and into the sewer.

A “LATE ADOPTER” – AND PROUD OF IT

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:22:55 +0000

I'm what the marketing industry likes to call a "late adopter". Well, that's what they used to call it. It probably has some wanky new 21st century equivalent now. You see, I'm in that category of people that does embrace new technology eventually. We just like to take our time over it. Take Amazon's Kindle for example - something over which I freely admit I have pondered and pontificated for an unseemly length of time.

The problem is (or was) that I am just one of those people who love books: the feel, the smell, the design of the covers and the anticipation of going into a bookstore (here's hoping they won't be lost for ever in the march for something "new") in the anticipation of finding a book I'd long wanted, or one I never knew I wanted but am inexplicably seduced into buying.

I am always slightly suspicious of houses without books - and I never get tired of glancing over at the floor to ceiling bookshelves in my own; seeing something familiar, a purchase I have still to read, or an offering I never even knew I had.

Now that I have my Kindle and have taken it off on my travels, I have become something of a convert. For me – and I am sure a lot of people – it is not going to replace books. There will be certain novels, biographies or reference volumes I will always want to own and keep in hard copy form.

But for sheer ease and convenience, the Kindle (and other such similar devices) has much to recommend it. Gone are the days, if you’re an avid reader, of packing a stash of books for the beach – and the device is so much easier to handle than some of those weighty tomes, whether you are propped up in bed, lounging by the pool or sitting on a plane.

The point here, however - and it’s one I return to – is that we can have the best of both worlds. The view, propelled by some, that if it’s not new, trendy and fashionable it’s not worth bothering with is frankly pretentious rubbish.

I can see now, after just a few weeks, the great appeal of the Kindle, but I am also firmly attached to the idea of buying and keeping for the future certain books to enjoy again or just dip into from time-to-time

And, as with so many things in modern day life, please let’s not fall into the trap of wanting to reinvent everything just because we have the technology to do so. Just because it’s new, doesn’t mean it is automatically right - or best.

THE SILENCING OF HIS MASTER’S VOICE?

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:25:47 +0000

The latest trading figures from the retail and service sectors make for sobering news – and there can be little doubt of worse to come. There have been positive vibes from the likes of John Lewis (consistently great service coupled with value surely being no coincidence) as well as in the form of budget hotel chain Travelodge’s expansion plans, but what of those names whose long-held tenures on our high streets – and in our hearts - look increasingly precarious.

HMV is one patient seemingly headed for the retail intensive care unit and in numerous respects it is pretty easy to understand why. You can easily see this on a marketing exam paper as a challenge to students to suggest ways in which the once domineering entertainment retailer might reinvigorate its brand. Or is it all too late?

There are a number of things wrong with HMV and a number of areas in which the business seems to have slipped into a coma while many around it respond to the ever-evolving ways in which we buy and consume music, film, computer games and new technology.

Step into an HMV store and little has changed in a long time: the same layout, same shop fittings, same branding…everything, in fact, appears the same as it was five – maybe even 10 - years ago.

The likes of Amazon, Play and the formidable iTunes no doubt helped to see off Virgin and then Zavvi from the high street and it’s beginning to look a lot like HMV will follow suit.

It is a great shame as it was once a gold standard high street name and there are undoubtedly things it could have done to preserve and, maybe even, secure its future position.

Why, for instance, has it not partnered with Costa Coffee or Starbucks to bring them into their stores, complete with complimentary wi-fi? The major US bookseller Barnes & Noble does this successfully in many of its shops, and both Waterstones and WH Smith in the UK have followed suit in some of its larger outlets. It creates a dual draw and helps to encourage both footfall and the length of time a customer potentially remains in store.

HMV might also have installed docking stations where customers could purchase and download music, films and television programmes to iPods, iPads and other devices, and while the benefit of loyalty card schemes remain in doubt, HMV was way too late embracing the concept.

Its stores should have had a major makeover four or five years ago, while its website appears to have never really taken off. Do you know anyone who buys music, books or DVDs online and who uses HMV over Amazon or Play?

If it was serious about its online presence, HMV needed to do much, much more to promote and position its website – and to learn from Amazon’s emphasis on tracking consumer habits and then cleverly leading them to product suggestions in line with their buying history.

I recently purchased an iPad and at no point did the idea of buying it from HMV even enter my head. Accepted, the obvious place to which most people would head is one of those glossy and seductive Apple stores (and I did), but I had also considered buying it at John Lewis (for an extended warranty) and Argos (purely for ease).

The HMV experience is one that has largely stagnated while, as a brand, it has committed the cardinal sins of predictability and complacency.

Can it claw things back? I would like to think so, but it needs to address the double-whammy of having left it too late and of then trying to reverse the fortunes of a struggling (some might say dying) brand against the toughest retail backdrop in decades.

WHO SAYS SIZE MATTERS?

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:18:47 +0000

There are four and a half million small businesses in the UK. Collectively, we are responsible for 58 per cent of private sector employment and 48 per cent of turnover. Crucial to the country's economy - especially in times like this - we have to navigate an assault course of challenges: rising costs (especially fuel), rents and rates, late paying clients and customers, and employment legislation such as increased rights for agency workers. One area in which successive governments have failed to recognise this is by simplifying the public sector's convoluted, and frankly at times absurd, procurement system.

Have you ever, as a small business, tried applying for one of these? It's like they put all the country's pen pushers and bean counters in one room, plied them with illegal substances and told them to do their “best” work.

What you tend to get first off in this minefield of mindless and largely farcical bureaucracy is something charmingly known as the pre-qualification questionnaire (PPQ). This is designed to ascertain whether you have the right experience and credentials to be deemed suitable to receive the actual tender documents.

I stopped applying for public sector contracts two or three years ago after one local authority advertised for PR services and expressly said they wanted to "encourage small agencies and one-man bands/freelancers" to apply.

The resulting PPQ ran to 52 pages and apart from wanting to know my willy size and what I intended to eat for breakfast a week on Tuesday, there seemed nothing these people did not want to know. The crunch came when I got to the section: "Please provide details of your international disaster recovery processes".

Now, it was a stroke of luck at this point there were no sharp instruments in the room! It was a small scale PR contract for Christ's sake. My "International disaster recovery processes", should I ever need them, are going to consist of either getting to my nearest and dearest PDQ, or hitting the pub.

Seriously though, isn't our public sector missing a huge trick by making access to its contracts near-on impossible for many able, well-equipped and experienced suppliers. Okay small businesses cannot offer the infrastructure of large agencies (incidentally, why do these people always travel and pitch in packs?) but they can and do offer, in many instances, substantially more.

I'll wager most companies using a (good) small agency or a one-man band will get exceptional service, dedicated attention from one key point of contact, and endless passion and commitment. Small businesses, after all, cannot rely on that monthly pay cheque and the comfort of someone else to pick up the pieces when things don’t quite go according to plan.

And in times like these how much better value per marketing pound do the small agencies offer?

There are times, of course, when the large PR, marketing and creative companies should win the work and where the smaller guys would simply not be able to service the client's needs. But the problem is that, as far as I can see, everything about the current public sector tendering process is skewed firmly against small businesses.

If Vince Cable really wants to do something to encourage and support small companies – and to ensure public sector budgets go further – then he needs to seriously overhaul public sector procurement. And to stop talking and do it now!

RING OUT THE OLD

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:17:39 +0000

The word "challenging" seems perfect when it comes to summing up 2011 - a year in which any of us responsible for running and driving forward a small business will have faced numerous obstacles and, hopefully, a few opportunities. For me it's been 12 months in which it has been both possible and interesting to reflect – through these blogs - on not just my own business but the wider worlds of marketing, PR and customer service.

There is no doubt many companies have shown great tenacity and creativity in facing economic challenges and it will be these businesses that will rightly emerge from the recession stronger, more focused and, perhaps, exhausted.

While there are others who, quite frankly, appear to have lost the corporate plot - running around like busy fools, displaying no real strategic direction and, whether knowingly or not, treating suppliers and associates in a way that is not just ruthless and businesslike but disrespectful and entrenched in bad manners.

The other defining factor of the past 12 months has been the increased pressures under which we work and it’s been interesting to see how business responds: fascinating – and often mind-boggling at a time when I thought we were all fighting to retain the loyalty of each and every client or customer. So, here are my 2011 brickbats and bouquets.

For superior levels of service and for pushing the boundaries, I was particularly impressed by:

British Airways and Virgin Atlantic (I know it’s not fashionable to praise the airline industry but my experience of both these carriers in 2011 was exceptional).

Active Health Quote (a company that searches the market for the best private medical insurance – exceptional service).

John Lewis (great staff, great product knowledge – consistently a pleasure).

DH Design Consultants (this small design agency has delivered consistently superior work and great service often under difficult conditions).

The BBC's "Frozen Planet" (for demonstrating beyond doubt the importance of a free and unshackled public service broadcaster)

And my wooden spoons go to:

LA Fitness (for displaying a quite staggering disregard for loyal customers).

Aviva Healthcare (for not even trying to retain my business after 12 years; note to Aviva marketing director!)

Hastings Direct (ditto - and for then repeatedly calling and sending me letters when I had told them in writing and by phone that I was taking my business elsewhere).

Marks & Spencer Bexleyheath (for seemingly have a consistent policy of opening as few checkouts as possible – especially on a Saturday at 9.00 am).

And finally, to the client who thought it was acceptable to dispense with my services by email after four years. No, it wasn’t unacceptable - and, yes, it was bloody rude!

So, what of 2012? I was talking last week to a guy running a small manufacturing business in Kent - nothing overly ambitious but he employs 30/40 staff, has a successful track record and a portfolio of regular and loyal customers.

I was stopped in my tracks when he said that not only had he preserved his marketing expenditure he was increasing it. This is an engineer and someone who, by his own admission, is not a natural marketer.

But the great thing about him is that "he gets it" - and he does so in a way some larger businesses singularly fail, instead preferring to slash their marketing spend (well it's an easy – I prefer lazy - call isn't it?), ensuring market share and awareness is lessened and that their more enlightened competitors steal a march.

I'd put money on it that this man's business will not just weather the recession, it will emerge from it stronger and more successful. And this isn't just because I'm a marketer and like his commitment to how I ply trade. It's because he has courage, vision, single-mindedness and a commitment to nurture and further develop his business through difficult times.

And this approach is one we could all do with taking note of because 2012 won’t be easy, that’s a given. But by following a few good business principles there will be opportunities to consolidate, strengthen and even prosper. It will be interesting to see the way in which businesses – small and large – respond to their customers and to the actions (or inactions) or their competitors.

Oh, and a personal plea – let’s all take time in the year ahead to remember that good business manners say an awful lot about us and we should not forget them, especially when times are tough.

Wishing you all a happy, productive, prosperous - and stress free - 2012.

HAVE WE LOST OUR COLLECTIVE SENSE OF HUMOUR?

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:36:20 +0000

I’m not quite sure what to make of the latest outburst from Jeremy Clarkson and the resulting furore. Does it paint Mr Clarkson as an odious individual who fails to recognise that, when paid handsomely by a public service broadcaster, it comes with a responsibility to be mindful of conduct, language and behaviour. Or does it portray union leaders as humour-less trouble makers who not only fail to identify a tongue-in-cheek remark when they hear it but who are so cosseted they’ve lost touch with the reality of Britain in 2011.

When one union leader declared he would be seeking “legal urgent advice” following Clarkson’s rant on ‘The One Show’ that last week’s strikers should be taken out and shot in front of their families, the only reaction really was to poke fun at said union boss.

As I write, the BBC has received 21,000 complaints – and as licence fee payers each of those viewers has every right to voice their disquiet. But I wonder (a) how many of them were offended enough to pick up the phone or log-on having actually seen the broadcast and (b) did they only react when they saw the subject trending on Twitter or caught the following morning’s headlines.

And I suspect a fair number of these complainants have just jumped on the bandwagon. We’re British – we love being outraged but in a comfy armchair kind of fashion.

I’ve watched ‘The One Show’ piece back a couple of times and also listened to the audio-only version of Clarkson’s comments.

I won’t tell you what I think of Mr Clarkson but I fail to see how anyone could have watched this and thought he was being serious - or that his remarks we’re not completely in keeping with the outraged, grumpy old man persona that is his trademark.

Clarkson is a popular broadcaster and public figure so, come on, we know what to expect when’s he wheeled out on our screens or within the pages of our newspapers.

On the one hand, no ones comes out of this with much honour but on the other it’s a kind of perfect storm. Clarkson got publicity for his new DVD (and himself) and the union’s case was further highlighted. Some commentators are suggesting the BBC is over-reacting. No it isn’t. It has responded as it should do when that number of licence fee payers feel compelled to complain, for whatever reason.

One small thing it does tell me is that as, a country, we might well be losing our sense of humour. And in depressing times like these if we do that we’re sunk.

COMMUNICATING A DISCONNECTION

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:21:32 +0000

Have you ever considered that we live in a world in which we have more assistance than ever before when it comes to communicating and yet, in many respects, we are more disconnected than possibly any other generation for decades? Smartphones, iPads, instant messenger, texting, email – all designed to make our lives easier (and in many ways they do) and to ensure we communicate with colleagues, family and friends with all the efficiency of a well-oiled military operation. Ah, if only!

I worry that we seem to be losing something of the personal touch we all need as human beings, whether it be in times of celebration, occasions of stress and sadness, or simply when you just need to share.

The world is complicated. If you want to find a partner, there is fair likelihood that in 2011 you will begin that search online. If you need to phone a large organisation, then you just know you will play a mind-numbing game of button pushing before speaking to a human being (Virgin Media now offers me a choice of music while waiting – press one for rap, two for country!). People on Twitter give a blow-by-blow account to their followers of a television programme they’re watching – the modern-day equivalent of the mid-morning “water cooler moment”, but in extreme, I guess.

And then there’s Facebook. Now, I acknowledge I’m probably not Mr Zuckerberg’s ideal target age range (although, interestingly, that seems to have shifted in the past couple of years – parents keeping tabs on off-spring?) but I acknowledge the huge value of social networking and the way in which it effortlessly taps into our time-starved world.

What I really don’t understand about Facebook is why some people feel a need to share their innermost personal thoughts or air their dirty laundry. Is this really the place to tell the world your boyfriend’s a dick, your boss is a bastard or you want to stay in bed all day and hide from the world? What happened to calling up a friend, female bonding over a cup of coffee or having one of those awkward but reassuring man hugs?

Email, of course, is today’s business communications tool of choice and yet I was struck again the other day by how much more one can gain and achieve by picking up the phone. Be honest, how many times have we all engaged in email ping-pong when one simple phone call would probably have done the job?

Modern day technology is fantastic – you’ll get no argument from me on that one. The things it enables us to do, the wealth of information and knowledge it opens up to us at the click of a mouse, and the speed with which it enables us all to communicate is staggering. But are we communicating as effectively as we could be both in our personal and professional lives? Just asking.

CHEAP SHOTS DO NOT A CLEVER PERSON MAKE

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:05:49 +0000

When did that element of the plain nasty that we now seem to take for granted become accepted - and go unchallenged? And when did journalists and public figures who really should know better resort to cheap, lazy shots to make a point?

Last week we witnessed Tom Watson, the Labour MP, display behaviour that reeked of classroom antics when he said to News International chairman and chief executive James Murdoch before a Commons Select Committee "Mr Murdoch, you must be the first mafia boss in history not to know he was running a criminal organisation."

Now, I'm no fan of the Murdochs and the behaviour of its organisation and some of those who represent it is repugnant. However, might we not have a right to expect an elected politician conducting himself within a committee session to behave somewhat better than a petulant eight-year-old or a third rate comedian in a tacky Benidorm bar?

We also had the Daily Mail's Amanda Platell (a woman who seems to hold herself in unfathomably high regard with little discernible justification) take a cheap pop at the BBC's supremely professional economics editor Stephanie Flanders.

Flanders, whose measured reporting of Eurozone events and the global economics crisis has been a breath of fresh air amidst all the naysayers and rent-a-gobs, was lambasted by Platell in typically nasty Daily Mail fashion.

Cheap shots are not nice - and they are certainly not clever. And when they come from those in public life who inform debate and influence opinion they are to be treated with scorn rather than us ever pandering to the inflated egos behind them.

OBVIOUSLY THE CUSTOMER ISN'T ALWAYS RIGHT

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:47:07 +0000

You might have thought that in this current economic climate, every business would be doing its damndest to keep its customers – and keep them happy. It’s something that appears to have eluded health club chain LA Fitness. At the branch I use and have used for the past 11 years, a decision has been taken to cancel one of the club’s most enduringly popular classes.

Boxercise took place on a Saturday morning and had done so successfully for three or four years. Most weeks it was full, many weeks it had a waiting list and it had a sizeable core of regular members who rolled up religiously to work off the stresses of the week. There was no customer consultation, no coherent information but, it would appear, bags of indifference on the part of LA Fitness towards loyal customers.

These are people, me included, who commit to membership over many years in a sector that is renowned for high customer turnover and which has, traditionally, been poor at delivering effective retention strategies.

I’m told the decision came from head office – no doubt staffed by people who haven’t a clue what their customers want never mind, and God forbid, actually asking them!

At the end of the day this is an inconsequential example, but what it does demonstrate in its own small way is the complete disregard a major business can have for loyal customers. It’s a prime example of corporate arrogance.

As a marketer I find it incomprehensible that any company would ever (never mind in the depths of a recession and in a discretionary spend sector) take a decision that would alienate customers without even consulting with them and canvassing views.

Has the management of LA Fitness become so indifferent to its members that it treats them with such disregard while, as a business, appears to have forgotten even the basic, entry level rules of effective customer relationship marketing? Sorry, but as business people and marketers aren’t we supposed to be fighting tooth and nail for every customer’s loyalty?

Now, where are my gloves?

“ME TOO!”, BUT WHAT MIGHT THAT DO TO YOUR REPUTATION

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:22:02 +0100

Companies, of course, thrive by reinvention, repositioning and by being creative in their business development. But there is a danger when it is accompanied by a failure to look at the wider implications of jumping on a “me too” bandwagon. Take the tourism industry and the vexed and emotive question of travel to Burma as an example.

Ever since the country’s democratically elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi called last year for an end to her party’s 15-year request that tourists stay away for fear of further supporting a brutal military dictatorship, the travel industry has been predicting great things for the south east Asian destination. Indeed, there is now evidence that demand from tourists can outstrip supply.

This is a dictatorship that denied Aung San Suu Kyi her landslide election victory of 1990 and has ruled this wonderful land with an uncompromisingly brutal iron fist ever since.

In announcing last year that she felt there was now some real benefit in tourists visiting Burma, Daw Suu was equally clear that travellers should make every effort to ensure they do not support hotels, local tour companies and other facilities owned or operated by the military and its “cronies”.

This is possible to do by investing time in a little research and by talking to one of the tour operators with a history of offering trips to Burma. Many of these companies did not actively promote the country until Daw Suu’s change of position. Instead, they preferred to watch and monitor the situation while offering it to those clients who asked having already made their decision to travel.

Unsurprisingly, there are a handful of tour companies that have suddenly decided to feature Burma, or to up their promotional effort without possibly ensuring their knowledge is both current and mindful of the need to try and minimise any commercial activity that could benefit the generals.

One operator is featuring a new golf course that has opened around the area of Ngapali beach, a stunning coastal region with a handful of hotels and a seductive laid-back feel reminiscent of South East Asian beach resorts of 20 years ago.

On the face of it, this is an excellent addition to facilities in a burgeoning area of Burma. Investigate further, however, and you will find out the golf course has been built by and is being run with the backing of the military junta.

It’s safe to assume most people heading for Burma will be aware of its troubled past and still uncertain future and, crucially, of the inspirational Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for caution, so it is surely beholden on any tour operator offering the country to be bang up to date in their location and product knowledge.

The Burma Campaign UK operates a powerful “dirty list” naming and shaming those companies that do business with the country. Until Daw Suu’s change of position last year, that list included tour operators.

What a shame it would be if some of those companies who, through their own failings in research, were to find themselves back on another list for featuring something as innocuous as a golf course – but a golf course that if you look at it in basic terms is run by the bloody hands of Burma’s military.

“Me too” is not wrong in business development terms but it requires a great deal more than riding whatever might happen to be the current bandwagon.

APOCALYPSE NEWS

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:40:05 +0100

BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House asked recently if, in what it termed Apocalypse News (I like it), our general well-being is affected by what can often seem like an endless stream of negative news, doom and gloom. Are we talking (and listening) ourselves into an environment where everything seems fraught with uncertainty, where everyday acts appear to need a government health warning and where we really don’t want to think too much about the future?

The panellists were insightful and raised a number of issues about how our news is presented to us and how we consume it through an ever-diverse set of media tools.

Have you ever tried watching 24-hour rolling news for more than say 30 minutes? Unless there is a huge breaking story (how overused and redundant has the term “breaking news” become?), it’s akin to a form of torture with the same news (and sometimes it isn’t even news) repeated endlessly and invariably featuring what seems to be an never-ending supply of “rent-a-gobs” broadcasters appear to have holed up in a cupboard somewhere.

Half the time I don’t know who these people are, never mind care what they think or have to say.

Sky News recently told me – under “breaking news” – that there was a one in six chance the country is back in recession. I question whether that is even a piece of considered reporting never mind “breaking news”.

On another BBC offering – the excellent business programme The Bottom Line – a leading entrepreneur spoke recently about confidence, citing a noted economist who claimed you don’t necessarily need to be in the depths of a slowdown to actually end up there. When confidence goes almost everything tumbles around it.

It is still possible to seek out good, positive news about this country and the achievements of our businesses, communities and individual but, by God, you have to work hard to find it.

By and large you can forget a lot of our traditional print media who increasingly appear interested only in third-rate celebrities, comment and analysis that borders on the plain nasty and unpleasant, and in pursuing troubled politicians liked rabid dogs until they can claim a scalp and move on to their next victim.

Over the past week, I’ve made a conscious effort to try and seek out good news. It was there, invariably on broadcast media but often given just passing mentions sadly.

But the news of the opening of a new 750,000 acre Airbus manufacturing plant in Wales that will help create aircraft that are 25 per cent more fuel efficient; a report telling me the UK has increased recycling levels from 10 to 40 per cent over the past decade…and a wonderful piece on BBC Breakfast about a 100-year-old marathon runner who only took up pounding the pavement after the deaths of his wife and son all made me feel just a little more positive about the world in which I currently live.

I don’t want to be sheltered from reality, from news of our economic challenges, world events or political upheaval but, please, can we not have a slightly more balanced and varied take on things.

BA’S LATEST AD CAMPAIGN SOARS SKY HIGH

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:20:04 +0100

The world’s airlines – with a few exceptions – are hardly covered in clover these days when it comes to high levels of customer satisfaction. In addition, the reputation they hold within the wider travel trade is one largely based on inflexibility and an unwillingness to foster partnerships with agents and tour operators through difficult economic times. Our national carrier is a mixed bag when it comes to its own reputation. Its industrial relations track record has been pretty woeful at times, its ability to communicate effectively in crisis has proved to be wanting on occasions, and it has been known to display the sort of corporate arrogance those monolithic businesses appear to revel in so effortlessly.

On the other hand, the crash landing of BA38 at Heathrow three years ago in which the skills of captain and crew avoided fatalities displayed the huge (and unseen) amount of training that goes into making today’s air travel safer, while the airlines handling of things on the ground was textbook.

Whenever I fly BA, I find the experience pleasant (well, as pleasant as flying can be these days), its staff friendly and professional and, sorry I know this might sound irrational, but when I board a British Airways flight in Bangkok, Delhi or New York, there is something strangely reassuring about the experience.

The airline has recently launched a new advertising campaign – its first major above-the-line (yes, I know that is probably a dated term but until they come up with something that isn’t pretentious drivel I’m sticking with it) marketing offensive in more than a decade.

The centerpiece is an ambitious 90-second television commercial that traces the company’s history and the history of commercial aviation from 1919 to the present day. It shamelessly plays on “Britishness”, the company’s coat of arms is placed centre-stage once again and it re-establishes it long-held slogan - To fly To serve – ahead of what was always the rather dubious “the world’s favourite airline”.

The television commercial is glossy, polished and, yes, over produced yet it is more interesting each time I see it. But it is the print and outdoor executions that really caught my eye.

Each tells a piece of the BA “story” – such as one featuring a new-born child with an explanation that on each BA flight a member of the crew is equipped with the skills to deliver a baby. Skills, as the explanation says, rarely needed but which are just a small part of an important and ever evolving behind the scenes investment. The adverts are striking, delivered in a clean, uncluttered and engaging way with a central image and advertising copy that is actually a joy to read – rare these days.

There is a simplicity to the ideas and to the execution that adds to a campaign that is polished, stylish and which has harnessed the brand’s key values and conveys them in a consistent and impressive style.

It’s too easy – especially in the current economic climate - to be glib and critical of big business so a little credit where it is due.