Buffalo Communications Buffalo Communications is the premier provider of B2B marketing consultancy services to the outsourcing and high-tech industries.
‘Kerry
Hallard, Buffalo Communications, MD in response to PRWeek
article, 'Shift towards clients requesting payment by results criticised
by the PRCA'
"Last week I was shocked to read the PRCA’s critisicm of the PBR model in
PRWeek…
For an established PR association like the PRCA to come out and
criticise payment by results is simply outrageous. Especially as they are
basically saying the industry isn’t competent enough to evaluate properly.
Their argument devalues what we do as professionals and makes us look decidedly
amateurish, vis a vis other marketing disciplines and the business world where
‘gain share’ models are becoming the norm.
Trying to dismiss the PBR model because of outdated evaluation
techniques is a fallacy. If clients are increasingly requesting payment by
results, which they are, consultancies must step up and adapt. Rather than
dismiss the model out of hand, what the PRCA should be calling for is specific
PBR based evaluation guidelines which can be set against realistic fees which
can be levied.
I agree that the model of simply charging for coverage is rarely useful
nowadays and this type of commoditisation should be consigned to history.
Nowadays PBR should be offered, but only when based on clear communications and
business-oriented metrics. Digital advancements have allowed progress in
certain areas, but solid evaluation will always require a good portion of
budget and sizeable time investment. It is also important to focus on outcomes
not just outputs of PR metrics.
As a consultancy it is important that you are able to put your money
where your mouth is and achieve return on investment for both you and your
client. Buffalo
has definitely found payment by results to be a very successful method among
most clients, allowing them to see exactly what they are getting for their
money based on pre-planned and agreed metrics that we can realistically impact."
With traditional communication channels disrupted by the disaster in Haiti, once
again social media’s importance was emphasised.
Minutes
after the catastrophic earthquake hit Haiti, the power of the internet
and social media started to shine through. Where more typical communication
channels were affected by the quake, Haitians and aid workers alike turned to
the likes of Twitter and Facebook to spread the word through the horrific scenes
captured on mobile phones.
Among
its multiple uses, social media in this case played a vital role in letting the
world know the disastrous extent of the tragedy and that help was needed
quickly in order to have the most positive effect.
Both
citizens and aid workers alike uploaded TwitPics, tweeted the
news and tried to find the whereabouts of loved ones on Facebook. The world
turned to the platform when all other forms of communication were not an
option. Even the landlines near the epicentre were wiped out by the quake, hampering
rescue efforts.
Next
came an outpouring of well wishes and support for the Haitian people as
thousands of Facebook and Twitter updates appeared every minute. Among these
updates were the appeals of the American Red Cross.
Even
if you were to type "Haiti"
into Twitter, Youtube or Facebook now, a few days on, you will soon encounter @redcross’s message of
appeal sent at 05:38 GMT on January 13, less than 48 hours after the tragedy.
In
such a short space of time the American Red Cross was able to both set up an
appeal and receive more than $35m in donations through the site.
Praise
has already been awarded by the American Red Cross to the social media platform
for “playing an extremely significant part” in spreading the word.
So this
got me wondering, what makes Twitter, Facebook and YouTube so accommodating when
communicating disasters quickly?
Well, when looking at
Twitter you need to address the key advantages of the site. The main advantage
is the initial barrier breakdown through the ability to communicate with anyone
and everyone from celebrities to your next door neighbour.
For example famous Haitian
musician, Wyclef Jean, managed to raise $1m for earthquake victims, after
appealing for help from his 1.3 million followers through Twitter. People like
Michelle Obama were also contacted by aid charities, first through tweeting
then retweeting appeals, further spreading the message.
Meanwhile on Youtube, there
was an influx in bloggers posting their own appeals and calling for donations.
On Facebook, awareness groups, such as Earthquake Haiti gained over hundreds of
thousands of members, linking them directly to charity sites.
These
examples show how social media is set on continuing to play an important role
in the communication of disasters, keeping the news at the forefront of the
public agenda whilst it starts to slip off of the front pages of the Tabloids
and fade out of the media’s spotlight.
In
keeping with the trend, please pass the word on and visit British Red Cross
The news that PepsiCo dropped their prime time Super Bowl opening ad slot came as quite a shock. Not only will this be the first time in 23 years the infamous Super Bowl will not have one single ad promoting Pepsi, but also the drinks giant will be taking an uncertain gamble by trading it for a $20 million social media campaign.
From what we have all seen in the way of successful social media campaigns in 2009, this transition may prove positive for a brand that has been decidedly disjointed in its recent marketing. The move could show the extensive possibilities social media can open up to Pepsi and others alike.
Unlike rival, Coca-Cola, Pepsi spends almost all of its advertising budget on TV slots and with only 250,000 (actively engaged) facebook fans compared to Coke’s 4 million plus, bosses must have been on the edge of their seats when agreeing the deal.
To implement the new strategy, Pepsi will go full throttle into the increasingly growing field of cause marketing where the company aims to build two-way communication (an updated practice of the good old Grunig and Hunt, 1984 communication model us PR students have drummed into our heads at university) with consumers on how the company can become involved in social causes.
Pepsi’s proposed 'Refresh Project' will provide consumers the chance to vote for suggested projects, and each month Pepsi will award grants to chosen causes.
To me this seems to be a very clever and interactive way for the brand to communicate with its publics through a popular platform whilst demonstrating its CSR credentials.
Other companies have also announced they are too following suit. Controversially ‘healthy’ fast food brand, McDonald’s, for example has recently revealed plans for its Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics marketing campaign. The media campaign, ‘How do you McNugget?’ will include both a Twitter and Facebook scavenger hunt to promote the athletes favorites, Chicken McNuggets.
So with Facebook, Twitter and other various social media networks so easily accessible to consumers will the move to online marketing campaigns be able to fully fulfill all objectives? Or will it be an unfortunate case of Pepsi putting too many of its eggs in one basket?
Today
is a big day for green communications. It’s official, many of the world’s
largest companies are back on the green trail, doing all they can to convey
their environmental credentials. The launch of the Sunday Times 2009 Green
list, coincides with the launch of a Ogilvy Earth from advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather. The new global practice is designed
to handle sustainability communications for its clients. Some of the big
campaigns it is launching include Smart Planet for IBM and Beyond Petroleum for
BP.
You
may be thinking we’ve heard all this before and to a large extent we have.
Greenwash, the practice of making an organisation look green through the art of
communications, has been yet another sad bit of history for the public
relations industry. Companies did it, consultancies advised and communicated it
and people and businesses got stung. As with any communications, those in the
practice of greenwashing found that if the substance was not there or the
product did not do what it says on the tin, communicating was an uphill battle.
That’s
why this second round, green communication resurgence is so interesting. Surely
no company would be crass enough to think they could dupe customers on green
all over again. And in today’s ‘nothing is private’ world of communications,
trying to communicate any green promises with no tangible basis in reality,
would quickly be discovered and put down.
No,
the interesting thing about the new ‘green wave’ is that there appears to be
substance behind many of the claims. The Times Green list for example rates
companies by Performance, Training and Motivation, Policies and Systems and
Reporting and Communications (after all, you have to tell people about it!).
The list looks at 60 companies with exceptional environmental credentials, up
from 50 last year. Many of the companies are making real changes in the
consumption of energy, recycling and in preparing their businesses for a greener
future.
The
move to substance over fluff has been marked on the political scene too. It’s
now becoming cooler and more appropriate for businesses to take and act on
their green positioning. Obama for example is making waves and ruffling as many
feathers as possible across the pond where the environment is concerned. The
success of his drive for a green America led by ‘green collar’
workers will continue to shape the way the rest of the world approaches and
communicates environmental thinking.
Governments and the business world are beginning to realize that oil as
an easily accessible resource, simply will not be there forever. And as a
result many are starting to make moves in the right direction. Communications
of what’s being done and why will play a large part in the success of these
environmental leaders but it must be backed up with substance. Getting green and
green communications right the second time round should take note from the UK driving test’s
popular ‘Mirror, Signal, Maneuver’ adage.
Mirror – find out what people think and what needs to be done business
and communications-wise
Signal – tell people what’s been discovered and what the company is
doing
Maneuver – begin to deliver on promises and keep on signaling as time
goes by
I am compelled, like most in the world, to share my views on the latest global pandemic (or almost pandemic) of swine flu. My interest, as someone who works in communications, is how and why the outbreak has been reported within the media the way it has.
In terms of infection levels, swine flu is very similar to Avian flu (bird flu) and SARS (if you can think far back enough to those outbreaks). However, the coverage that swine flu has received does feel a little more intense and menacing in its predicted effects. For example a Google search of bird flu, which has been on the radar for several years, yields 35.4 million results. A search of swine flu, which has been around for days, yields 103 million results. Why is this?
One of the reasons may be because of the increased use of social media in reporting and global communications. Many have heralded the role that social media has played in the spread of information throughout the swine flu outbreak as significant. Some would argue that social media has helped to fuel the fire, along with the constant coverage on the news. A writer on CNET has claimed that "for better or for worse, social media is likely to be one of the primary mediums through which information spreads in a crisis moving forward."
However, being the pessimist that I am, I can’t help but think there is a more sobering aspect to the differing press coverage. It is important to note that because of the internet and new methods of communication, we now inhabit a ‘global village’. Nevertheless, like any village, inequalities still exist. The West no doubt inhabits the top of this cultural hierarchy. With this in mind, it is interesting to note the difference between the countries that have been affected by the three outbreaks. Swine flu has reached countries such as New Zealand, the US and Germany whereas bird flu has reached countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan and SARS; Singapore, China, and Vietnam. Does geography play such a massive role in our global village that volume of press coverage is directly linked to it?
This leaves me wondering; are American, New Zealand and German lives more newsworthy than those in Egypt, Pakistan or China? Or can I sleep easy at night believing that the volume and type of coverage is purely a consequence of our modern obsession with twittering and blogging?
I
went to the latest NMK ‘What happens to Online
PR’ debate on Tuesday. In the trendy Shoreditch area numerous new media
luminaries gathered to debate the point (paraphrased) ‘that PR has lost its
capability to guide its clients through the new media landscape’. Predictably
the motion was voted down, as would be expected in a room full of PR people.
But
I left feeling the debate hadn’t really been furthered to a huge extent. Last
year’s ‘Clients
in the wild’ event and various other such meetings I have been to, continue
to bring up similar themes and arguments. The industry appears to be going
round in circles on the whole ‘new media’ debate.
What
can be drawn from this? Firstly that there’s a lot of guff and ‘I know more
than you’ talk bandied around where new media is concerned. And secondly, many
professionals are ready to or have already moved past the debate and
experimentation phase and are ready to properly guide and succeed for clients
in this space. James
Warren of Webber Shandwick especially and various questions from the floor
belied a weariness with the central subject of the debate. As one lady astutely
put it “I’ve been doing ‘online PR’ since 1994 when websites were cutting edge,
why don’t people just get on with it!”
And
that’s what most of us are doing. James Warren, even after a few glasses of
wine, managed to convey the argument most astutely with a kind of ‘yeah we’re
already doing it’ tone. He also came up with another especially salient point. One
area that will continue to grow in importance is facilitating conversations
wherever they need to occur between an organisation ant its stakeholders. I’ve
long been a proponent of this view that PR should facilitate the
company-ousider interface wherever needed. A good example would be highlighting
to a company’s technical department that hundreds of angry customers are
occupying a previously unknown online forum. If their enquiries are too
in-depth to be dealt with by PR, then it’s our job to locate and involve the
appropriate company person, help them engage, allaying the problems and create
happy customers.
I
managed to plump up the final question of the night but unfortunately it was
time to move to vote so no discussion was had on the matter. The question, or
statement depending on how you look at it, was that:
Firstly there was
only one in-house practitioner at the event. This is obviously partly
because of the way that theLondon consultancy network communicates with each other and the fact it’s our job
to stay at the cutting edge of the profession. However, you’d hope a few
more in-house interests would have been piqued. It’s clear there is still
a lot of education to be done in-house as to what can be done and what
actually matters for clients online.
The second
observation, picking up on the event’s theme that there is a ‘race’ to
claim the digital communications prize. I ventured that the industry is in
danger of confusing the industry as to where they should go for different
communication services. Advertising or ‘free advertising’ was an easy
split, with digital marketers, ad agencies, digital PR, ‘normal PR’ and
SEO companies all offering useful parts of the overall whole, it’s
important we communicate exactly who does what, how and why.
The
final point I’d like to make is about capability. There was a feeling from some
attendees, and in the initial contrary motion, that somehow PR’s capability to
communicate is diminished or falling behind other innovators from other areas
of marketing. This is simply not the case and is a massively sweeping statement.
Capability and skill sets are the preserve and responsibility of individual
consultancies, those that move forward will have continued success; those that
don’t will become increasingly irrelevant.
It is up to each and every
one of us to understand what can be done, work out how to do it (sometimes
internally, sometimes in partnership with specialists) and then inform our
clients where and why it is relevant to them.
Other speakers at the event included:
Mike Nutley (Chair) -
Editor-in-Chief at New Media Age.
I
had an interesting release through yesterday bringing up the ongoing question
over blogger advocacy – should bloggers be paid to write about brands? What’s
to stop them? What are the issues involved?
The
press release came from ASUS (the netbook manufacturer) and immediately stuck
me as both pretty clever and pretty sneaky all at the same time. The company is
basically looking to ‘seed’ bloggers about their new range of netbooks and have
launched a ‘competition’ to get the campaign off the ground. All aspiring
bloggers have to do is have a free netbook from the company and blog about one
of six or seven new netbook models the company is using.
While
we’ve seen this kind of thing backfire before with bloggers feeling swayed by
being ‘given’ free things to write about. But the company is being clever about
this. Firstly it’s looking for grassroots bloggers, not to cajole existing
writers to big-up the brand. Secondly the company has clearly defined that the
initial netbooks are given away free and third that the blogger achieving the
most recognition/readers will win the very netbook they’ve been writing about.
The company has basically introduced the first (that I know of) seeding metrics
– perform and keep, slack and give back (sorry!)
I’ve
blogged about the whole payment thing before and while the truth is these
bloggers aren’t getting ‘paid’ as such, there is still a fair remuneration
happening. However, the do need the netbooks being given out to be able to blog
effectively wherever they are and, the extra encouragement of obtaining an even
better netbook seems a good way of enthusing them to write without overtly
paying them. There’s also nothing saying the bloggers can’t lay-into the
netbooks although, I cant see the company being to happy about giving away
things to someone who’s been slating their products. With the only stipulation
being that they must blog, the question of advocacy isn’t that pressing.
One
important issue though is the problem of getting people to blog about not just
a brand but a single product. New posts for, say, a netbook blog are not
difficult to think up – but surely, there’s only so much you can write about
one netbook…it’s not an MacBook after all.
Overall
ASUS’s idea seems like a good one but not one that’s destined to succeed. The
outlay against possible brand recognition gains is also promising. While I wish
I had the time to apply, I don’t. But I’ll be watching with interest how the
campaign pans out – successful or otherwise.
Both highlight some interesting points that are
highly relevant to the communications industry.
The PDA looks at the makeup of the Twitterverse and
the types of people that use it. For example ‘20% of users are aged between 25 and
34’ and the median age of users is 31. Most of the people actively involved
with twitter tacitly knew this already and it has never been a turn-off for
those actively involved in marketing. Companies with older target customers
will inevitably see this as a reason for not engaging with the service, but
they shouldn’t.
Yes
the audience is young and very small in the grand scheme of things ‘no more
than 6 million globally’, according to the Pew
Internet and American life project, but a large number of these six million
are the conversation drivers, the information sharers and opinion formers of
the day. To ignore them and what they’re saying would be madness.
Due
to the speed and ease of information sharing, Twitter is rapidly becoming a
premier source for to-the-second news and information. The number of blogs,
news stories and further comment that spreads from twitter posts is immense.
Added to this, the fact that a large proportion of ‘twitterers’ are journalists
and/or bloggers, means that interesting information within twitter will
inevitably come out through blogs, magazines, newspapers and so on; like a
great sieve filtering interesting happenings into the world.
What
this means for companies and brands varies depending on their stature and leads
directly to the post from Call Centre Focus. Twitter offers opportunities for
succinct and non-intrusive communication directly with customers and with
opinion formers and ‘gatekeepers’ (journalists, bloggers etc). Most
importantly, however are the opportunities created for conversation monitoring
making it an amazing reputation gauge tool, especially for larger companies.
Finding out what thought-leaders are saying about your brand easily, is an
opportunity too good to miss. From here you can move to engagement through addressing
concerns and tapping into new ideas – the opportunities are endless.
If
you’re a sceptic why not have a play with these services:
My evening
train-trip routine yesterday took me through the wealth of useful information
that is the London Lite, happily happening upon another interesting story from
that wonderfully interesting place called China
Why is it
relevant to communications, well, because it’s about censorship, and the fact
it’s getting more and more difficult to pull-off.
The crux of
the story is in China Central Television’s organisation of a humungous firework
display to celebrate the Lunar New Year – a noble pursuit no doubt. The trouble
is, the fireworks promptly set fire to, and gutted, the unfinished Mandarin
Oriental hotel, a US $731m development that was almost finished – oops indeed
The
interesting part comes in that during the aftermath of the fire, the television
station made absolutely no mention of the fire. The state-owned company has now
made an apology,
but it highlights some interesting comms problems.
The fact is
that the blogosphere, ‘twittersphere’ and rest of the online conversation, was
filled with speculation, accusation and comment hours and hours before any
admission of culpability or apology finally arrived. The message, that the
broadcaster was responsible, got out anyway, and any anger was pointed directly
at them
This is not
a blog about the rights or wrongs of censorship but a simple example of the
fact it doesn’t work anymore. As with any company in the
UK
that chooses
to hold back potentially dangerous information, a product contamination, a
financial fraud, the message simply gets out – we can’t stop it.
But we
shouldn’t want to. The change being driven by the unstoppable online conversation
is the need to communicate as well as or better than the people talking about
you. Making sure your clear, truthful voice is heard above the chatter and that
dissenting voices are listened to and engaged with, is vital to maintaining an
organisation’s reputation online. After all, silence is deadly.
“You
should use mouthwash and floss regularly for healthy teeth and gums” – for a
long time I always wondered why I pretended to heed this dental advice while
secretly ignoring it completely – well now I know. Apparently mouthwash causes
cancer!
Yes,
it’s finally happened, mouthwash (containing alcohol) has joined that ever
growing list of secretly evil, carcinogenic consumer products. It seems my
ignorant ignorance of sound dental advice has stood me in good stead against
the perils of mouth cancer. But what now of the poor embattled mouthwash
companies? What do you do when peer reviewed scientific research suggests you
main product could inherently kill people?
Well,
cry is a likely first reaction. Then you read the story again…as per usual, the
story has been sensationalised out of all proportion. But it’s out there, and
people are going to be worried,
leading to loss of reputation and sales.
Of
course, for a big company crisis management 101 is likely to swing into action
right away. But the case is slightly different here, in that there isn’t
actually anything wrong with mouthwash products. There isn’t any tampering or
malicious intent etc. As such, a recall is out of the question and would cost a
company dearly; even further increasing worry about the products. In which
case, making spokespeople available, informing consumers that the company is
looking into the research, even a pledge of support in both money and time for
further research, should all follow.
Listerine
(Johnson & Johnson) is one brand
that has been targeted by the media, although presumably any alcohol-based
mouthwash is at threat. Statements (“Johnson & Johnson Ltd UK, the manufacturer of
Listerine, said: "There is no scientific evidence to support an
association between the use of alcohol- containing mouthwashes, such as
Listerine, and an increased risk of oral cancer.”) have been issued but it remains to be seen what else will
be done and how the brand will fare.
Watch with interest – these are dangerous times for mouths and mouthwash
companies…
