So, as promised, the results of our poll... with 80 respondents the results are as follows:

So 93% of our voters believe that between one and six messages is the optimum number to work with if you want to deliver them effectively.  The reality though, we all know, is that many of those voters will most likely be juggling more than six messages at anyone time…

Much like the maligned AVE, multiple messages in PR programmes and campaigns are often a symptom of the industry having to satisfy non-communications professionals. Product managers, for example, who insist on several messages for each of their products or a company director who is convinced that every capability of the organisation needs name checking in its own message…  It is an ongoing frustration for the profession that it continually needs to satisfy the demands of, and demonstrate its value to, stakeholders that do not understand PR. 

Fortunately though, as PR measurement becomes more sophisticated and relevant, there is an increasing bank of evidence available to PR professionals that can be drawn on for the extra credibility often required to defend decisions and results.

For a more indepth analysis of the optimum message debate see Paul's recent post and also comment from Custard PR MD, Stuart Campbell, here. 

I’ve long been a believer that the days of advertising as ‘the’ prized and dominant marketing tactic are numbered… and not just because my background is in PR.  It is actually a long held belief born out of the simple fact that I know that I myself am far more likely to engage with a brand (or buy a product or service) based on what a respected third party says about it as opposed to an advert. In fact, I am pretty sure I am ‘advert apathetic’.

As such I was not at all surprised to read this morning that “as many as 73% of web users have left a favourite website because of intrusive or annoying ads” and also that Yahoo’s financial results, announced today, revealed international brand-focused display ad revenues down 8%.  Then there was the timesonline piece reporting that advertising revenues at Associated Newspapers, excluding sales from the Daily Mail and Evening Standard websites, have fallen by five per cent in the three months to June 30.  And it is not alone of course… earlier this month, Trinity Mirror also admitted that advertising at the Daily Mirror and its sister titles had collapsed by between 12 per cent and 14 per cent in May and June.

Admittedly this is not surprising in the UK market given the current economic downturn.  Indeed a new Mintel survey has revealed that UK consumers are increasingly feeling the effects of the credit crunch with fewer people feeling as well off as in previous years – clearly bad news for the advertising industry.  However, it is interesting to note that Associated Newspapers online versions of the Daily Mail and Evening Standard actually reported increases in ad sales.

What really caught my interest from all of this were two key things:

1.)     That we are seeing yet more evidence of a migration from paper to online media consumption
2.)     And that this move represents a clear opportunity for PR to supersede advertising as ‘the’ lead marketing tactic 

Taking my first point, the migration of media consumption from paper to online, this has clearly rung in massive changes for advertisers already. The main change is the ability to target very specific niche audience groups which will increase as MSM (mainstream media) and CGM (consumer generated or social media) continue to flourish in the digital environment. As a result, online adverts will need to be ever more carefully positioned as behavioural targeting of audiences becomes more prominent. In a nut shell what advertising will lose, as we are already seeing, is its BIG numbers – in terms of audience reach figures and ball busting budgets.

This brings me onto my second point regarding the opportunity for PR to become ‘the’ dominant marketing tactic. The nature of digital media means that audience participation and engagement is higher than with traditional paper and broadcast media types. This is clearly more suited to PR (which communicates in a mutually beneficial way with stakeholders) than advertising (which directly informs an audience).

There is a ton of evidence to support this (which I plan to revisit) but I’ll close for now with this thought: as we move towards a totally online media culture, PR (the art of managing conversations) will become the most vital component of the marketing mix.  As a consequence, measuring and understanding the effectiveness of PR and its outcomes will become more important than exhaustive monitoring of all media output and a bursting book of clippings. 

The real value and insight will be ascertained by measurement that is as carefully crafted as the PR it is assessing.

Imagine a world in which newspapers have been wholly replaced by online news sites… not so hard is it?! And somehow, without even trying, it makes sense.

Jeff Jarvis muses the idea in his Guardian column today, referring first of all to a vision outlined to him by Edward Roussel, head of digital for the Telegraph. Roussel’s vision is that Google becomes an online distribuitor for a paper’s content so it can concentrate on its real job (journalism).

And Bob Wyman, a technology entrepreneur, agrees: "If Google can provide free hosting to the 'citizen journalists' who are making life difficult for the newspapers, Google should be able to host the newspapers for free as well." It’s a good point and one which lends weight to the idea that the days of hard copy news papers are numbered.

And there are more:

·         As Wyman points out, Google, with all its services (search engines, alert systems, video serving, database services, application hosting), is kitted out to be the ideal news distributor: "Ideally, every newsroom would be able to think of Google, and all its capabilities, as their own”

·         Moving to an online news model which offers publications the opportunity to concentrate wholly on content (and not worry about distribution) should also, one would hope, have a positive affect on the quality of copy

·         If audience/reader interaction and conversation is moving online then a hard copy newspaper’s content essentially becomes isolated – from both dialouge and commerical opportunity

·         And surely online better reflects contemporary lifestyles…

·         Plus of course there are the environmental benefits…

So already (I think) the argument for waving goodbye to newspapers and moving online is becoming really rather compelling.

So we've just been having a discussion here about traditional media monitoring and the fact that we are seeing more and more clients move away from it and towards news aggregation models instead.

It prompts the question, in the 'new media' age (where digital coverage seems almost endless when one takes into account CGM and so forth) isn't it time that PROs finally felt able to switch their focus from quantity to quality? i.e. focus on measures which go beyond a bursting clippings book and pay more attention to delivering the correct content, in the right place, at the right time and engaging the right audience often enough?

What is more, this is a very relevant point given the current economic climate... volumes of coverage (and therefore cost) can easily escalate when the monitoring brief takes in everything even though this very often leads to nothing much more but a pile of meaningless gumph (save the top ten percent or so).

Surely it is far more cost effective and insightful to limit monitoring and evaluation to key media and online sources. This can even negate the need for traditional media monitoring as news aggregation feeds replace them and arguably serve more purpose monitoring reputation and PR activity in a digital world working to a 24 hours news agenda.

It all makes a lot of sense to me with the only real issue being educating internal stakeholders that it is not always volume that constitutes successful PR... but then that is another issue...

Any and all thoughts welcome!

This morning I had my attention brought to a feature on the CBS News site entitled The Flak Over Flacks. Delivered by a legal analyst named Andrew Cohen, in the wake of the publication of his book (does one sniff an irony here already?!), the piece makes a hard hitting attack on the integrity of PR people with comments such as “show me a PR person who is ‘accurate’ and ‘truthful’ and I'll show you a PR person who is unemployed” and “PR people are trained to be slickly untruthful or half-truthful”. 

Somewhat incensed by what I read I spent sometime composing a response but, with 97 responses posted already including a letter from the PRSA, the site has disabled the publish function “to enable everyone an opportunity to comment” – err, but if I can’t publish my post I can’t comment…am I missing something?!  

So instead, at least for now, I am posting my response here: 

Andrew – you’re right, there is nothing funny about the revelations that Scott McClellan lied to the American people.  

But let us put this in perspective:  

1.) Every profession (sadly) contains bad practitioners that let the side down, and sometimes those bad practitioners are caught out, exposed and persecuted in such a way as to taint the reputation of their industry. Some professions (including journalism, PR and law), or groups of people (such as celebrities, sports people and royalty), come under rather more scrutiny and suffer even more polarised judgement than others because the ‘public’ upholds them as purveyors of ‘truth’ and models of ‘morality’.  What a breathtaking and precariously high place to sit, and not surprising then that so many fall. 

With specific regards to the PR profession: 

2.) There seems to be a general sense of misunderstanding in your piece as to what PR is and how it works. Like journalists, PRs are bound to a code of ethics and for the most part respect them.  As many of the people who have commented on your article have pointed out, to tell mistruths would only lose one the respect of colleagues, contacts and clients. It is, very simply, not the way to do ‘PR’ business. The skill honed in a PR person is delivering the truth, on behalf of your client, in the best possible way.   

3.) Don’t journalists have a role to play here too? In his book Flat Earth News, Nick Davies accuses newspapers of tamely accepting stories from public relations initiatives, an accusation backed up by Metrica Numbers, an annual PR industry benchmarking report, which suggests at the emergence of a ‘haste and paste’ publishing trend in today’s media. As Roy Greenslade, in a recent of his Evening Standard columns, conceded: “PR can hardly be blamed for taking advantage of journalists who are happy to be spoon-fed stories.”  

Of all mediums in the world it is the media, in my opinion, that best demonstrates the grey between black (lies) and white (truth) for it is an entity endlessly challenged by objectivity. The experiences of those both creating and consuming the media makes it near impossible for it to be anything but an averagely grey mass, and the sooner we accept that the sooner we can deal with it.

I am thrilled to report that our first Metrica Numbers report has been very well received, and in particular added fuel to the raging debate relating to trust of the media. 

Roy Greenslade refers to it in his Evening Standard column, discussing how
journalists must admit corporate PR has a role in media landscape, and again on his Guardian blog which he has followed up today with results from a study by Ciao Surveys proclaiming that 60.3% of people in Britain believe that PR officers often lie.  

The CIPR’s Lis Lewis-Jones has also referenced the Metrica report today on her blog commenting on behalf of PRs: "We don’t lie, we don’t speculate and we respect the journalists’ needs. And if we don’t, the trust journalists have in us and our personal reputation will be worthless."

The report consolidates media analysis meta-data from more than three million press articles featuring 700 organisations over the last decade to enable industry trends to be identified. As well as top line findings, it looks at key breakdowns by media type, sector and specific media titles.  

Our hope is that the publication of such a set of data, on a regular basis, will help organisations and PR agencies to formulate meaningful performance targets which take into account changing sector and environmental factors. 

The benchmarking data from 2007 provides clear indication that today’s PROs are succeeding despite an increasingly complex media landscape. For example, on average, per month, organisations in 2007 reached 35% of the UK adult population 11 times. Add to this that only 8% of all coverage was classified unfavourable, just half strongly so, and the presence of a skilled PR industry at work can clearly be seen.  

We also identified a whole bunch of media trends from 2007 which are sparking some debate – see below – and feedback on these would be most welcome: 

Haste and paste: High message delivery and spokespeople mentions suggest the emergence of a copy and paste publishing trend in online media. Online featured the strongest message delivery of any media type with half of coverage delivering key messages, and an average of three message deliveries per article.There is also some indication of a similar trend amongst regional titles.   

Credit crunch: Despite fears over the economy in the latter half of last year, favourability improved in 2007 compared to 2006. That aside, the tough economic conditions did result in the Finance and Retail sectors experiencing relatively unfavourable coverage compared to other sectors in 2007. Indeed, finance experienced by far the most negative press, with 15% of articles being unfavourable. Much of this has resulted from a hostile environment following the global credit crunch and the increasingly difficult economic environment, in particular pressure on interest rates.   

National trust: Data relating to the favourability of coverage suggests a greater level of integrity at play amongst the UK media than cynics would want us to believe. National papers were twice as likely to feature unfavourable coverage than regional print media which, with the latter having an editorial bias towards local communities and businesses, is perhaps to be expected.  Likewise, the proportion of coverage delivering key messages was significantly lower for daily and Sunday newspapers than other media types suggesting they are less willing divert from their own agenda. The Sunday Times, Observer and the Daily Mail published the most negative coverage. Tabloids such as the Sun and Mirror tended to be more favourable than the broadsheets.  

Regional for the people: Despite a downwards trend over the last decade, the regional media type accounted for almost half of analysed media coverage in 2007. It was the strongest channel for eight out of 11 sectors featured and was particularly dominant for charities, government, not for profit and media. Regional coverage was generally very favourable and strong in terms of message delivery – regional press was 23% more likely to convey a key message than the national press.  

Tech no PR: IT, telecoms and internet organisations struggle to see their messages delivered and spokespeople quoted. This highlights the problem that tech PR often faces in translating marketing messages into PR stories that appeal to journalists. More than half of IT sector coverage appeared in the business press reflecting the strong B2B nature of this sector’s activity.    

Feature feasting: As well as being generally more positive, general interest magazines have strong message delivery with half of all articles delivering at least one key message – on average each article conveys almost three key messages. Not rocket science, but a noticeable trend and worth bearing in mind with regards to the quality over quantity debate.    

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT

Is it just me or is the power struggle between Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, et al starting to look a bit like an adolescent squabble?!  

I mean, the latest development of Yahoo joining the OpenSocial Foundation is somewhat comparable to the sudden swapping of friendship allegiances amongst teenagers! Although to be fair, given the move creates a fundamental conflict in direction and strategy, as well as philosophy, between Yahoo and Microsoft it has perhaps been rather more intelligently motivated… 

Lets look at the facts here: 

1.)     Hostile takeover bid for Yahoo by Microsoft

2.)     Google a key player in OpenSocial and a key competitor of Microsoft

3.)     OpenSocial’s aims a red flag to Microsoft strategy - the aim of OpenSocial is to develop standards that can be used across all social networking sites, making it easier for software developers to write applications

4.)     Yahoo joining OpenSocial pretty much equitable to an alliance with Google

5.)     Only Facebook (in which Microsoft has invested $240million) and Windows Live Spaces remain missing from OpenSocial membership 

These facts aside, it still looks a bit like Yahoo sticking two fingers up to iron fisted Microsoft! 

As Yahoo Vice President of Platforms, Wade Chambers, said, "Openness is in the Internet's DNA and it's also a major aspect of our culture here at Yahoo." 

Ooooh, what you going to do next Microsoft?!