So, I haven't done the PR Story in a while, since university has been really busy and the updates on here have been more about my achievements at university. However, since this blog is technically due in on Friday for my lecturer to view, I thought I would do another PR Story but also just take this opportunity to explain how this blog has helped me.
For starters, doing the PR story every week for a time meant another of my lecturers took notice of my blog and complimented me on my developing PR skills. This blog has done wonders for my reading and writing skills that honestly were getting a bit rusty... After my English A levels I steered clear of reading and writing for a very long time, which is a shame as I do believe reading and writing are the most basic and yet most powerful tools anyone can ever have and practising them as I have been has been so beneficial.
I have also put Google Analytics on this blog and it's amazing to see that in such a short time I seemed to have built up somewhat of a regular readership from people I'm not sure I've even met! I think this blog has definitely served it's purpose and I fully intend to keep it running all through the rest of my time at university and beyond.
So on with my PR Story #8... Facebook's dead?!
According to Radio 1 Newsbeat and 1Xtra editor Rob McKenzie it is among the younger generation? So I'm reading this and thinking... does this officially make me old now?! I'm 20 and a daily Facebook user to communicate with my friends and keep up to date with the regular gossip(!). Apparently "no self-respecting young person would be on Facebook" and "Facebook is populated by mums and PR staff." Hmm....
Well, I will have to admit that recently Facebook does seem to be populated more and more by people wanting their 15 minutes posting ridiculous and sometimes downright stupid photos and videos that people feel necessary to share, like or comment on. My news feed is full of shares for companies in order to enter a competition, a technique that lacks complete originality and Facebook it basically becoming cluttered and if I'm honest... annoying.
Someone not too long ago told me they had a bet on that Facebook will have died out and something new will take over in the next five-ish years. In a way, I hope they're right. To think that the world has become so dependant on Facebook is slightly ridiculous but then again is it actually dying out any time soon... I'm not so convinced.
Yes, as mentioned by Mckenzie, Tumblr, Snapchat, Vine and Keek, are all preferred platforms for younger people and the first two have been around for a while now and are starting to become more and more popular, however, I don't think these are the answers to Facebook's defeat.
I believe that the younger generation are more open to trying out new social media platforms, but Facebook is still their fail-safe option, along with other uses of all ages, backgrounds, genders and so on. It appears to be the ultimate platform which is not restricted to a certain media type such as video and Snapchat and is very versatile with well designed mobile sites and smart phone apps.
If anything I'd say Twitter is the one to watch out for. People seem to prefer the to the point status and the access to al types of people seem to cause less arguments among friends and connects different types of people on one platform. Not only is it a social media tool, it is also widely recommended by most employers too for business purposes. It is a form of direct selling and can really help people polish up on their communications skills.
I realise this is all personal opinion, and if there is some big new shiny social media platform out there I appear to be unaware of, please let me know via commenting on this post. Likewise if you have any predictions for the future of social media, please let me know!
Showing posts with label pr week. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pr week. Show all posts
Sunday, 5 May 2013
Monday, 18 February 2013
PR Story #5
This week's instalment of my most interesting story from PR Week is focused on healthcare and in particular the new Change4life TV ad which homes in on alcohol and the health risks involved. I found this interesting because as part of the Edcom competition assignment last year, our group had to look into European binge drinking amongst the 18-24 market and assess what are the influencers and ways of preventing it from happening in future.
Although Britain's obesity 'epidemic' is not just down to drinking, it does play a major part in increasing waist lines. It is reported in this article that obesity costs the NHS around £5 billion a year, including vital surgery and free vouchers to support groups such as Weight Watchers, that often people don't actually use. There are also talks from doctors about putting tax on sugary drinks and not being able to advertise unhealthy foods before the watershed. Are these really all the answers to this problem? The short answer: no. Will these elements even make the slightest change in consumer behaviours? The short answer: unlikely.
Being a member of Weight Watchers myself the first thing they discussed in the new year was that we live in a food overloaded environment and temptation is all around us- VERY true! I feel any agency with this brief of getting across this serious message and trying to change consumer behaviour is going to be one of the toughest challenges they'll ever face! Everyone can be shocked for a few minutes by a television ad or stop and think about it for a second but are they really going to change their behaviours; I would guess very few actually cut down on food/ booze/ smoking and so on due to these and similar advertisements. I also seriously doubt that putting the prices up will change anyone's attitude too- as heard on BBC Radio 1 today, interviews with members of the public all agreed that they would still buy these foods anyway regardless of price, mostly because it still wouldn't be any more expensive than healthier alternatives.
So, what is the actual issue here... that unhealthy food and drink are to blame for Britain's weight problem or is it that healthy food and ways of exercising aren't easily affordable and accessible for everyone in society?
I feel that in order to change someone's behaviour it will take a whole lot more than a couple of TV ads and a higher purchase price. So let's think about it... when do people mostly change their attitudes? Well as a really rough assumption I find the people in my life tend to change their behaviours when they experience something themselves or if someone they know goes through something bad that could have been avoided. But obviously there is the issue of once they experience it, it's too late to be avoided, it still costs the NHS money and sometimes nothing can be done to reverse the damage. So what if people were given a real life negative experience but from a 'safe distance' (the theory behind our Edcom campaign entry).
From my own experience, it takes a whole lot more than reading an interview with a doctor in a newspaper, to change someone's behaviour; as though it were that easy to change habits of a lifetime! To lose weight and live a healthy life and more importantly to want to achieve these things, takes inspiration and motivation. So why not inspire a nation- we had the perfect opportunity with the London 2012 Olympics but the fascination seems to have faded fast for most people.
Why not take a more hands on approach to tackling this problem, for example set up pop up shops in high streets, starting with parts of the UK that have a high obesity rate; go to these area's schools and colleges, and so on and show them physically what unhealthy eating can do to them if they don't change.
Make it interesting by turning it into an interactive event that doesn't talk down to people but encourages them to educate themselves by having:
- consultants giving free confidential advice,
- a free interactive healthy living quiz and show the results percentages on a large screen for all to see,
- goody bags with recipe cards, exercise regimes, money off a visit to the local gym and freebie healthy alternative foods- everyone loves something for nothing, even if they just take a goody bag from the event and nothing else it's a start!
- have hosts and staff that aren't size 6 or 8's- there is nothing worse than feeling like you don't match up and sometimes people give up before they even try; have real people showcasing realistic options for the public,
- mass dance and exercise classes to disperse that feeling of embarrassment and give the opportunity for local businesses to make their mark on the campaign and attract more customers,
- get a company sponsorship such as Weight Watchers and have their personalities make guest appearances and run Q&A sessions,
- have live cookery classes by television chefs or local restaurants on how to make healthy meals and hand out tasters...
- create games such as swapping unhealthy foods for healthy alternatives and highlight the benefits or get the public to guess which food package has the most calories/ fat content/ sugar content. Have a plastic organ system and swap unhealthy and healthy body parts for the kids and highlight how to make these changes possible....
Literally the possibilities for this are endless!
Also on the same note, I know exercise is free, technically speaking, but at home fitness methods aren't for everyone, sometimes people prefer to swim or do Zumba for example but can't afford it. Local councils could set up free exercise classes within the local community and recruit local community members to keep on running these; these could be a part of the 'Big Society' they are so keen to run and see take off?
From what I'm learning at university and from what I'm experiencing in life people like to be engaged and interactive and it's the best way to learn something important. To influence someone is to take a leaf from your own book and practice what you preach. If there is enough regular local encouragement to be an advocate of these opportunities, it is likely to make a greater impact on behaviours. There will never be a way of stopping the unhealthy food brands, for one there is too many of them and secondly they have to make money as well to survive too and it's unfair to take that away from them.
At the end of the day everyone has a choice, it just depends whether it's one that's a move in the right direction. I don't believe a single advertisement, tax increases or legal changes in advertising will make much of an impact on their own, but when teamed with something interactive and local to the people, it could have a much greater impact.
As always I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, please comment on this post.
Although Britain's obesity 'epidemic' is not just down to drinking, it does play a major part in increasing waist lines. It is reported in this article that obesity costs the NHS around £5 billion a year, including vital surgery and free vouchers to support groups such as Weight Watchers, that often people don't actually use. There are also talks from doctors about putting tax on sugary drinks and not being able to advertise unhealthy foods before the watershed. Are these really all the answers to this problem? The short answer: no. Will these elements even make the slightest change in consumer behaviours? The short answer: unlikely.
Being a member of Weight Watchers myself the first thing they discussed in the new year was that we live in a food overloaded environment and temptation is all around us- VERY true! I feel any agency with this brief of getting across this serious message and trying to change consumer behaviour is going to be one of the toughest challenges they'll ever face! Everyone can be shocked for a few minutes by a television ad or stop and think about it for a second but are they really going to change their behaviours; I would guess very few actually cut down on food/ booze/ smoking and so on due to these and similar advertisements. I also seriously doubt that putting the prices up will change anyone's attitude too- as heard on BBC Radio 1 today, interviews with members of the public all agreed that they would still buy these foods anyway regardless of price, mostly because it still wouldn't be any more expensive than healthier alternatives.
So, what is the actual issue here... that unhealthy food and drink are to blame for Britain's weight problem or is it that healthy food and ways of exercising aren't easily affordable and accessible for everyone in society?
I feel that in order to change someone's behaviour it will take a whole lot more than a couple of TV ads and a higher purchase price. So let's think about it... when do people mostly change their attitudes? Well as a really rough assumption I find the people in my life tend to change their behaviours when they experience something themselves or if someone they know goes through something bad that could have been avoided. But obviously there is the issue of once they experience it, it's too late to be avoided, it still costs the NHS money and sometimes nothing can be done to reverse the damage. So what if people were given a real life negative experience but from a 'safe distance' (the theory behind our Edcom campaign entry).
From my own experience, it takes a whole lot more than reading an interview with a doctor in a newspaper, to change someone's behaviour; as though it were that easy to change habits of a lifetime! To lose weight and live a healthy life and more importantly to want to achieve these things, takes inspiration and motivation. So why not inspire a nation- we had the perfect opportunity with the London 2012 Olympics but the fascination seems to have faded fast for most people.
Why not take a more hands on approach to tackling this problem, for example set up pop up shops in high streets, starting with parts of the UK that have a high obesity rate; go to these area's schools and colleges, and so on and show them physically what unhealthy eating can do to them if they don't change.
Make it interesting by turning it into an interactive event that doesn't talk down to people but encourages them to educate themselves by having:
- consultants giving free confidential advice,
- a free interactive healthy living quiz and show the results percentages on a large screen for all to see,
- goody bags with recipe cards, exercise regimes, money off a visit to the local gym and freebie healthy alternative foods- everyone loves something for nothing, even if they just take a goody bag from the event and nothing else it's a start!
- have hosts and staff that aren't size 6 or 8's- there is nothing worse than feeling like you don't match up and sometimes people give up before they even try; have real people showcasing realistic options for the public,
- mass dance and exercise classes to disperse that feeling of embarrassment and give the opportunity for local businesses to make their mark on the campaign and attract more customers,
- get a company sponsorship such as Weight Watchers and have their personalities make guest appearances and run Q&A sessions,
- have live cookery classes by television chefs or local restaurants on how to make healthy meals and hand out tasters...
- create games such as swapping unhealthy foods for healthy alternatives and highlight the benefits or get the public to guess which food package has the most calories/ fat content/ sugar content. Have a plastic organ system and swap unhealthy and healthy body parts for the kids and highlight how to make these changes possible....
Literally the possibilities for this are endless!
Also on the same note, I know exercise is free, technically speaking, but at home fitness methods aren't for everyone, sometimes people prefer to swim or do Zumba for example but can't afford it. Local councils could set up free exercise classes within the local community and recruit local community members to keep on running these; these could be a part of the 'Big Society' they are so keen to run and see take off?
From what I'm learning at university and from what I'm experiencing in life people like to be engaged and interactive and it's the best way to learn something important. To influence someone is to take a leaf from your own book and practice what you preach. If there is enough regular local encouragement to be an advocate of these opportunities, it is likely to make a greater impact on behaviours. There will never be a way of stopping the unhealthy food brands, for one there is too many of them and secondly they have to make money as well to survive too and it's unfair to take that away from them.
At the end of the day everyone has a choice, it just depends whether it's one that's a move in the right direction. I don't believe a single advertisement, tax increases or legal changes in advertising will make much of an impact on their own, but when teamed with something interactive and local to the people, it could have a much greater impact.
As always I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, please comment on this post.
Following on from last week...
Following on from last weeks PR Story #4 about Radio 1, I found it fascinating listening to the Matt Edmondson show yesterday morning. He claimed he'd had a meeting with the 'Big Bosses' of Radio 1 and they showed him data and graphs on how they monitor each show and determined what appealed to their target audience via likes, comments, shares, and so on via social media.
So, on the show Matt Edmondson announces that he wants to 'confuse' big bosses at Radio 1 by getting a large amount of coverage on something that is really random. He posted a picture of Ian Beale from EastEnders on to Facebook and asked listeners to like, share and make over the top silly comments such as 'I love Ian Beale, he makes my life complete' and so forth- see here for the post. As of this morning the post got approximately three and a half thousand likes, two thousand comments and nearly one hundred shares! This is an insane amount when compared with their other posts that on average reach around two hundred likes.
This got me thinking (as it always does) this can't be to play an elaborate prank on the BBC bosses, as much as listeners may want to believe they are all in on the joke, I doubt the wool can be that easily pulled over their eyes. My theory is that this was a way of indicating how many viewers are influenced or even engaging with the radio station at that time. Quite clever- but who is really being pranked here? Although I don't quite fully see how this is helping the radio station, I'm sure it is a way of engaging with the viewers and possibly being able to profile who is listening to that show. It will be interesting to see if anything similar comes up in other Radio 1 DJ's shows.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!
Watch this space for PR Story #5 to be posted later on today!
So, on the show Matt Edmondson announces that he wants to 'confuse' big bosses at Radio 1 by getting a large amount of coverage on something that is really random. He posted a picture of Ian Beale from EastEnders on to Facebook and asked listeners to like, share and make over the top silly comments such as 'I love Ian Beale, he makes my life complete' and so forth- see here for the post. As of this morning the post got approximately three and a half thousand likes, two thousand comments and nearly one hundred shares! This is an insane amount when compared with their other posts that on average reach around two hundred likes.
This got me thinking (as it always does) this can't be to play an elaborate prank on the BBC bosses, as much as listeners may want to believe they are all in on the joke, I doubt the wool can be that easily pulled over their eyes. My theory is that this was a way of indicating how many viewers are influenced or even engaging with the radio station at that time. Quite clever- but who is really being pranked here? Although I don't quite fully see how this is helping the radio station, I'm sure it is a way of engaging with the viewers and possibly being able to profile who is listening to that show. It will be interesting to see if anything similar comes up in other Radio 1 DJ's shows.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!
Watch this space for PR Story #5 to be posted later on today!
Monday, 11 February 2013
PR Story #4
Fourth instalment is a little late this week- sorry! It's been a crazy busy weekend but it's all starting to settle down again which is good! So let's roll on with last Friday's PR week magazine's most interesting story (in my opinion).
This week's story is focused on Radio 1 loses more listeners. I found this story interesting, even though it only had a small column dedicated to it, because it made me think about the changing world of media formats and platforms. The story outlines that even though Chris Moyles has left the BBC Radio 1 breakfast show the number of listeners is still falling. Moyles and his team were hit with criticism that they attracted an older audience than the radio station wants to target. According to the BBC website, the show aims to target 15-29 year olds and possibly even younger for some programming (BBC).
The show has a weekly listening reach of around 6.69 million, down from 6.73 million since the last quarter and is currently at it's lowest audience level in 7 years. However, this got me thinking... is it just Radio 1 or is this the future of our media landscape? Is it that radio is dying?
It's important to consider that the internet and software such as iTunes makes radio even easier to access than an old stereo player or car radio however, it's not really ever the medium that springs to mind when wanting some entertainment.
I must admit that personally I like Radio 1 but I only ever listen to it when driving in the car because an hour's commute can get boring and it does provide some decent entertainment for the drive. However, I've never and probably won't ever seek it out via the internet or on iTunes or any other radio station for that matter and I'm fairly certain that is the case with most people in the BBC Radio 1's target market (of course with some exceptions because that is a massive generalisation).
The BBC website says it aims to provide Radio 1's programming to bridge the gap for children who are too old for CBBC but too young for other BBC programming. I can see where they are coming from but then again the jump from television to radio doesn't make sense and isn't an entirely logical step. Most teenagers are probably more familiar with an in car iPod dock these days rather than listening to the radio on the way to school. I believe that the media landscape is changing and is beginning to phase out radio.
If listeners are falling then the BBC need to be out there gaining a wider reach of audience as well as trying to maintain the children who have previously watched CBBC. The BBC need something current that will attract their audience's attention and make them think of BBC Radio 1 in a different way; a lot of their strategy outlined in the BBC link above is very heavily based on programming but that will only work on those who do listen already. They have a lot of good content on their shows but the trouble is not many people know about it unless they happen to catch it on the way to work and so on.
BBC Radio 1's Big Weekend is a good move for them and very popular but the issues here is that it is a one off, seasonal event. There needs to be a more consistent outreach to potential audiences via other mediums such as the BBC television programmes itself or through social media.
One idea could be for the radio station to get their target market's attention on another level of interest such as promoting a trainee/ internship scheme where the target market can get involved in the different departments of the radio station? It would allow individuals to get inside and behind the scenes and feel they can get to know what the station is all about. The target market for the radio station is typically generation Y-ers and I know I keep going back to it but understanding what we're about will go far for a brand! We love being interactive, having those amazing opportunities open to us and we love two way communication. By getting the target market interested in a work scheme it would promote the need to have knowledge of the radio station therefore listening to the shows and getting to know the programming. It would also look pretty good for the BBC's CSR too by helping young people get work experience, encouraging creativity and helping to achieve their aspirations. It's not a massive leap either as I recall a year or two ago they ran a CV workshop when statistics came out about the youth unemployment being at an all time low, if I remember correctly? Why not take it a step further?
The moral of the story here I believe is that for the radio to compete with other forms of media communications and fight to stay alive, they need to go above and beyond for their target audience. Really get inside their heads and find out what really interests them and integrate the insight into a strategy; at the end of the day everyone is interested in celebrities and showbiz one way or another, but is that enough to maintain and grow a radio station's reach?
Comments/ suggestions/ ideas on this topic will be appreciated!
This week's story is focused on Radio 1 loses more listeners. I found this story interesting, even though it only had a small column dedicated to it, because it made me think about the changing world of media formats and platforms. The story outlines that even though Chris Moyles has left the BBC Radio 1 breakfast show the number of listeners is still falling. Moyles and his team were hit with criticism that they attracted an older audience than the radio station wants to target. According to the BBC website, the show aims to target 15-29 year olds and possibly even younger for some programming (BBC).
The show has a weekly listening reach of around 6.69 million, down from 6.73 million since the last quarter and is currently at it's lowest audience level in 7 years. However, this got me thinking... is it just Radio 1 or is this the future of our media landscape? Is it that radio is dying?
It's important to consider that the internet and software such as iTunes makes radio even easier to access than an old stereo player or car radio however, it's not really ever the medium that springs to mind when wanting some entertainment.
I must admit that personally I like Radio 1 but I only ever listen to it when driving in the car because an hour's commute can get boring and it does provide some decent entertainment for the drive. However, I've never and probably won't ever seek it out via the internet or on iTunes or any other radio station for that matter and I'm fairly certain that is the case with most people in the BBC Radio 1's target market (of course with some exceptions because that is a massive generalisation).
The BBC website says it aims to provide Radio 1's programming to bridge the gap for children who are too old for CBBC but too young for other BBC programming. I can see where they are coming from but then again the jump from television to radio doesn't make sense and isn't an entirely logical step. Most teenagers are probably more familiar with an in car iPod dock these days rather than listening to the radio on the way to school. I believe that the media landscape is changing and is beginning to phase out radio.
If listeners are falling then the BBC need to be out there gaining a wider reach of audience as well as trying to maintain the children who have previously watched CBBC. The BBC need something current that will attract their audience's attention and make them think of BBC Radio 1 in a different way; a lot of their strategy outlined in the BBC link above is very heavily based on programming but that will only work on those who do listen already. They have a lot of good content on their shows but the trouble is not many people know about it unless they happen to catch it on the way to work and so on.
BBC Radio 1's Big Weekend is a good move for them and very popular but the issues here is that it is a one off, seasonal event. There needs to be a more consistent outreach to potential audiences via other mediums such as the BBC television programmes itself or through social media.
One idea could be for the radio station to get their target market's attention on another level of interest such as promoting a trainee/ internship scheme where the target market can get involved in the different departments of the radio station? It would allow individuals to get inside and behind the scenes and feel they can get to know what the station is all about. The target market for the radio station is typically generation Y-ers and I know I keep going back to it but understanding what we're about will go far for a brand! We love being interactive, having those amazing opportunities open to us and we love two way communication. By getting the target market interested in a work scheme it would promote the need to have knowledge of the radio station therefore listening to the shows and getting to know the programming. It would also look pretty good for the BBC's CSR too by helping young people get work experience, encouraging creativity and helping to achieve their aspirations. It's not a massive leap either as I recall a year or two ago they ran a CV workshop when statistics came out about the youth unemployment being at an all time low, if I remember correctly? Why not take it a step further?
The moral of the story here I believe is that for the radio to compete with other forms of media communications and fight to stay alive, they need to go above and beyond for their target audience. Really get inside their heads and find out what really interests them and integrate the insight into a strategy; at the end of the day everyone is interested in celebrities and showbiz one way or another, but is that enough to maintain and grow a radio station's reach?
Comments/ suggestions/ ideas on this topic will be appreciated!
Friday, 1 February 2013
PR Story #3
Is it that time of week again already? This is the third in the series of (in my opinion) the most interesting story in the PR Week magazine. For the previous posts in this series look through my post history on the right hand side and select 'PR Story #1' and 'PR Story #2'.
This week's focus is on Ryanair's new Head of Communications Director (dubbed worst job in PR by Ryanair itself) and his shock statement on the brand's forth coming communications strategy.
Robin Kiely has been quoted saying that Ryanair would not be using social media as a part of it's communications strategy. Whilst other big name airline companies have utilised social media as a part of their brand, Kiely intends to use traditional media to get Ryanair's message across. One of the ways, he explained, was through the Ryanair website and have a dedicated area where journalists can get more information from Ryanair themselves. This is an attempt to prevent false claims about the airline as The Sunday Times wrote before Christmas that Ryanair had broken safety regulations 1,201 times in Spanish airspace. Kiely added that social media is a 'two way tool' and maintaining a Facebook or Twitter account would mean hiring extra people just to sit at a computer all day.
So, smart move? Being a student, and taking into account everything I have learnt so far, I'm going to say... no! Airlines bigger than Ryanair can manage their social media accounts, and yes they probably do have people on their payroll 'just sitting at a computer all day' but this is how the modern generation communicate!! I feel that Ryanair need to start embracing social media quicker rather than later as they could see a slide in their customers and sales pretty soon as the summer period is coming up!
Social media is a two way tool but it's a good thing. As much as you may get some bad comments, particularly if you're not one of the very top airlines, customers like to feel that they can be interactive with their brands. Sending an email or letter or even phoning up isn't enough any more- customers no longer want that feeling of being pushed from pillar to post, between departments and being put on hold. Social media gives customers the power to make brands react and keep them on their toes; social media allows that instant reaction from the brand, giving customers a solution to their problems. Even if you choose not to be on social media sites... that doesn't stop people from posting or tweeting about the brand. One of the first things I learnt on my course is customer feedback is key to improving and constantly reviewing your business and by having an online presence you can see what people are saying. This was proved yesterday that journalists get their stories just as much from social media and they do from the actual brand itself (HMV Twitter Account Hijacked).
Consumers these days are pretty demanding creatures, especially since the back end of Generation Y is fast approaching 18 years old and believe me if you thought we were difficult children and teenagers, we are going to be nightmare adult consumers!! But the truth of the matter is, if brands don't engage with us now, they're going to find it twice as hard to know how to target us for the future.
I feel Kiely thinks that if he dismisses social media it means that social media dismisses Ryanair and it doesn't work that way. Social media and the web is our future, even if you don't like, it's happening!! Even the fact that being on a university course in PR and Marketing, if you don't have a Twitter account, LinkedIn profile, some sort of personal website or blog and knowledge on how to utilise all of these you're behind in the runnings for a career!! Having a dedicated area on the website may be a good idea but as part of a wider initiative maybe.
Journalists (well everyone really) know that brands are only going to promote the good things about their brand, but good news doesn't always make great news, sometimes a bit of scandal can go a long way. If you're a brand that have an amazing crisis management team and react to negative things in the right way, you can gain more credibility than a brand that simply ignores it or wishes it to stop.
I'll agree I know a lot of people that would laugh at the idea of people being hired just to sit on a social media site all day and get paid for it but you have to think of them as an extension of the marketing team I suppose? But if this is the future, no matter how much Ryanair try to break the mould, they are eventually going to get left behind.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this all plans out for Ryanair and if it works then it's a lesson for us all not to be so over obsessed with social media. But currently I just can't see it working, can you?
This week's focus is on Ryanair's new Head of Communications Director (dubbed worst job in PR by Ryanair itself) and his shock statement on the brand's forth coming communications strategy.
Ryanair Airlines
Robin Kiely has been quoted saying that Ryanair would not be using social media as a part of it's communications strategy. Whilst other big name airline companies have utilised social media as a part of their brand, Kiely intends to use traditional media to get Ryanair's message across. One of the ways, he explained, was through the Ryanair website and have a dedicated area where journalists can get more information from Ryanair themselves. This is an attempt to prevent false claims about the airline as The Sunday Times wrote before Christmas that Ryanair had broken safety regulations 1,201 times in Spanish airspace. Kiely added that social media is a 'two way tool' and maintaining a Facebook or Twitter account would mean hiring extra people just to sit at a computer all day.
Robin Kiely- New Head of Comms at Ryanair
So, smart move? Being a student, and taking into account everything I have learnt so far, I'm going to say... no! Airlines bigger than Ryanair can manage their social media accounts, and yes they probably do have people on their payroll 'just sitting at a computer all day' but this is how the modern generation communicate!! I feel that Ryanair need to start embracing social media quicker rather than later as they could see a slide in their customers and sales pretty soon as the summer period is coming up!
Social media is a two way tool but it's a good thing. As much as you may get some bad comments, particularly if you're not one of the very top airlines, customers like to feel that they can be interactive with their brands. Sending an email or letter or even phoning up isn't enough any more- customers no longer want that feeling of being pushed from pillar to post, between departments and being put on hold. Social media gives customers the power to make brands react and keep them on their toes; social media allows that instant reaction from the brand, giving customers a solution to their problems. Even if you choose not to be on social media sites... that doesn't stop people from posting or tweeting about the brand. One of the first things I learnt on my course is customer feedback is key to improving and constantly reviewing your business and by having an online presence you can see what people are saying. This was proved yesterday that journalists get their stories just as much from social media and they do from the actual brand itself (HMV Twitter Account Hijacked).
Examples of the many social media sites available for brands to utilise
Consumers these days are pretty demanding creatures, especially since the back end of Generation Y is fast approaching 18 years old and believe me if you thought we were difficult children and teenagers, we are going to be nightmare adult consumers!! But the truth of the matter is, if brands don't engage with us now, they're going to find it twice as hard to know how to target us for the future.
I feel Kiely thinks that if he dismisses social media it means that social media dismisses Ryanair and it doesn't work that way. Social media and the web is our future, even if you don't like, it's happening!! Even the fact that being on a university course in PR and Marketing, if you don't have a Twitter account, LinkedIn profile, some sort of personal website or blog and knowledge on how to utilise all of these you're behind in the runnings for a career!! Having a dedicated area on the website may be a good idea but as part of a wider initiative maybe.
Journalists (well everyone really) know that brands are only going to promote the good things about their brand, but good news doesn't always make great news, sometimes a bit of scandal can go a long way. If you're a brand that have an amazing crisis management team and react to negative things in the right way, you can gain more credibility than a brand that simply ignores it or wishes it to stop.
I'll agree I know a lot of people that would laugh at the idea of people being hired just to sit on a social media site all day and get paid for it but you have to think of them as an extension of the marketing team I suppose? But if this is the future, no matter how much Ryanair try to break the mould, they are eventually going to get left behind.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this all plans out for Ryanair and if it works then it's a lesson for us all not to be so over obsessed with social media. But currently I just can't see it working, can you?
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Review of Barclay's latest campaign
I was looking for some news to write about on PR and Marketing Week and this story caught my eye, particularly as the ad in question caught my attention earlier in the month.
The BBH created ad is based around the theme of 'You Vs Unconditional Love' where the ad goes through one man's lifetime bringing up his daughter who has increasing demands for an ice cream, bike, horse, car and a house. The ad ends with his daughter then having to go through the same thing with her own child, whilst the original male character effectively 'kicks back and relaxes.'
Initially when I first watched the advert I understood the exaggerated generalised costs and role of being a parent and enjoyed it for that. However, in lecture recently (and in media studies in year's 12 and 13 at sixth form) we're always told to deconstruct an ad and work out why it is the way it is and who it is being targeted to, etc. Well for starters one thing I didn't understand is the very 'American' looking house and surrounding of the ad. Another thing also is that generally the child in this is also very American in terms of her demands, such as a horse, pink car and pink house. NOTE: When I say American, I mean what you typically see in American films that seems to stereotype American cultures.
I see the playful, albeit very generalised, symbolism of the advert. However, I thought to myself would it still have the same effect or an even better effect if it were to have a typical British Dad who obviously works long hard shifts in an office or doing manual work, whose daughter is much more British in her behaviours and cultures. Such as having driving lessons rather than being given a car, having a birthday party once they hit secondary school age or the mass amounts that need to be bought for the start of secondary school such as uniforms, PE kits, equipment, etc, or even Christmas and birthdays having received an iPod or another expensive gadget. The target audience here is parents who maybe want to help out their children with buying a house, I'm not quite sure how a parent of say 40 or 50 years old, for example, will necessarily connect with the ad. I personally would shave thought this would catch the attention of the children in question and then let their parents know about it.
However, the point of this advert is for the mortgages Barclays are adding and I was going off track, so, instead of an ice cream it would be all the things that are needed as a child such as school uniforms, instead of a bike it would be an expensive gadget, instead of a car it would be driving lessons and tests and instead of a house it could be the child going off to university and then eventually moving in with a partner and then going through the same thing with their own children, etc. I just feel this would be more typically British but let's just say we take the Barclays ad for what it is a symbol of parenting and the costs it involves and how Barclays can help....
The ad has been accused of "encouraging 'parasitic' behaviour" and has received eight complaints that children at home may attempt to copy the child who is demanding materialistic things of her dad. As much as I see this point that the demands are somewhat ridiculous I can see it is meant to be an exaggeration of the truth. I believe that children will try to copy the behaviour, because that's what they do, but then this can't be the only advert/ program/ film that displays this kind of behaviour for children to see. The ASA is currently reviewing the advert but a spokesperson for Barclay has issued a statement saying that generally the ad has had positive feedback for it's creativity.
The BBH created ad is based around the theme of 'You Vs Unconditional Love' where the ad goes through one man's lifetime bringing up his daughter who has increasing demands for an ice cream, bike, horse, car and a house. The ad ends with his daughter then having to go through the same thing with her own child, whilst the original male character effectively 'kicks back and relaxes.'
Initially when I first watched the advert I understood the exaggerated generalised costs and role of being a parent and enjoyed it for that. However, in lecture recently (and in media studies in year's 12 and 13 at sixth form) we're always told to deconstruct an ad and work out why it is the way it is and who it is being targeted to, etc. Well for starters one thing I didn't understand is the very 'American' looking house and surrounding of the ad. Another thing also is that generally the child in this is also very American in terms of her demands, such as a horse, pink car and pink house. NOTE: When I say American, I mean what you typically see in American films that seems to stereotype American cultures.
I see the playful, albeit very generalised, symbolism of the advert. However, I thought to myself would it still have the same effect or an even better effect if it were to have a typical British Dad who obviously works long hard shifts in an office or doing manual work, whose daughter is much more British in her behaviours and cultures. Such as having driving lessons rather than being given a car, having a birthday party once they hit secondary school age or the mass amounts that need to be bought for the start of secondary school such as uniforms, PE kits, equipment, etc, or even Christmas and birthdays having received an iPod or another expensive gadget. The target audience here is parents who maybe want to help out their children with buying a house, I'm not quite sure how a parent of say 40 or 50 years old, for example, will necessarily connect with the ad. I personally would shave thought this would catch the attention of the children in question and then let their parents know about it.
However, the point of this advert is for the mortgages Barclays are adding and I was going off track, so, instead of an ice cream it would be all the things that are needed as a child such as school uniforms, instead of a bike it would be an expensive gadget, instead of a car it would be driving lessons and tests and instead of a house it could be the child going off to university and then eventually moving in with a partner and then going through the same thing with their own children, etc. I just feel this would be more typically British but let's just say we take the Barclays ad for what it is a symbol of parenting and the costs it involves and how Barclays can help....
The ad has been accused of "encouraging 'parasitic' behaviour" and has received eight complaints that children at home may attempt to copy the child who is demanding materialistic things of her dad. As much as I see this point that the demands are somewhat ridiculous I can see it is meant to be an exaggeration of the truth. I believe that children will try to copy the behaviour, because that's what they do, but then this can't be the only advert/ program/ film that displays this kind of behaviour for children to see. The ASA is currently reviewing the advert but a spokesperson for Barclay has issued a statement saying that generally the ad has had positive feedback for it's creativity.
Friday, 25 January 2013
PR Story #2
Okay folks, it's that time of week again to blog about the most interesting story from PR week (in my opinion). To see the first story in this series follow this link: PR Story #1
This week's story is Alton Towers and its agency Cake's latest campaign ready for summer 2013. Alton Towers' is launching a new ride called The Smiler and in order to promote it a viral campaign was created. The Smiler symbol, as seen below, has been projected onto tourist attractions in and around London, such as Big Ben and train and tube stations. There has been a lot of speculation about what the symbol means or what it is associated with.
More recenly the campaign has taken on somewhat a more organic nature with flocks of sheep having had the symbol sprayed onto their wool. Passersby picked up on the symbol and started tweeting again causing a buzz and more speculation. Newspaper such as The Sun and the Mail Online picked up the trend and ran their own stories on the campaign, helping it to go completely viral.
The campaign was later revealed on Twitter and an exclusive was given to Metro. I personally think this campaign is genius!! I always love reading about campaign such as this one because it allows me to broaden my own ideas when asked for them. Although these campaigns are fun they're also educational. At university you're taught all the theory and logistics and technicalities but when reading up on things like this it allows your creative side to get thinking. I personally am intruied to see what is next for this campaign as it will be launched May 2013, there has to be more!!
Unfortunately though it seems that this story was very much non viral until the papers picked up on it. Jamie Robinson of We Are Social, says that this campaign did not in fact reach many people, at least not through social media. Thus the campaign has been classed as a 'miss'. However, In one way I agree- didn't even know about this campaign until I read about it in PR week, thus it didn't reach me and no one I knew was talking about it. However, the creative idea itself was incredible- it was inventive and obviously got enough attention for the papers to cover it, right?
What could be improved though if it is such a 'miss'? Well in my opinion possibly the campaign could have started a little later... Due to the weather and what not, this has dominated the news entirely for a while now, allowing less coverage for other stories in national news. I would maybe have starrted the campaign mid February when people start to look to the summer and their plans.
Also, it was a nice idea to target London and the areas around the Alton Tower's park but it doesn't target a specific audience type and what about the demographic areas outside of those targeted? In order to overcome this the target market for the resort needs to be reassessed. On their website, Alton Tower's claims to have a core market of families and thrill seekers. So, thrill seekers, who have a bit of disposable income, who like to do crazy, nutty things and enjoy road trips with their mates... uni students maybe? Or even the universities themselves, some run limited place events such as Thorpe Park or Alton Towers day trips. A 'Smiler' tour bus could come to univerisity campuses and do an SU night or something similar. A competition could be run at universities and the winner gets their whole course a free day to Alton Towers for example.
To target families really sales promotions is a good idea although not related directly to PR as every family is looking for a great deal whilst treating their family. Other ideas could include major shopping centre appearances with a tour bus and other places that are stereotypically 'family' orientated.
Anyway just a few suggestions! Always love to deconstruct a campaign and go through all the alternative possibilities!
This week's story is Alton Towers and its agency Cake's latest campaign ready for summer 2013. Alton Towers' is launching a new ride called The Smiler and in order to promote it a viral campaign was created. The Smiler symbol, as seen below, has been projected onto tourist attractions in and around London, such as Big Ben and train and tube stations. There has been a lot of speculation about what the symbol means or what it is associated with.
A few examples of where the symbol has been spotted.
More recenly the campaign has taken on somewhat a more organic nature with flocks of sheep having had the symbol sprayed onto their wool. Passersby picked up on the symbol and started tweeting again causing a buzz and more speculation. Newspaper such as The Sun and the Mail Online picked up the trend and ran their own stories on the campaign, helping it to go completely viral.
Unfortunately though it seems that this story was very much non viral until the papers picked up on it. Jamie Robinson of We Are Social, says that this campaign did not in fact reach many people, at least not through social media. Thus the campaign has been classed as a 'miss'. However, In one way I agree- didn't even know about this campaign until I read about it in PR week, thus it didn't reach me and no one I knew was talking about it. However, the creative idea itself was incredible- it was inventive and obviously got enough attention for the papers to cover it, right?
What could be improved though if it is such a 'miss'? Well in my opinion possibly the campaign could have started a little later... Due to the weather and what not, this has dominated the news entirely for a while now, allowing less coverage for other stories in national news. I would maybe have starrted the campaign mid February when people start to look to the summer and their plans.
Also, it was a nice idea to target London and the areas around the Alton Tower's park but it doesn't target a specific audience type and what about the demographic areas outside of those targeted? In order to overcome this the target market for the resort needs to be reassessed. On their website, Alton Tower's claims to have a core market of families and thrill seekers. So, thrill seekers, who have a bit of disposable income, who like to do crazy, nutty things and enjoy road trips with their mates... uni students maybe? Or even the universities themselves, some run limited place events such as Thorpe Park or Alton Towers day trips. A 'Smiler' tour bus could come to univerisity campuses and do an SU night or something similar. A competition could be run at universities and the winner gets their whole course a free day to Alton Towers for example.
To target families really sales promotions is a good idea although not related directly to PR as every family is looking for a great deal whilst treating their family. Other ideas could include major shopping centre appearances with a tour bus and other places that are stereotypically 'family' orientated.
Anyway just a few suggestions! Always love to deconstruct a campaign and go through all the alternative possibilities!
Friday, 18 January 2013
PR story #1
So, I thought as well as picking up news stories as they emerge on this blog, I would also pick up on the most interesting story (in my own opinion) from the PR Week magazine I get every Friday in the post and write about the topic in question. This week is the first week I've decided to do this.
The story I have picked up on this week is "UK airlines back Dreamliner." The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has faced problems with safety issues found in Japan and the US. Issues involve fuel leaks, brake problems, a crack in a window in the cockpit and a fire in an aircraft when stationary. Despite these problems and an investigation by the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), Japan's travel authority and Boring itself, TUI Thomson airways are confident they are still going ahead with the PR plan for the launch of these planes in association with Hill+Knowlton. TUI Thomson are the first UK airline to be granted exclusive access to these planes, that will become available for use in the UK in May 2013, shortly followed a few months later by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic next year.
This story grabbed my attention, as a regular customer for TUI Thomson every year (as I use sister company First Choice) it was a concern for me that these planes will be available despite still having some quite serious teething problems. I can't imagine how a normally nervous passenger would feel taking off in on of those in the near future.
Hill+Knowlton and TUI Thomson have developed a campaign to help keep up excitement about Thomson being the only brand to have these planes, although this unique selling point at the moment appears to have it's downsides. The campaign so far has involved a press campaign and television advertisement. They have also set up a twitter campaign allowing the British public to name the first aircraft using a hash tag competition; #nameourplane.
I'm excited to see what strategy Hill+Knowlton use in order to reassure the public especially during the couple of months before the plane launches in the UK. From what I've learnt so far Thomson backing the PR plans still is a good sign that they are confident and may know things that we don't about what may be actually happening and implies that the story is very much hyped up as they appear not to be panicking at this potential crisis issue. However, I do think that TUI Thomson need to address the issue in a way that shows the potential customer that issues have been solved and they were just teething problems, not serious issues.
I have also decided that TUI Travel who owns Thomson, First Choice and many other global travel brands will be the brand I decide to work upon for a brand book as one of my next assignments!
The story I have picked up on this week is "UK airlines back Dreamliner." The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has faced problems with safety issues found in Japan and the US. Issues involve fuel leaks, brake problems, a crack in a window in the cockpit and a fire in an aircraft when stationary. Despite these problems and an investigation by the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), Japan's travel authority and Boring itself, TUI Thomson airways are confident they are still going ahead with the PR plan for the launch of these planes in association with Hill+Knowlton. TUI Thomson are the first UK airline to be granted exclusive access to these planes, that will become available for use in the UK in May 2013, shortly followed a few months later by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic next year.
This story grabbed my attention, as a regular customer for TUI Thomson every year (as I use sister company First Choice) it was a concern for me that these planes will be available despite still having some quite serious teething problems. I can't imagine how a normally nervous passenger would feel taking off in on of those in the near future.
Hill+Knowlton and TUI Thomson have developed a campaign to help keep up excitement about Thomson being the only brand to have these planes, although this unique selling point at the moment appears to have it's downsides. The campaign so far has involved a press campaign and television advertisement. They have also set up a twitter campaign allowing the British public to name the first aircraft using a hash tag competition; #nameourplane.
I'm excited to see what strategy Hill+Knowlton use in order to reassure the public especially during the couple of months before the plane launches in the UK. From what I've learnt so far Thomson backing the PR plans still is a good sign that they are confident and may know things that we don't about what may be actually happening and implies that the story is very much hyped up as they appear not to be panicking at this potential crisis issue. However, I do think that TUI Thomson need to address the issue in a way that shows the potential customer that issues have been solved and they were just teething problems, not serious issues.
~ ~ ~
UPDATE: I have recently discovered that the winning name for the first aircraft through the twitter campaign will be called... 'Living the Dream.' I have also decided that TUI Travel who owns Thomson, First Choice and many other global travel brands will be the brand I decide to work upon for a brand book as one of my next assignments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)