A Media Person's Musings

RIP Uncle Guy

Yesterday a dear old friend and colleague of mine died. He was one of the first technology journalists and one of the first professional writers I worked with when I started my career at VNU Business Publications. For years I harangued him to write about clients and products. It's not without some irony that I find myself writing about him now.

 

I feel I can't let him go without paying my own small tribute. I have known Guy for over 20 years. He was always one of the "tougher nuts to crack". Remarkably intelligent, sometimes irrascible, incredibly knowledgeable:You always had to know your stuff when pitching Guy. He had a loyal reader base and felt a responsibility towards them and as a PR professional you had to respect that.  Guy was always fair. If you had done your research, knew his interests and those of his readers he would always hear you out. To me he was the one of the higher echelons of journalists that if you got along to a press conference or a one to one meeting you felt you had really achieved something.

 

Guy was also very quirky, charming and funny. I didnt always get his humour and sometimes was a bit intimidated by him so to get over this I used to cheekily call him 'Uncle' Guy which he tolerated.

 

Guy wrote about his battle with cancer on his blog and I think it really gave an insight into the wonderful soul he was. I shed a tear reading back over it last night but I am happy that I had a chance to say goodbye, send hugs and kisses and get one last piece of advice from Guy which was as follows: "enjoy the sunshine while it lasts..." I will, I promise.

 

 

 

 

Blogging v Twittering

I am not the most prolific blogger - mostly because I just find it difficult to commit the time to putting my thoughts to paper. My fellow bloggers at Peppercom seem to have managed their time much more efficiently. Steve Cody, for example, manages to use his time on the train to blog and often encourages others to participate in his blog as guest bloggers .

I, however, seem to think about blogging on something every day and then it gets pushed to the end of the priorty list. Also since becoming pregnant the late night hours on the computer have been replaced by sleep - cutting homework time by half!

So I recently made the move to Twitter. I was of the opinion that being able to make a multitude of small posts would keep me ever-present in the blogosphere or twittersphere or whatever they are calling it now.

I do like Twitter: The platform, to me, is so much more accessible than logging into a Typepad account and then having to add links and pictures etc. And I can Twitter from my iPhone so I can access it anywhere.

But now I am feeling limited by that too - I find it very difficult to say what i want to in just 140 characters. Hence this blog post! Will I ever be happy?

Obama on the Leno Show

  Watching Barack Obama guest on the Jay Leno show this week reminded me of when Tony Blair first came into power in the UK. On a wave of popularity and euphoria the 'people's President'  is making appearances on shows like this to assure the public of his accessibilty, transparency and normality.

Interestingly this tabloid appearance wasn't gaffe free - prompting the thought that Bush might have gone but the man who writes his jokes hasn't. (Obama's gaffe was to say that his bowling skills should be seen as Special Olympics standard.)

Even more interestingly this very non-PC comment has managed to escape too much harsh criticism - even the BBC's critique makes no reference to it. More notice has been taken in the blogosphere.

For now it seems that Obama can get away with such mistakes but I am still not sure appearances on shows like Jay Leno's are in his best interest. It's on shows like this that they talk about inane things like his choice of dog or his hobbies (bowling). It was a mistake that he never would have made if he hadn't appeared on the show and it was about unnecessary and inconsequential detail.

The fact is that, even though he was trying to show it, he is not accessible, he is not transparent and he certainly isn't normal or one of us.

I think he and his advisers should bear in mind Benjamin Franklin's advice:      "Be civil to all, sociable to many; familiar with few." 

Petulant Pietersen

The England cricket Captain Kevin Pietersen has resigned (jumped before he was pushed) and the coach Peter Moores has been sacked. The England Cricket Board (ECB) now has the tough task of repairing a fractured and dysfunctional national team.

The whole sorry saga started because Kevin Pietersen  did not agree with the direction Peter Moores, the incumbent coach when he was appointed, was taking. I always questioned the thinking behind Pietersen's appointment. I didn't care that he is a born and bred South African but I did care that he seemed always to be the sort of individual that was one of the team's 'star' players. Arrogant, focussed, a risk taker - he was a great player who could be relied upon  for his genius batting and star performances that could rescue an innings and lift the team's morale. However I didn't have him down as someone who was a leader of men, a strategist or a team player. We have seen great cricketers like Pietersen before who were never made captain because their temperament just didn't suit the role - take Botham and Boycott for example.

In the end his petulant temperament - his "it's him or me" stance - brought his downfall. He even involved the outside media telling them that his relationship with Moores was 'strained'. This all it just illustrates to me that in sport and in business it doesn't matter how brilliant your star performer is you cannot succumb to such foot-stamping, petulant ultuimatums. No one is indispensible and Pietersen's behaviour won him no friends on the England team by all accounts. All he did was divide it. The ECB did well to issue him with the 'jump or be pushed' ultimatum.

While I wholeheartedly support the ECB's handling of this situation I do wonder why they sacked Peter Moores. Maybe they just felt he had been too compromised or maybe the disastrous England record of late was all they needed. I knew Peter quite well over 20 years ago when he was the wicketkeeper for Sussex. He is a very nice, thoughtful, intelligent and well rounded man. He has behaved through all of this with dignity and has kept a very low profile while Pietersen attracts all the cameras and headlines. I think in the long run this mature approach to what is undoubtedly a very stressful situation will see him rewarded in spades. I hope we see him commentating or writing for a newspaper in time as he has excellent knowledge, understanding and experience.

As for Kevin Pietersen well I think he has a lot to do - he has a pretty big task ahead of him if he wants to fit into the general rank and file of the England team...or will he, as some have mooted... go to more financially rewarding climes and forsake his team and country. Oh i forgot...its not really his team...or his country...after all.

Did He Win Because Of The Colour Of His Skin?

Believe you me I don't think so. Indeed I absolutely believe that America was ready to vote for the Democratic ticket long before the holder of that ticket was decided. However the thing that is bothering me is the reporting subsequent to the US Election. All of it seems to revolve around the historical significance of the US's first ever black president. Soundbites are being gathered from (largely) black people and the ones that are being broadcast are very race-led - "we showed you", "we won out in the end".

Why does this worry me? Well I would like to think that Obama won because of his policies and his undoubted leadership skills. This most liberal, charismatic senator promises to put ‘Peace’ at the top of the agenda and get some sanity into the financial markets. He is truly a breath of fresh air - not because he is black. I wish the media could give a balanced conclusion in its reporting. Up until now I had been pretty impressed as to the standard and quality of reporting but as usual the UK media has slipped into pigeonholing stories. Obama won because he was black. Period. Old black people, young black people (who previously didn't vote) have flocked to the polls to get their man in.

It simply isn't true. I think if Obama had been white or indeed ugly he would still have won. The American public was simply sick of the Republican Government and its manifesto and when Obama came on the scene a promise of a better day with a better man at the helm made him utterly electable. What Obama has achieved is awesome. The World is a happier place for his election - but it is about him, his talent and his policies - not the colour of his skin. Let's hope his car doesn't get pulled on his way to his inauguration in DC in January!

Digital Aptitude: The Full Story

 This week Peppercom has launched the Digital Aptitude Test in the UK, an offering that's been in development for some time in conjunction with our colleagues in the U.S. 

The Digital Aptitude Test (DAT) is designed to show where organisations are hitting and missing with their digital communications. The DAT starts with a quantitative and qualitative survey that is given both vertically and horizontally throughout a company.  We take those results and look at where internal knowledge and perception gaps exist for clients.  We then have our analysts go through it from both a quantitative and qualitative angle to discover trends and disconnects in the internal perception of a company's digital presence.

 

Yesterday PR Week ran a story about the UK launch of the Digital Aptitude Test.  Unfortunately, the test was painted as a wholly quantitative tool, leaving out its main purpose (identifying internal knowledge and perception gaps), the large volume of qualitative analysis involved in a Digital Aptitude Test project, the checklist that results from implementing the test, and the analytical and interpretive work of multiple communications professionals involved in the process.

What PR Week failed to report was that at the end of the process, the company not only gets an overall score, but they also get:

--subscores that measure the internal perception of the volume and ease-of-access to content on the site (information management); participatory tools that allow visitors to interact with one another and representatives of the company and provide feedback (communication management); and how the company provides support both in terms of financial and human resources for digital initiatives (resource allocation)

--qualitative analysis of the areas of greatest disconnect within the company and synthesis of open-ended answers on the test.

--a checklist of tangible items that need to be fixed within an organization to move the needle with the company's digital presence, based on where these internal gaps are perceived.

We envision this process, in many ways, as an hourglass approach.  By that, I mean we take a complicated qualitative phenomenon like internal perception, measure it through a largely quantitative survey tool, and then build on layers of analysis from experts on the Peppercom team.

After the survey results are in, we have a quantitative researcher who not only assigns the overall score, but likewise, the information management, communication management, and resource allocation scores for a company; the amount of deviation in answers along vertical and horizontal lines; and other pertinent statistics from the results.

In addition, qualitative analysis of the trends is provided by Peppercom's Director of Customer Insights, Sam Ford.  Sam was involved in the design of the Digital Aptitude Test with the Peppercom team for the past year.  He joined our staff full-time this summer from MIT, where he was previously managing the MIT Convergence Culture Consortium, a media studies research group. 

Sam is a qualitative researcher with a Master's in media studies from MIT who taught multiple courses at the university.  In addition to his work at Peppercom, he remains a practicing academic and is currently working on book projects involving the state of the daytime serial drama in the U.S. and the concept of "spreadable media."

Finally, a team of PR professionals vet the quantitative and qualitative analysis, working with our researchers to come up with the checklist of internal gaps and areas of improvement to be sure that those areas identified are actionable within the industry and relate directly to issues with impact on a company's communication strategy.

PRWeek unfortunately failed to see the breadth and depth of this offering and asked a digital professional and a fellow PR professional for their comments based on less than half of the real facts. So here is my response to their comments:

For the Digital professional in the story who noted his concerns about a quantitative test to assess the effectiveness of a digital strategy, we want to note that the purpose of this test is to identify perception among one key audience--employees.  This test is designed to help companies close internal gaps in digital knowledge and communication processes in order to optimize their digital communication strategy, not to objectively measure a digital strategy's success with external constituents.

Likewise, for the PR professional who emphasized that a survey could not replace a PR expert's advice, we couldn't agree more.  The test itself is just the beginning of a deep analysis for us that involves the whole team of PR professionals mentioned above.

 

Luckily I have my blog which gives me the opportunity to publicly respond. This is the good side of the digital world but only one part of it for us at Peppercom. We took the test ourselves and are starting to address the areas where we found gaps. If you have any questions about the Digital Aptitude Test, visit our site for the tool at http:/www.digitalaptitudetest.com

Too Little Too Late

The current media brouhaha revolves around two of the UK's leading, not to mention highly remunerated, broadcast personalities - Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. Ross hosts a late night chat show (Letterman-style) and Brand is a stand-up comedian and actor who recently burst onto the Hollywood scene starring in the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

The two recorded a sketch where they phoned the answer-machine of one of the UK's well-loved veteran actors Andrew Sachs (most famous for his portrayal of Manuel the Spanish waiter in Fawlty Towers) and leave a trail of obscene messages. The motivation can be seen at the BBC’s web site. The content included the fact that Brand had enjoyed a sexual relationship with Sachs' granddaughter.

 This has resulted in over 18,000 complaints lodged with the BBC. The very surprising fact about the whole situation was that the lewd, unnecessary and unfunny sketch  had been pre-recorded and had been passed for broadcast by a production team. Usually gaffes of this nature happen in live broadcasts but this incident was totally preventable.

So the mistake was made. What did the BBC do? 'Nothing' is the answer. They stayed quiet while the two protagonists also stayed quiet giving the impression that no one gave a damn. This just added fuel to the media's fire. What could have been an embarrassing news clip has escalated onto front page news and culminated in the Prime Minister demanding that the BBC (an organisation largely funded by tax payer's money) give some answers and take some action.

Had the BBC immediately issued a statement saying they were sorry and looking into the situation then they would have definitely averted the storm. Waiting for days to take any sort of action is at best foolhardy and worst unprofessional. It appears they laid the blame solely at  Ross and Brand's doors leaving them to make personal apologies (too little too late).

The BBC took action today, responding to the media pressure by suspending Ross and Brand. As for Andrew Sachs, like a true professional, he responded by speaking to the media, telling them the facts and behaving with dignity and transparency. The BBC should take a leaf out of his book.

The Importance of Good Advice

 Today ex-popster and general C-list celebrity Kerry Katona appeared on This Morning- the UK's popular morning chat show. She was promoting her new programme "Kerry Katona - Whole Again" which follows her going through various plastic surgery procedures to remodel her body including a breast reduction and liposuction. Kerry is well known in the tabloid press for being a girl of excess - to say the least. She has been reported as having a cocaine addiction and has been in and out of rehab. So when she appeared on TV this morning it was no real surprise when she started off the interview slurring her words. She was clearly under the influence of something. When the interviewers pointed this out she got very defensive claiming strong medication to help her sleep was to blame.

It must have been obvious to the production team that she was incapable of giving a good interview when she arrived at the studio. But the temptation of a TV scoop like this was clearly too much and the interviewers went in for the kill. It was car crash TV. Clearly Kerry had no strong advisers on staff - preferring the company of her leeching boyfriend who is her (self-styled) manager. Her long-time publicist Max Clifford (who irritatingly is often called a PR guru) was nowhere to be seen. I am sure if she had decent advisors this sorry spectacle could well have been avoided. She could well be dropped by her biggest sponsor Iceland as she clearly doesn't represent their wholesome "Mums go to Iceland" brand. This mum is going to the local off-licence instead.

Bad Sport?

I had been looking forward to this weekend for some time - it was the Ryder Cup weekend and I am a massive fan of the tournament which pits the leading golfers from America against their European counterparts. It promised to be a gripping competition. This year it was held in Kentucky and The American team bucked the trend of the last few years and romped home beating the Europeans right from the start.

Even though 'our team' lost I still enjoyed watching some brilliant golf. What I didn't enjoy was the near loutish behaviour of some of the American players who had been encouraged to whip up the spectating crowds into a frenzy. The result was that every time a European player missed a put or hit a ball badly the crowds would cheer in delight and the inane chants of "USA, USA, USA" rang out over and over and over again.

What has happened to good sportsmanship in professional sports today? After a spectacularly brilliant Olympics I guess we were spoiled by great examples of sporting endeavour coupled with sportsmanlike behaviour.

Another example of loutish behaviour was seen this weekend at the Manchester United - Chelsea match where a whopping 7 of the 11 players on the Manchester United team were booked by the referee - many for dissent.

In each of these situations the men in charge turned a blind eye to the behaviour of their players. Sir Alex Ferguson didn't 'want to get involved' despite taking a £25,000 fine from the FA and Paul Azinger said that European crowds would do the same and talked down his open instructions to "cheer when they (the Europeans) miss" as simply "educating the crowds. Football already has a bad reputation I would be very sorry to see Golf going the same way but if this weekend is anything to go by we are on the rocky road.

No Soft Soap

Today's media storm centres around our popular soap opera EastEnders. The BBC has been inundated with complaints about the current storyline where the mother of a fifteen year old girl has a boyfriend who has apparently 'groomed' her since she was twelve. 'Outraged from Surbiton' complains that this is tea-time TV and as a family show EastEnders should not be running storylines like this that can be viewed by children.

Unfortunately (and I mean unfortunately) I have to disagree. Recent polls have shown that children today are far more sexually aware than they ever have been. With unfettered access to the Internet they are exposed to all sorts of sexual imagery and the means, via social networking sites and chartrooms, of forming close relationships with unlikely 'friends'. Interestingly despite all this exposure they remain largely uneducated about sex and consequently we are vaccinating young girls against cervical cancer and we continue to lead the teen pregnancy tables.

So a TV show dealing with very real issues like paedophilia is actually necessary. It is probably the best way of warning impressionable girls and boys how easily they can be misled by someone they may have in a position of trust. Nowadays when TV is all-influential I am glad that EastEnders has tackled this storyline. My main criticism of the BBC is of how quietly they have gone about this. They are working with the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) on this storyline and are certainly doing their best to give an accurate and sensitive portrayal. In my opinion they should have publicised their work with the NSPCC showing how important these storylines are rather than wait for the complaints to come rolling in?