Not Another Rubbish PR Survey
PR Surveys...
Like'em or not, if executed properly, a research-based PR campaign can be a fantastic way to achieve a big smacker of a news hit for your brand.
Of course surveys work best for well-known companies and should be conducted as a component of a larger PR campaign....
But when working on large consumer accounts, PRs can't ignore the fact that every national news publication uses surveys - even the Indy from time to time, in between trying to save the world.
In fact, I don't know any of the UK's leading PR agencies that don't conduct research for their clients. They pretty much all do.
So let's tell it like it is. The public love a good stat - a decent fact or figure. We aren't changing the world. It's not rocket science, nor is it ground-breaking journalism - it's entertainment - and if done correctly the survey formula can provide a golden opportunity for PR.
With this in mind I have put together a list of things to bear in mind when conducting research for PR purposes.
1. Use a reputable survey company:
This is not a plug for OnePoll - well maybe it is a little bit - but there are lots of market research companies out there. Ask what associations and societies they are members of and ask to see what experience they have doing research. Look for members of the MRS and ESOMAR. Have a look at research companies PRWeek suggest using in a recent article they published.
2. Target specific demographics:
A general poll of 3,000 Brits is great, but if you can poll a specific group it can strengthen your story. For example if your client is a parenting website - why not poll 1,000 parents on a parenting topic? One of my favourite survey-based stories of the year (courtesy of Cow PR) was for Insurance firm More Than who quizzed "50 former thieves about their tricks of the trade." Love it.
3. Split your demographics:
If you are polling 3,000 consumers - break your stats down by gender, region, occupation - even hair colour. Perhaps "people from Manchester have the worst diets" or "men are X many more times likely to cheat than women." By drilling down to the detail of your respondents you are creating additional angles which will give your story depth. A strong top-line stat followed by a host of subsequent data will help you create a page-lead worthy story as opposed to something which may end up as a Sun Spot.
4. Use a minimum of 15 - 20 questions:
If you're looking for a page-lead in a national newspaper you can't afford to scrimp on questions. 15 - 20 will usually provide robust, newsworthy data to help you create a decent show. Try and think of every detail. The more you have to write about, the more space they will give you.
5. Start with an angle before you write questions:
Think of your news angle first and then create your questions, but do not try to manipulate the outcome. Very often the public will say the exact opposite to what you imagined - but this can often lead to a stronger story. For example, recently we ran a survey to reveal how long men spend in the kitchen. The survey went against the grain to show men spend as long in the kitchen as women. Not what we expected but we wrote the story and it made well.
6. Don't over complicate your survey:
Instead of writing your question to read "rank these answers from 1-5 in your order of preference" - why not provide a simple list of options which respondents can tick. This way you will get a list which is organically rated in order of preference.
Likewise, if your research is for PR purposes - there is no real need for extensive cross-tabulations. Journalists want to know, for example, that "One in ten Brits are worried about their finances" not that "One in ten men, from Birmingham, over the age of 40 are worried about their finances" Keep it simple.
7. Get a spokesman/woman on board.
Third-party comment from an expert in the field, psychologist or government body will give your story weight. If no one of a decent calibre wants to comment on your story - take that as a sign that you probably shouldn't send it out.
8. Never underestimate the power of a list:
Everyone loves a list - "100 coolest things" "20 Sexiest Soap Stars" "50 Greatest Movies of all time" - if you can create a big list it could help you achieve a really great hit.
Written by Harriet
Why Newspaper Hacks Often Fail To Make Decent PRs
The much documented decline of jobs on newspapers means many hacks are shifting their attention to PR.
PRWeek has covered a number of recent stories involving senior journalists hanging up their hard-news hats to join "the other side" - and a recent blog post by their editor makes the point that due to a sound understanding of comms channels - the right kind of journalist could represent a unique type of campaign adviser.
We employ a number of former-journos for varying roles, without whom we would certainly not achieve the level of news exposure we do.
But I have worked with many hacks in the past that have not been able to manage the shift - and indeed some whose PR careers have been short lived.
So why do many hacks fail to get on in the PR industry? Speaking from my own experience, there are a number of reasons:
1. They lack client-facing skills:
Having worked in a stressful newsroom environment with orders being barked at them or having barked orders at someone else, the hacks' experience of communication differs to that of a PR. Journalists can be impatient and at times downright rude. It is difficult for them to adjust the way in which they communicate and deal with PR-people, who they often regard with disdain.
2. They'll never care about a brand as much they care about a story:
A hacks' intrinsic priority is to create a gritty news piece. When working in PR, journalists need to be able to learn a deeply important skill - finding a middle-ground - a balance between retaining the brand message and creating something which is newsy and robust. A news journalist will always resent the watering down of a killer angle to keep the non risk-taking brand people content.
3. They miss the rush of a proper news story:
Every news hack I know claims the greatest aspect of the job is the feeling they have when working on a great exclusive or when a huge story breaks just before deadline. While achieving decent shows for a brand is a great feeling - even a page-lead for a client will never compare to the rush of a front-page revelation.
4. They miss not being in the news loop:
Newspaper hacks are at the forefront of the current news agenda. Most of them are in the job because they want to be the first to know about and report on current affairs or break a celebrity scandal. Journalists need to have the inside info and as a PR they have to move away from that close-knit environment and adapt their priorities.
5. They will feel they have "sold-out" or lost their integrity:
Although the appeal of a better salary is enough for most journos to be content with their change in career - many journalists will struggle with the feeling that they have sold out by turning from poacher to game-keeper. Moving to PR is still deemed by many in the news industry as giving up on one's journalistic integrity and old friends in the industry will continue to jokingly mock the decision.
So those are some of the attributes which can, in my opinion affect a successful shift away from news and into PR.
But with jobs in journalism fast depleting, there needs to be a shift in attitude if a career in PR is going to work out for a journalist.
The most successful "hack-turned-PR" types I know are the ones who have trained themselves to embrace a new mind-set. They accept the PR industry for what it is and ditch the old-school, pre-conceived notion that what we do is worthless.
Written by Harriet Crosse
20 Tips to Help You Secure National News Coverage
The golden rule to securing press coverage is to read the nationals every day - in print and online.
Only by understanding these publications can you hope to communicate with them in a way that can secure you coverage.
But to help you along the way, here are our top 20 tips:
1. The benchmark is what NEWS EDITORS consider to be interesting, so remember to:
- Challenge or reinforce stereotypes: "Truckers have the best diets" or "Blondes have more fun"
- Make a lifestyle statement: Death of the fry-up / The bath is making a comeback / Tea overtakes coffee
- Create acronyms
- Identify syndromes
- Split people into types / groups
- Calculate lifetime spends
- Find "the average Brit"
2. Remember the product may be exciting to you but think: If you told one other person, would they pass the information on? How did your partner /friends respond when you told them about it?
3. Don't forget the detail. THE FIVE 'Ws' AND ONE 'H' Who / Why / What / When / Where / How. If a journalist writes about a story they will want to know everything.
4. Make sure your intro is not over two lines long, and, where possible, that the copy follows the ABCA rule:
A) Is the opening paragraph. It has to be short, sharp and punchy - "Britain is in the grip of web rage, according to new research."
B) You have created the momentum with a hard hitting opening paragraph; now crank it up another notch with a powerful second sentence - "More and more people are getting wound up over the length of time it takes to download material."
C) Third paragraph is the consequence opportunity - "Now one top web provider has appointed an online counsellor to sort out internet rows."
A) Fourth paragraph can be used to support the attention grabbing opener with a ball-busting quote or knock-out fact - "The cyber-rage phenomenon emerged from a survey of 3,000 computer-owning households by XXX"
5. When selling in over the phone, don't make it sound like the most exciting story in the world. It's not likely to even be the most exciting story that day - remember you are talking to people who deal with the most dramatic and incredible stories in the world on that day. Again: DON'T OVERSELL it.
6. Don't use exclamation marks - hacks see them as gimmicks used to make something funny or dramatic when it is neither.
7. Don't offer it exclusive unless you are dealing with a contact you know and trust.
8. Don't offer a story that makes claims in the intro that are not COMPLETELY backed up by stats. Do not bend stats too far.
9. Don't offer to make up a headline for them, or try to 'outpun' them.
10. NEVER put branding in an intro, except in the following cases: The client is a genuine household name / The story concerns a specific product / The story is a human interest piece focusing on a business individual
11. If you are worried that a story is not strong enough, it probably isn't. Don't put anything out if you think it is weak - if YOU think it is weak, imagine a newsdesk's reaction.
12. If you send out an over-branded or otherwise irrelevant release, you run two risks: The story will not make - meaning a wholesale waste of your time and resources and client disappointment. / The newspaper may remember the negative connotations NEXT time you try to pitch a story.
13. Agree on a snappy USP or a 'sound bite' which can be attached to your client. SWNS are known as "The biggest independent press agency in the UK" - who do you think made that up?!
14. When selling a story to a national newspaper or journalist - get to the point immediately. Remember that these people are working to strict deadlines.
15. Get to know newspaper's regional district reporters
16. Tune in to today's news agenda - will your story be eclipsed?
17. Use 'paper speak' - "is this one for you?" If it's not one for them, don't ask why
18. Send your story before newspaper morning conference (usually between 10.30am-11.00am)
19. Précis the story in 30 seconds or less
20. Ask in what format they would like to receive it
Written by Harriet Crosse
When Will I Be Famous?
Big Brother is back, which means we have to endure another 13 weeks of “I’m bonkers, me” type-folk invading our TV screens in their frantic pursuit of “celebrity status”.
Those of us who work in PR will not be able to escape BB. Even if we choose not to watch the programme, we still need to read papers and go online. Is anyone else already tired of the #BB hash tag?
Why anyone finds the idea of shacking up with a bunch of irritating strangers under the glaring eye of the nation beats me.
But astonishingly, “10,000 people auditioned in London, Manchester, Cardiff, Glasgow and Dublin throughout January and February.”
We live in a world obsessed with fame. Although this obsession has evolved massively with new media platforms, primarily the internet and reality television - it certainly isn’t a new phenomenon. Some trace “celebrity” back to the ancient Greek Gods who were esteemed and idolised because of their extraordinary powers.
In the early 1900s, “movie stars began to be the true A-list celebrities” - and Hollywood actors are still revered because they have talent – an art - they can act – they dazzle us with their performances.
But many of today’s breed of aspiring celebrities seek fame for fame’s sake. And the prospect of achieving “celebrity status” is a considerable enough incentive for these people to endure a host of degrading ordeals.
But why? With what end-goal?
Perhaps celeb status is seen by some as an easy route to wealth? Or maybe the prospect of press exposure is alluring to those with an extrovert streak.
Or just possibly, if one has no other goal, aspiration or life-plan – appearing on Big Brother – or sleeping with a footballer and selling your story – or singing badly on a talent show - is a desperate and last-ditched attempt to feel a sense of self-worth and achievement.
It saddens me that there are people out there who de-value themselves to that extent – it saddens me that Ch4 would churn out this vacuous bilge - and in doing so - take advantage of people who should realise they could achieve a hell of a lot more than becoming the girl who showed the nation her boobs in the Big Brother house.
Written by Harriet
Fifty Fifty
Harriet Harman today revealed she thinks women should comprise 50 per cent of Labour's shadow cabinet.
I've just read a NOTW blog post by Sophie Ridge in which she poses the question - is a blanket 50 per cent target the best way of going about it?
I had also entered into a discussion earlier on Twitter regarding Harman's statement with my mate Stephen Davies - his argument "Why? Why can't we just have the best people to the job? Man, woman, post-op tranny. Who cares :)"A great point - and so eloquently put.
And I agree - in an ideal world, the best people should always get the job - in any occupation, not just politics. I do think though that we live in a society where some are not offered the same opportunities as others - and so sometimes change can only come about through reform.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say I think Harman is on to something with her 50/50 cabinet.
Politicians make decisions of great magnitude on a daily basis - decisions which effect the nation - and there are more women than men (51 % to 49% to be exact based ONS stats for the UK)
But it's largely male politicians who decide on issues such as abortion limits, childcare, single parent benefits and maternity pay. Does that seem fair?
Balance is vital in politics because in my opinion, men and women differ greatly in terms of ideology. Our nature is different - and I can't help but wonder - if we were offered a 50/50 share in running the country (even the world) - perhaps we would have fewer wars?
Ever read William Golding's Lord of the Flies? Just one female on that island would have saved Piggy from death.
Is It Time We PRs Grew A Pair?
I've just been reading an interesting post entitled Why that rubbish press release isn't the PROs fault. I would argue that actually - it is.
We work mainly with PR agencies – and before I start my rant, there are a load of PRs out there who I really rate – we even did a name and fame blog about them once (need to update that soon).
But, I am more than familiar with the laborious “sign-off” process which can often look like this:
We draft a robust, newsy piece of copy in the style of their target publication - we send it to the PR to get sign-off from their client - the press release comes back littered with unnecessary branding, notes to editors, logos, embargos - even prices.
Saw my head off.
We then enter into a conversation about why the release has been changed to that extent. The answer is usually the same - "the client insisted we change it".
But hang on a second - aren't you, the PR, not supposed to be the expert? Should they not be listening to you about what is actually going to achieve coverage?
I've had PRs admit to me before that they know the release probably won't make but that they don't want to upset the client. MADNESS!
The problem is that as a PR, a lot of the time you'll be dealing with marketing folk - people who understand the brand but not the press.
And that is why they have hired you. They need to be educated - told how it works and have the process explained. Sometimes you need to be firm - show them what works and what doesn't.
Achieving coverage and keeping the brand people happy is an extremely delicate balancing act and, a lot of the time (from what I see), PRs are getting it wrong.
Written by Harriet
A Woman’s Work Is Never Done
Prior to the election I read a host of articles on why we need more women in politics.
Janet Street Porter writing for The Mail last week claimed "the only high-profile women in this election are the leaders' wives - and it doesn't get more depressing than that." I concur.
Yesterday, Britain's spanking new cabinet was revealed and it would appear Theresa May has not only been handed the important role of Home Secretary but is one of only two women to gain senior roles in the new coalition cabinet.
Almost immediately journalists and Twitter have turned on May. My favourite tweet so far: "Theresa May as Minister for Equality is like Cruella De Vil being head of the RSPCA" - and a Telegraph piece I came across demeans the role and questions her experience.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a huge fan and can see the irony of her other new role as Minister for Equality, given her previous voting record on gay rights.
So either I am playing devil's advocate - or I am desperately seeking a topical hook to link to my key point, which is that the press love nothing more than a female to hate.
Thatcher, Harman, Widdecombe, Kelly, Smith: Either the murky world of politics attracts the very worst strain of female scum-bag OR the media are all too ready to paint a damaging picture of female politicians. There is probably more than an element of truth in both those statements.
But we are hated far beyond the political arena...Posh, Katona, Goody, Price, Kaplinsky, Phillips, Mills, Feltz, Anderton....I could go on.
What exactly do we want to punish these women for? For being slightly dull and materialistic? (Posh) For having a drug addiction? (Katona/Anderton) For being a bit loud-mouthed and prone to stripping? (Goody/Price) for just being a little bit annoying? (Kaplinsky/Phillips) For divorcing a national treasure? (Mills) For having a weight problem? (Feltz). Most women I know in real-life possess some of these characteristics.
How do high-profile women achieve national treasure status? It's pretty difficult to come by, but not entirely unachievable.
Death did wonders for Jade Goody's image. It also worked for Diana, but she had the added benefit of having been dumped whilst also being actively involved in charity work. A triple whammy. Partial nudity can also help - but preferably in a non-hooker-esque way. Kylie = Good. Titmuss = Bad. Oh, and never cheat. Men can feasibly cheat and remain loved (Beckham) but NEVER women (Perroncel).
All sounding a bit sexist? Why do the UK press continue to re-inforce these regressive female sterotypes?
I've located a study that reveals in 2006 only 38% of journalists in the UK were women and the gender pay gap in the industry was over 20 per cent.
And a glance at UK national newspapers and their editors shows how few women have influence at editorial level.
Sun - Editor - Dominic Mohan
Daily Mirror - Editor - Richard Wallace
Daily Express - Editor - Peter Hill
Daily Mail - Editor - Paul Dacre
Telegraph - Editor - Tony Gallagher
Guardian - Editor - Alan Rusbridger
Standard - Editor - Geordie Greig
Sunday Telegraph - Editor - Ian MacGregor
The Independent - Editor - Roger Alton
Sunday Independent - Editor - John Mullin
News of the World - Editor - Colin Myler
Sunday Express - Editor - Martin Townsend
Daily Star - Editor - Dawn Neesom
Sunday Mirror - Editor - Tina Weaver
Times - Editor - James Harding
Sunday Times - Editor - John Witherow
Written by Harriet Crosse
PR and Twitter - Why We Should “Make Time”
So, are you on Twitter? It's a question I pose every time I'm doing a consultation with a PR company. Yesterday in Leeds, for example, I met with around a dozen people throughout the day and the query was almost uniformly met with a sheepish grin or a roll of the eyes followed by protestations of time pressures or uncertainty as to what exactly the point of it all is. "What tangible benefits do you get out of it?" they counter. Here are some examples.
In December I was taken on by fantastic up and coming soul/country Bristol band Phantom Limb to build their following and "explore opportunities" during their support to Will Young on a national tour. Late one night I saw a retweet of something Boy George had said and a dim bell went off somewhere in my memory banks - I remembered an old interview in which he talked about his love of both soul and country music, so I whacked off a tweet to him: "Hi George, can I turn you on to this band? @phantomlimbband - what do you think?"
Less than five minutes came the rapturous reply (to his 34k+ followers): "I LOVE IT - I have just downloaded Draw The Line from iTunes and I suggest you all do the same!" Cue a huge spike in download sales of the single. He posted several further extremely complimentary tweets, mentioned the band in an interview with Sky TV and last month, when he appeared on Alan Carr's Chatty Man chat show, George made his entrance to Draw The Line. All this from one tweet. Sure, there was luck involved, but any decent hack will tell you that you make your own luck. It wouldn't have happened if the band hadn't had a Twitter presence.
Other examples: www.twitter.com/lovefoodfest - an organic food festival run by a single mum, who admitted she was "on Twitter ... but only just", with a following of less than 90. She wanted to hook up with complementary businesses - food, health, lifestyle - but just didn't have the time to commit to building up her following or interacting therewith. She also expressed an interest in some media coverage, but only wanted a month's worth of activity. Within that month, she had a following of over 400 targeted folk, been added to 25 lists and invited to write a guest column for a woman's magazine. A handover meeting encouraged her she did not need to be on Twitter 24/7 to maintain her presence.
A random offer of a free project to my 900th follower led to an article in The Sun for www.twitter.com/arcticfarm, two entrepreneurial young lads who set up their own frozen yogurt business.
Since taking on www.twitter.com/blinkbox in February, their following has increased from under 100 to over 1,000 - mostly movie-centric people, leading to great word of mouth buzz.
I've banged on enough. The main reason people in PR don't use Twitter - and I've asked enough to have a pretty representative sample - is because they "don't have time". The received wisdom is that many people are unwilling to take new social platforms on board once they have committed to, say, Facebook or LinkedIn. They visualise valuable chunks of their time being eaten up by yet another format they have to maintain. But it needn't be that way at all. It need not necessarily require massive commitment.
Being "on Twitter" does require a little more effort than just typing "trying out this Twitter thing!!!" in July 2009 and following Stephen Fry. But as little as 30 minutes a day is enough to add to your following, dip in and out of conversations, learn something, "meet" useful people in your field ... and maybe even have Boy George big you up.
Written by Jay Williams
English Pride
Earlier this week the team at 72 Point produced some good coverage for client This England Magazine - a publication which celebrates "the beauty of England".
I must confess to judging the magazine by its title but, in fact the publication has no hidden political agenda. It focuses on the beautiful characteristics of England, the majority of its pages filled with idyllic images of the countryside and grand monuments. It is, in its own words - "an armchair journey through England's green and pleasant land"
Our European-wide survey for This England Magazine revealed that England is the least patriotic nation in Europe. The usual rationale for our lack of patriotism emerged from some of our respondents - "over the top political correctness"..."loss of national identity"...blah blah.
I have personally never witnessed this alleged "political correctness gone mad" nor do I feel we have "lost our national identity" - however the survey said what the survey said.
What did sadden me about the poll was that respondents worried how others would judge those who express national pride.
I personally won't be flying the St George flag tomorrow - not because I am not patriotic, but because I am not entirely sure who St George was or what he signifies. A dragon slaying patron saint, in my opinion, bears little reflection on the country today.
In addition, I cannot overlook our historical misdemeanours. Living in Bristol, a city made rich through colonialism and exploitation, I am fully aware that there are aspects of English history that we should be deeply ashamed of.
But the England I am proud of (and I am not afraid to say it) is not the England in myths or the England of history. It is the England of today - in all its multi-cultural, ethnically diverse glory.
I love the Cornish seaside, London, fish and chips, curry, pints of Kingfisher, our national health service, mosques, cathedrals, our police force (sorry but I think on the whole they do a great job), our tolerance of other cultures and religions (Daily Mail readers not included), our stiff upper lip, our reserve, our dry sense of humour, Coronation Street...I could go on but you get the gist.
Written by Harriet
Will The Sun Win It?
11th April 1992 - The Tories secured a further five years in Parliament and The Sun unashamedly claimed it was them "wot won it".
A bold declaration. But undoubtedly there was an element of truth behind the headline, considering:
• The opinion polls suggested a Labour win right up until the day before the election
• The hard-hitting, pre-election day Kinnock splash
• A daily circulation of 3.6 million
• Fewer alternative sources of news / opinion than in the present day
But how influential has Britain's best-selling daily newspaper been in terms of election outcomes throughout the past 40 years?
I've had a look at newspapers and political endorsements since 1979. Interestingly - although perhaps unsurprisingly - The Sun emerged as the only news publication to have consistently backed the winning party.
Social media advocates may argue that The Sun has less influence than in previous election years. Today's diverse media landscape has a more varied array of news and opinion.
The phrase "Mumsnet election" was recently coined by the media - and undeniably, with over one million members, the discussion and opinion generated on blogs like this will hugely influence voters within specific demographics.
ABCs for Feb 2010 suggest a 1.86 million online daily readership of the left-wing guardian.co.uk - the highest online newspaper readership (after MailOnline of course).
In addition a recent survey of 1,500 newspaper readers emphasises the fact that online readers are not as loyal to their favourite publications - for example The Sun online readers also visit the left-wing Mirror.co.uk and Timesonline.co.uk / Express.co.uk readers also visit guardian.co.uk
But will the digital media revolution be enough to stop The Sun from winning the 2010 election? I would argue not.
The Sun remains Britain's best selling daily newspaper with a larger and (arguably) more loyal readership than any other print or online publication.
February 2010 ABCs suggest a circulation of almost 3 million - most of whom will vote because they are being geared up do so - sort of like dogs before a fight.
With this in mind, The Sun's decision to back Cameron in the forthcoming General Election couldn't have been a bigger blow to Brown and, in my opinion, was the final nail in his coffin.
Resources:
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/e97/pastpaps.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8282189.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/30/sun-labour-gordon-brown-support-newspapers
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/electionspast/0,,1445200,00.html
http://www.speedcommunications.com/blogs/wadds/2010/03/26/online-newspaper-circulation-figures-abc-multi-platform-monthly-report-february-2010/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2010/mar/12/abcs-dailies-february-2010
Written by Harriet Crosse
72Point Blog
72 Point are national news PR & survey specialists. Achieving daily print & online news exposure for the UK’s largest brands and PR agencies.
