When is it Justifiable to Sack a Client?
Crenshaw Communications pose a juicy question in a post published yesterday. They ask - is it ever good business to fire a client?
The article offers a list of reasons why an agency would be justified in sacking a client – amongst others, if they are a financial loser or if they are giving you a bad name.
I think in these instances, a PRs job is to stand by their client – through thick and thin - and if the shit hits the fan, we should do our best to help them re-build their reputation. Nothing worse than a fair-weather PR.
So when is it OK to fire a client?
The most interesting point the post makes, in my opinion, is about clients affecting staff morale, because this has been, and will remain an absolute justification for telling a client where to stick it.
Rude clients come with the territory and PRs are seasoned professionals in how to deal with unreasonable requests and outlandish demands. Everyone is allowed an off-day, especially the paying client – we first and foremost want to keep business sweet and get those contract renewals. But where does the buck stop?
When a client is persistently rude, negative or is bringing down a team who are trying their best to do a pretty tough job – I have and would tell them (very politely) that we no longer wish to work with them.
From what I see through social networking and relationships I have forged with other agencies, the PR community boasts a multitude of close-knit, positive and forward thinking PR teams.
As a boss, my instinct is to protect and nurture my team - and personally, I feel no client is more important than that.
Just as is true for the real world, there is no place for rudeness and life is too short for old-school “customer is always right” policies.
As my Granny always says, “Manners maketh man”
Too Much Opinion and Not Enough News?
The cuts, the cuts – what does everyone think about the cuts?
Of course EVERYONE has an opinion – and in typically British fashion, our opinion has to be extreme – black or white – positive or negative.
The British talk in absolutes. Either we’re hitched to the stars or heading for hell in a handcart. Even Polly Toynbee, the left-wing’s media doyen, fell into the trap on Question Time by making several references to “Broken Britain”.
And the British press – on both sides - love nothing more than to stick a firework under the arse of the nation and watch us kick-off.
Some of today’s spending cut headlines:
From the left:
Guardian “Poor Will be Hardest Hit”
Independent “Osborne’s Cuts are Worst Attack on Equality for Generations”
Daily Mirror “Cheeky Fakers: Experts expose truth behind ConDem cuts con”
To the right:
Sun “Let Britain Be a World Beater…Like Maggie Did”
Daily Mail “OECD Welcomes the Osborne cuts”
But where is the middle-ground? And more importantly where are the hard facts? Imagine, for a second, switching on the television or opening a newspaper to be presented with statistics, facts, figures - news without an agenda.
The leading/only proponents of centre ground, fact-based news on this subject I could find is from Paul Mason:
I think the need for a moderate viewpoint is becoming extremely important, especially as traditional newspapers begin to feel the threat of social media. The ubiquity of the web is making the common man more informed than ever before. Access to Government policy and statistics can be found with a few clicks on the mouse.
I would suggest that with this increase in awareness there will also be a decrease in tolerance for biased reporting with an overt political agenda – of which every news network and publication is guilty of.
Written by Harriet
Citizens Vs ‘Journalists’
I can fully understand why citizen journalism frightens the living daylights out of stalwart journalists.
Quite suddenly, the doors on what seemed like a closeted and specialist profession have been kicked open by those irksome, eloquent members of the public, who're taking the liberty of using these new channels of communication to articulate their innermost thoughts, feelings and opinions.
To make matters worse for the likes of Andrew Marr, a fair proportion of the citizen journalist community, afforded the freedom that comes attached to the medium, are writing with a flair and wit that bog-standard, jobbing desk-editors simply can't compete with.
Without exaggeration, I've read citizen reviews on Amazon that have engaged me more than the bloated, self-congratulatory, vainglorious left-leaning weekend press - and I'm a Labour activist.
In his recent statement profiling the typical perpetrator of citizen journalism, Marr exhibited both a deep paranoia and a not inconsiderable knowledge deficit where digital news delivery is concerned. To me, it was an example of old-school hack protectionism at its very worst.
As I detailed last week during #CommsChat with my fellow sweaty, cauliflower-nosed reprobates (thanks for that Andrew), traditional and citizen journalism can work comfortably and harmoniously together. The citizen press acts either as the trigger that catapults readers toward traditional media - or it's applied as a reinforcing agent for those who've read the traditional version of the story and now want a second opinion.
Marr's ignorance manifests itself in his blogger/commenter confusion. His description suits a typical commenter on the lower third of a digital news piece, but not an avid or even half-hearted blogger. If this is what he actually meant, then to a certain degree I can't help but empathise. The instruction to leave a comment is often misread as "you have carte-blanche to be a bigoted, backwards-born psycho here" by those that choose to react to a digital news story.
Moreover, the vast proportion of the bloggers I've met are uncommonly beautiful.
I'm still fond of Andrew Marr - alongside Paxman and Sopel he forms a triumvirate that perpetually enlightens my weeknights and Sunday mornings.
However, as his colleagues, particularly Robert Peston and Laura Kuenssberg, continue to embrace the nuances of citizen journalism and extend their social media outreach, Marr has painted himself as something of an anachronism, and a man out of time.
Written by Dan Drage (@Dan Drage)
Why We Should Keep It Real In Business
I'm not a fan of corporate spiel - business talk - fluff - waffle.
We all know a client, contact or a colleague who does the "work voice."
Some folk change into another person when communicating on a business-level.
They start to use words which exist only in the corporate world - words which they imagine give them a professional edge - make them appear more robust.
Call me weird, but when I'm dealing with a client or work contact, I want to feel as if I'm communicating with a human being - not someone's strange, fabricated business guise.
Clearly I'm not condoning the idea of treating clients as you would your friends - there needs to remain a level of professionalism in any business environment.
But does our business-self have to differ so greatly to our real-self?
Or can we not use our personalities to communicate in the business world?
The projection of these "business-selves" is no more evident than via social media platforms like Twitter.
People are putting a lot of energy into creating these corporate Twitter characters, and trying overly hard to be a constant source of industry information and influence.
Of course there will always be a level of self-promotion to Twitter - let's be honest, we're all using it to make contacts, potential business and gain influence.
I've met a lot of people from the PR Twitter community. I've been to tweet-ups, socials, PR drinks - and the people I rate the most are the ones who aren't that different in "real-life" than they are on Twitter. They are relaxed and comfortable, sociable, affable - they retain a sense of humour.
They are the people who keep it real - and are also the people I have chosen to do business with.
Written by Harriet
‘Failed’ Journos & PR
I felt compelled to voice my opinion after reading a number of recent articles, posts and tweets on the slightly touchy subject of why some journalists fail to make it in PR.
After carrying out detailed research before commencing my piece I discovered very few, if any of those who have been particularly vociferous on the subject, have made the leap from one side of the fence to the other.
One piece I found, the author of which I will not credit with a mention, described how 'When the going gets tough in PR - the highly paid journo gets going', which made me laugh out loud.
I know from experience PR can be tough.
But is it tougher than an editor, whom you are trying to impress, standing at your shoulder right on deadline, calling you all the names under The Sun because he wants a 500 word summary of Dr David Kelly's career written for edition in seven minutes?
I imagine it can be, but I wouldn't know, the same as a PR person who hasn't stood in my shoes wouldn't know.
To balance that, other posts such as one by our own Harriet Crosse made interesting reading, and was certainly not without substance. Harriet claims 'journos don't make good PRs because they miss the buzz of a breaking story'.
Really? Well you're partially right, Harriet. Yes, it's a downside. But hacks know what they are giving up when they take a PR job, don't they?
But it goes much deeper than that.
I believe I am well qualified to have my say on this issue due to the fact I started out in journalism, and after seven years took a job in PR.
I returned to newspapers because my contract ran out. Not because 'the going got tough'. In fact 'the going' became considerably easier the longer I was there.
After working in journalism in London, New York and Los Angeles, I am now back in PR and loving every minute.
During my time in PR, then more than now, part of the problem was a 'them and us' mentality. Hacks are as guilty of it as PR people are, let’s not pretend they're not.
'We don't need a journalist, we know what we're doing' was something I overheard in my previous PR position.
And the term 'fluffy bunny', or something equally demeaning to professionals who work incredibly hard, is regularly hurled back. But sticks and stones can break bones ... right?
Differences can be overcome - after all PR and newspapers are different, there is no getting away from that, but they are inextricably linked.
Surely, anyone who changes jobs, trades or positions is going to find things slower, faster, easier or harder (insert adjective here). It doesn't mean they can't do it.
My personal belief is that journalists can be huge assets to PR agencies.
They may from time to time be guilty of pushing a story harder than a client would like on occasion or perhaps inserting a word or two which isn't 'on message'.
But tweaking an intro, such as removing the word 'value' and replacing it with 'bargain', can be the difference between a story making the papers or being spiked.
Offering input on how a picture should be shot is invaluable and you are not going to get that sort of insight from someone who has spent their entire career in PR, no matter how much you would like to think you will.
It's the little things which make a difference. That's the way newspapers work, and that is what journalists offer.
The time a story is filed is vital. Hacks know 'the earlier, the better' is the rule, but PR people still send press releases out at 3pm.
The line between success and failure is a thin one. Sometimes a story is as much about what you omit as what you include - and bad ideas don't make the papers, EVER.
Many people generalise and declare 'Journos don't have good client facing skills'.
But some of the scariest, most formidable editors ever to hurl a cold cup of tea in news conference have gone on to make great PRs.
Clearly no problem with their 'client facing skills' then.
In my experience other frustrating issues, and remember I have been there and done it, are that journalists are used to working quickly.
They turn around one story after another and anything which lands on their desk on a Thursday feels old by Friday morning.
So yes, it is a culture shock when it takes four months or longer for an idea to finally be ready to release to the world.
They are used to a fast moving world, where you start every day afresh.
You have no idea what will happen or where you will be at 5pm; be it a wet doorstep in Hackney or Terminal Four at Heathrow waiting for a flight to Timbuktu.
So a three-week sign-off period on a 400-word piece of copy can be mildly baffling, I admit.
During my first sojourn into PR I was tasked with running the pro-active PR department of a top supermarket chain.
The remit was to increase their coverage across the board. Trade, consumer, local and national. Simple as that.
I took the job because staff cut backs at the paper meant after working my way from gruelling night shifts to much nicer day shifts was asked to go back on to nights.
From day one my new job was tough. I was given carte blanche by the hugely experienced and incredibly supportive Director of Comms to 'do it my way'.
That was when the problems began.
Immediately 'my way' was met with resistance by senior press officers who insisted faxing - yes, I said faxing - poorly written, over-branded, embargoed press releases to national newspaper newsdesks was 'how we do things here'.
And so it went on. And it was tough, as I have already acknowledged PR can be.
But the butting of heads on a regular basis didn't mask the fact that we increased our coverage almost six-fold - and I managed to render the fax machine redundant.
And I will give credit where credit is due. Eventually the rest of the team accepted what I brought to the table, and I them, and we made it work.
I feel I have been successful in both fields, but in part due to the people around me who added their experience to mine.
So for me, the PR / hack combination is one I believe can be hugely successful - but like any relationship it takes time - and a little bit of give and take.
And when people ask me now what I do for a living – I am proud to say I work in PR.
Written by Doug Shields
Name And Fame
I am aware several posts on this blog carry a 'them and us' theme.
In fact an earlier article of my own comments on the lack of knowledge within the PR industry regarding how newspapers operate.
During my time on the newsdesk of a national newspaper I more than had my fill of picking up the phone to be talked through PR dross which wouldn't have made the paper in a million years.
So I can see where freelance journalist Kevin Braddock was coming from when he controversially 'named and shamed' PRs who he claimed sent him irrelevant press releases.
Not long after that the much talked-about 'Inconvenient PR Truth' campaign provoked debate when it emerged British and American journalists receive 1.7 billion irrelevant press release emails each year.
And to be honest, I'm not surprised.
As editorial director at 72Point I am still bombarded on a daily basis with poorly written press releases, which are over-branded, carry embargoes (on which my colleague Jay Williams blogged last week) and feature endless, but incredibly tedious Notes to Editors.
Okay, so now you're thinking; ''Here we go again, old hack banging the 'PRs don't know anything about papers' drum''.
Well I'm sorry to disappoint you. I am, for once, going to buck that trend.
Admittedly, I never thought I would utter the following statement, but - I have to admit it... some of you guys are very, very good at what you do.
Knowing what makes a story and how to write good strong copy and deliver the finished product at the right time is an art.
But it is an art which, in my opinion, a handful of outstanding PRs have mastered.
Some of these PRs we at 72 Point work alongside regularly, others we admire from a distance.
These are people who have caught our eye and who are clearly at ease with how to create impressive exposure within an area of PR which is perhaps still the most elusive - the national news pages.
So to everyone who made the 72Point Hall of Fame, I take my hat off to you:
OUR TOP 40 (in no particular order)
Simon Horne - Camelot
Jenny Hill - ZPR
Lisa Penny - Bounty
Shakila Ahmed - Travelodge
Gareth Lucy - Kellogg's
Kelly Davies - Confused.com
Jo Roberts - Confused.com
Asia Yasir - Esure
Kat Taylor - Mischief
Rich Turner - House PR
Kathryn Crawford - TheBabyWebsite
Frances Browning - RBS Insurance
Adam Vincenzini - Paratus Communications
Nicola Andreasen - Paratus Communications
Lindsay Wilson - Speed Communications
Mark Perkins - Cow PR
Carol Richardson - Confetti
Brandon Stockwell - Citigate DR
Chris Webb - Pegasus PR
Alex Clack - Ogilvy PR
Matthew Coy - Tonic Life Communications
Rebecca Mann - Public Group
Victoria Etaghene - BSkyB
James Crawford - Citypress
Helen Doyle - Biss Lancaster
Kate Howe - Biss Lancaster
Justine Allister - Mothercare/ELC
Noella Dixon - Mothercare/ELC
Gemma Harris - McKenna Townsend
Anna Harris - Murray PR
Nina Hands - Brahm PR
Gemma Walters - Brahm PR
Alison Moss - Fleishman Hillard
Carrie Knowles - Fleishman Hillard
Mira Ryness - Frank PR
Danielle Carter - Frank PR
Fiona Robinson - Frank PR
Lucy Hart - Frank PR
Bethany Tang - MediaHubb
James Newman - Finn Communications
Written by Doug Shields
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.
