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.
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
Twitter Start Up Guide
Unless you've been hiding away in the mountains, it is pretty likely you have heard about Twitter! Whilst you may not know what all the fuss about, or what good it can do for you; this guide will quickly take you through the basics and show you how Twitter can help you make the most out of OnePoll; and make spending time on the internet more fun and informative!
Basically, Twitter is a way for people to share information and communicate with one another. The possibilities of Twitter are beyond the scope of this article to discuss - but they are enormous. But specifically, twitter is a way for US to communicate with YOU on things that MATTER TO YOU as a OnePoll user! By following us on twitter we can send you links of our national coverage, let you know the moment surveys are available, send you money saving offers and many other fun and interesting things that our OnePoll tweeters find.
The first thing to do is to get a Twitter account. To do this, go to www.Twitter.com and sign up! It is really straightforward, just enter your details. After you have had a look through and added the people twitter recommends you follow, you are set to go. When you follow people you will be able to read their updates and follow the links to other websites they post, whether its what Jordan's saying about Peter, or headlines from the BBC - it's all on Twitter!
Next, I really recommend you download Tweetdeck from http://tweetdeck.com/beta/ - this is a way of using twitter which is smarter, quicker and more fun than the normal way. It allows a constant stream of updates to be fed directly to you - and this is where the benefits of following OnePoll really become clear. Go to http://twitter.com/onepoll and click on the 'follow' button underneath the Onepoll logo. Now, whenever we have a survey available, or if we have achieved some coverage using your answers, it will show up under 'All Friends' on Tweetdeck and you'll be the first to know. You'll never miss out on a survey again!
Now, for fun try using the search button in Tweetdeck - it looks like a magnifying glass - and type in something that interests you - the ashes, a celebrity, anything - and see all the messages appear with links to relevant websites. Follow the people with similar interests by clicking their name in Tweetdeck and before you know it you'll have a network of likeminded people and people that follow you!
Once you've taken the plunge and gotten started - I guarantee you'll be addicted!
Check out these sites for further more exploration of the phenomenon
http://news.cnet.com/newbies-guide-to-twitter/
http://tweetdeck.com/beta/help/beginners-guide-to-tweetdeck/
OUR SURVEY SAYS…
Ben Goldacre's rather unflattering opinion of survey-based news stories, in particular OnePoll which is, in his opinion, primarily responsible for an endemic problem within journalism, was published in this Saturday's Guardian.
His article raises a few points, none of which are particularly ground-breaking and certainly none I haven't heard before from "proper journalists" who love to bang on about how surveys aren't proper reporting.
Essentially his argument is three-fold...
"These articles are adverts."
No shit Sherlock.
We've been providing branded, stat-based news copy to the nationals for more than ten years now. Why do you think we do it?
Everyone is aware this is a branding exercise. We know it. The newspapers know it. The OnePoll panel members know it. Even the public know it, but they don't mind because they are entertained along the way.
Everyone's a winner. Apart from those who don't find survey-based articles interesting. My answer to those people would be simple. Don't read them.
"I couldn't possibly assess whether their results are sound, but I doubt it."
A heavy claim and entirely unfounded - however the point he is making does hold some weight.
We (as news specialists as well as market researchers) are frequently sent dubious looking "survey-based" press releases by PRs.
I've lost count of the number of "stories" our head of news has binned because he hasn't believed the credibility of the research.
It does happen. Some PR folk will try and dodge paying for proper research by doing a quick straw poll of the office.
But hacks see straight through these feeble attempts to jump on the survey bandwagon and material of this kind rarely achieves pick-up.
But a well-executed, robust piece of research, written in the style of the target publication can provide a golden opportunity for both PR and journalist.
With over 50,000 UK members , OnePoll is a widely respected and credible market research company which national news editors across the board have testified to.
"OnePoll is a well-respected and valuable market research source that provides not only ourselves, but the entire national news network, with excellent survey-led news stories and stats". Chris Pharo. Head of News, The Sun.
"We use Onepoll.com for surveys because they're fast and accurate. They give us page ready copy, written to our style - which is rare and very welcome in the fast moving world of national news."Ian Trueman. Assistant Editor. Daily Star
"An extremely reliable and professional agency with a solid reputation within the industry"Paul Eccleston. Ex Deputy News Editor. Daily Telegraph
"The team at OnePoll.com provide quick, reliable, and newsworthy market research, making them an invaluable source for national newspapers."James Scott. Deputy Editor, The Sunday Mirror.
OnePoll's panel base is representative of the UK population with its member demographics mirroring those of the general public. OnePoll members are generally web-savvy and strong online consumers. Age groups range from 16 to 56+ spanning 28 cities across 12 regions.
In addition to the hundreds of press offices and PR agencies who regularly commission research via OnePoll - our software is used by marketing and advertising companies to generate feedback on new products, services and potential ad campaigns.
I have as yet, not received one complaint as to how our stats have been presented - or indeed the credibilty of our reports.
"These stories are now ubiquitous, but they are not science...nor are they news."
This is my favourite argument - the one which "serious journalists" - usually from heavier newspapers love to emphasise, the argument that surveys are not proper news.
Ironically, even journalists who say this about surveys (my horrible friends included) still use them from time to time - when a stat makes them smile; or raise even half an eyebrow; or when they would rather have another hour snoozing at their desk than go out and find a real story.
Let's be honest here. No one is claiming the survey formula is cutting-edge, groundbreaking journalism. But it has a valid place.
If done properly, a survey story can be interesting, entertaining and frankly a welcome respite to all the misery.
I am thankful that as a newspaper reader (long live print journalism) I can be utterly depressed by pages and pages of murder, child sex offences, war, rape and government inefficiencies - but I can then turn the page to find that truckers and lawyers have emerged as the fattest professions. Brilliant.
Yes, at times it's futile. God forbid we should have a laugh.
I find the opinion that these stories have no worth elitism. It is journalistic snobbery which is insulting to the general public.
From as far back as human beings have had a voice, we have indulged in gossip. It may not be over the garden fence any more (we probably did that survey) but we still bitch about celebrities and argue over facts and figures. Women will always want to talk about shopping and men will always want to talk about football.
This is why our surveys get picked up daily by radio and television broadcasters, because they provoke discussion and provide talk value.
Goldacre himself, albeit disapproving of this news generation method, deemed it interesting enough to write an article on it, which is testament to the fact that these articles provoke a response.
They also, more importantly allow the public to play a tangible role within the daily news agenda.
They include the reader by allowing public opinion to be voiced within the national news arena.
Written by Harriet
GUESS SCHU’S BACK…
The return of Formula 1 legend Michael Schumacher is a great PR coup for Ferrari and F1, but is it actually a good thing?
After it was revealed that Felipe Massa is out for the rest of the season following his horrific crash in the Hungarian GP, the rumours about his replacement soon started doing the rounds.
In the end, just hours after his manger said he was ‘’200%’’ sure Schumacher would not be making a return, the 40-year-old confirmed he would be driving in place of stricken Massa.
You can’t deny it will be great for the sport – and for the F1 bigwigs - especially after a year that has seen the sport plagued with bad press.
I have never been a fan of Schumacher – his smugness is far too much for me to bear, but his name is one which even those who aren’t fans of F1 are familiar with.
And I would like nothing more than to see Lewis Hamilton and Schumacher finally get the chance to battle it out on the track.
But he is going to face a huge amount of pressure – he is seen as a legend and the best driver of our time.
However, this season has proven you are only as good as the car you are in.
The last time Schumacher was behind the wheel, Ferrari were consistently at the top of their game - it was nigh-on impossible to get within passing distance of them, let alone beat them.
This year however has been a different story.
Ferrari, and even defending World Champion Hamilton, have been propping up the bottom of the championship table, and are only just starting to get competitive.
Instead, this season has seen Jenson Button and Red Ball ruling the track and battling it out for the top spot.
While he may have won an amazing amount of races, Schumacher isn’t a miracle worker.
He has bound to be rusty after several years off the track and to add to that, he’s in a car he’s never driven before.
It’s going to be a bit of a culture shock for him when he’s not fighting it out at the front, but simply making up the numbers at the back.
I also can’t help but wonder how his new team mate Kimi Raikkonen feels about the news.
It’s going to take a while to get used to going from the Ferrari No.1, to driving in Schumacher’s shadow.
Written by Gemma
Michael Jackson’s Legacy
I believe Michael Jackson will go to his grave innocent of every charge and accusation leveled at him.
I believe Jordi Chandler and Gavin Arviso and their families should have the death of the King of Pop on their consciences for the rest of their lives. They should hang their heads in shame.
I believe in both cases the accusations were dreamed up by twisted, money-hungry no-marks who saw an opportunity to take Jacko, who was without doubt a sad, reclusive and incredibly strange loner, for every dime he had, and took it with both hands spurred on by greedy lawyers with chips on their shoulders.
Jordi, who played along with the ruse thanks to more than a firm nudge of encouragement from his skint dad, made the initial sex abuse claims while he was under a ‘truth drug’-style anaesthetic administered by his dentist father.
I am convinced father and son – because, remember, Jordi’s mum believed the claims to be completely fabricated and even said as much – took the decision to press ahead with the case with dollar signs fixed firmly in their eyes. During a taped telephone conversation between Jordi’s dad and a pal Jordi’s father explained how the whole thing was getting out of hand.
Obviously in the end Jacko settled out of court, writing a check for $22million dollars for the Chandlers, quite possibly on the advice of his legal team. But why did Jordi and his dad settle for that? I know if someone was abusing one of my two children I would want them to be jailed for as many years as was possible in a bid to keep other children safe from their abuser. I wouldn’t settle for money. Unless money was my only motive. See what I’m getting at?
Then more than a decade later and in the wake of Martin Bashir’s now infamous television interview with Jacko, Gavin Arviso who featured prominently in the show, makes claims similar to the ones made by the Chandlers. Arviso even admitted to police that he lied in interviews about four days before his mum took the stand and began ranting about there being a conspiracy between the German lawyers.
The star was eventually found not guilty. Quite right as far as I’m concerned. But while the whispers, innuendo and bad taste Jacko paedo jokes did the rounds on the worldwide web an already damaged star was left to pick up the pieces of his life all alone. How badly it affected him is anyone’s guess. But I suggest he probably wasn’t taking every prescription drug he could get his hands on before Chandler and his dad made the sex abuse allegations.
In the four years since he was cleared Jacko’s health has been in steady decline. As if it wasn’t enough to have had an abusive father, he was now left to try and find a place to hide while the dust settled. Which isn’t easy when you’re one of the most famous – and altered – faces in the world. But hide he did and within 18 months he was beginning to plan a comeback. The string of gigs would have been probably one of the greatest tours by a modern artist and those who had tickets were no doubt counting the days to the big night.
Whether Jacko would have been fit enough to complete the tour is debatable, but if he had of made it would have been one hell of a show. Now we’ll never know. What we do know is that a man of undeniable talent has gone, leaving only his music as a legacy – and what a legacy. But it all could have been so different.
Written by Doug
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.
