Maria Miller, authenticity and the PR pitch

The resignation of Maria Miller, the former Culture Secretary who ‘stepped down’ over an expenses row a few days ago, just goes to show that saying sorry isn’t always enough.

While there are bigger issues in play regarding the structures and processes of policing MPs’ behaviour, there was much made of the ‘inadequate’ nature of Maria Miller’s apology to the House of Commons.

For many, her ‘32 second apology’ (as it’s pointedly dubbed in multiple news references) appeared hollow and insincere. The brevity of the apology – which was along the lines of ‘I’ve been asked to say this, so here I am’ – on the back of allegations that her attitude to the investigation had been unhelpful, left a poor impression. Did we believe that Ms Miller was sorry? Did her actions match her words?

Authenticity – as individuals, as business leaders, as brands and as organisations – is essential if we expect to be trusted by others.

What makes a voice authentic? I think it’s where our words and our behaviour are evidently in tune. It’s how we live our values in action, as individuals and as companies.

Authenticity matters for many reasons, not least because we all make emotional judgements about others; call it ‘gut feel’ or intuition, but it’s almost impossible to remove it from the way we make decisions.

Which brings me to PR pitches. I attended Adrian Wheeler’s thought provoking PRCA workshop the other day on ‘Pitching to Win Business’, and we discussed the subject of ‘chemistry’. Research among clients has shown that chemistry is in the top three most important factors when selecting an agency, alongside track record and creativity.

Adrian points out that this is hardly surprising, when you consider that personal relationships are essential to successful business relationships, although most procurement and pitch processes endeavour to be based on rational criteria and evidence.

He suggests that an explanation for this apparent conflict between the cold, hard, analytical process of choosing one agency over another, versus the ‘touchy feely’ sentiment of ‘I just like them’, may be found in Daniel Kahneman’s ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’. Kahneman describes two distinct ‘systems’ of how we think. System One is what we consider instinct, it’s subconscious, whereas System Two relates to our conscious thought process.

Kahneman’s research shows that nearly all our decisions are made quickly using System One, and we then use System Two to rationalise a decision we’ve already made, without being aware that this is what’s happening.

So, if it’s an emotional response that guides our thinking, then it follows that personal rapport, chemistry and authenticity are crucial; whether facing the Commons or a client pitch. Personally, I’ll stick to pitching.

Sarah Bryars

Chief Executive

A bad day for British Gas? #AskBG

So the temperature outside is dropping and the dark nights are drawing in. Yes it’s that time of year again people, time to announce the annual round of energy price rises just as everyone starts to think about switching their heating back on.

So there we have it, Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) gallantly went first this time with an increase of 8.2% for gas and electricity from 15 November. Energy was already high on the news agenda after the party conferences but SSE fuelled the fire, starting the speculation as to when the rest of the ‘Big Six’ and others would follow and how much higher would they go. Probably nothing unusual in this, the politicians and the national media have been doing the same dance around the energy issue at roughly this time of year for the last few years.

But then something remarkable happened.

British Gas announced an 8.4% rise in gas prices and 10.4% for electricity with dual-fuel bills roughly in the middle and rising by 9.2%.

While the news itself came as a surprise to no one, I don’t think anyone was expecting them to voluntarily line up the organisation’s Customer Services Director in front of a social media firing squad.

Unbelievable.

BG opened the floodgates themselves, inviting in an inevitable stream of criticism and, in my opinion, some well deserved loathing and abuse. But while it looked like a social media blunder of seismic proportions, surely they can’t have been so naive? So why did they do it? Here’s what they said:

"We know people are worried about rising energy prices and they want to talk about this – including on Twitter – and it's important we're there for them to talk to. That's why we offered a Q&A session with our customer services director. It was the right thing to do because we are committed to being open and transparent with our customers at all times. We also want to make clear rising prices don't have to mean rising bills and there is help available.”

What do you think? Personally, I think @jamesrbuk asked a very pertinent question, “Will you pass on the cost savings from firing your social media team to customers?”

Seriously though, I can see their rationale in using the Twitter Q&A as a tactic to tackle things head on and be seen to be ‘transparent and open’ with its customers, but the PR team should’ve known better. To me, their main mistake was timing.

Timing is essential for getting maximum impact but in this case it should’ve been more about having the right impact and this would’ve helped them to time the Q&A more appropriately. Isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing? But hopefully BG will learn from this for next time. And you can guarantee there will be a next time, probably October 2014.

Rachel Meagher

Account Director 

You can’t forget the past by pretending to be something else tomorrow

We've all witnessed Miley Cyrus very publicly trying to break free from her whiter than white Hannah Montana Disney character image, and her latest antics have sparked yet more controversy. Not only did the 20-year-old pose provocatively for Terry Richardson, she has also hit back at Sinead O’Connor’s open letter, in which she pleads with Miley not to let the music moguls ‘make a prostitute’ of her.

Sinead’s comments were in response to an interview the young pop singer did with Rolling Stone magazine, where she revealed that the video for her latest single, Wrecking Ball, was inspired by Sinead’s legendary video, Nothing Compares 2 U. Ouch.

However, Sinead makes an important point in her (slightly ranting) letter, calling on Miley to ditch the fabricated persona that she has adopted in an obvious and see-through attempt to be recognised as a “bona fide” pop star – simply stating let the talent you have speak for itself.

Trying to engineer something that you’re not, whether it’s a person, brand, product or business is no smart move. It will undoubtedly lead to controversy and break any trust you may once have had.

A business’s reputation is earned through its actions and behaviours; it’s shaped by where it began, where it is today and where it wants to be in the future. It’s our role as PRs to ensure our clients’ talents receive the recognition they deserve, but only authenticity will secure the longevity and growth of their business.

Alexandra Underwood

Account executive 

The Feedback Loop

 Do you give good feedback? Let me re-phrase that.

Is the feedback you give saying as many good things about you, as it is about the subject of your review?

We’re all accustomed to dishing out feedback, whether we’re reviewing a fabulous or disastrous holiday venue, providing a glowing testimonial for a colleague/mate/ex-boss/would-be-client on LinkedIn, or explaining to an unsuccessful candidate why they didn’t make the cut.

Particularly in situations where feedback is published for the world to see, it’s very clear that our expressed view is going to influence the reputation of the person or organisation we’re rating. This is powerful, and brands must have the courage of their conviction to ask questions of their publics, listen and act where necessary on the feedback they get.

Wise businesses understand the value of asking their customers what matters to them; who wouldn’t want to know the ‘secrets’ of winning our customers’ favour? It’s so easy for us to make assumptions on the reasons customers buy from us, but when was the last time you took the time to ask? That’s as true for us as PR consultants as it is for the clients we advise.

Reflected influence

There’s a balance of power when it comes to who gains from the feedback process, in which we tend to attribute all the ‘influence’ (power) to the person or organisation that’s giving the feedback.

Common sense, surely, that when we submit ourselves to the whim of our reviewers – will they love us or tell the world that we’ve failed utterly to meet their expectations – the reviewer has the power to make or break our reputation.

It struck me this week, however, that in a business-to-business scenario at least, the feedback process reflects on the reviewer too.

Here’s an example that will be familiar to many PR agencies, and probably to other sectors besides. We’re invited to submit credentials at the start of a tender review process. They outline a process that leaves some room for interpretation (I’m being nice, it was unclear). We ask for clarification, they reply but don’t answer the question. We submit credentials. They tell us, in a very polite email, that we’re not shortlisted. We ask for feedback. Radio silence.

This prospective client had the chance to impress the pants off us even if we were not destined to work together. We could have fallen a bit in love with them, become regular customers, told our friends and family how this was the one that got away which we’ll always regret…

Instead I find myself thinking they’re a bit amateur, a bit second division, probably would have been a hellish client.

That’s the thing about reputation and influence; it’s not all contained within a PR plan, it’s embedded in the way we conduct ourselves ‘on and off camera’.

So, my parting thought. Next time you’re asked for feedback, pause a moment and just consider ‘the feedback loop’: every action (or inaction) has a not-necessarily-equal-or-accurate reaction.

Sarah Bryars

Chief Executive

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at www.freedigitalphotos.net

Adverts – you either love them or hate them

This week, Marmite’s new ad campaign, which features jars of the product being ‘saved’ by rescue teams from the back of consumers’ cupboards, has caused outrage from some viewers, leading to the Advertising Standards Authority receiving almost 400 complaints.

Described by complainants as being in ‘poor taste, deeply offensive and trivialising the work of animal welfare charities and child protection agencies’, it joins a list of ads that have offended consumers.

Despite this, it’s actually far from the most complained about ad, which for 2012 went to the Go Compare adverts, with almost 2,000 complaints.

As a result, we have seen Marmite’s PR team leap into action and show the PR world how to respond to listen to consumers and respond to a crisis in the right way. They could have just issued a statement to clarify its relative metaphorical humour, however they have taken it one step further and decided to make a donation of £18,000 to animal welfare charity, the RSPCA. For me, this shows professionalism in dealing with the situation and it’s a great result for the RSPCA too.

This is a strong example of the power of the consumer and emphasises the need for every PR or marketing campaign to be executed with precision and compassion. Get it right and you can win the hearts and minds of consumers, but get it wrong and you can severely damage your reputation.

But, with animal cruelty among one of the top themes which is likely to provoke a complaint, I did ask myself why Marmite would even run the risk of causing offence among viewers and ending up with a potential crisis.

Well, whether you like it or not, it has undoubtedly been effective at creating conversation about the product. The advert is obviously designed to be light hearted, and it sits well with the brands strap line, ‘love it or hate it’.

And let’s face it, there will always be someone who disapproves or takes offence, but as with anything in life unless you take the risk you will never achieve anything.

Hannah Dudek

Account Executive

11 years in power; one tremendous divide in opinion

It seems most appropriate to use that somewhat overused and infamous brand strapline to sum up the nation’s divided opinion of the late Margaret Thatcher – ‘you either love it or you hate it’. Not a fan of using such a strong word as hate, but her death has certainly conjured up reactions resembling the uproar she caused during her time in power.

I should really state at this point my first hand experience of Mrs Thatcher is hugely limited, having been born in the late 80s (I was a bambino of the John Major era). Therefore my musings are simply a view of the nation’s reaction. It’s great to see younger generations discuss, engage and debate politics, but rioting, jumping on the download bandwagon to ensure a certain song  commemorates her passing and publishing poorly formed tweets are pretty despicable acts and certainly something this twenty (something) year-old cringes at.

Throughout history there have been notoriously loved and hated public figures...Richard III, Robin Hood, Jeremy Clarkson, (Damien Hurst, Bansky, Tracey Emin, Germaine Greer, Jade Goody, Russell Brand, list could continue). The two things that make me sit on the fence about Margaret Thatcher, are firstly, she was a woman, our first lady Prime Minister; although I’m pretty sure she wasn’t a bra burning women’s libber, there is a great deal of respect to be had for someone who achieved such a historic landmark in a time when “equality in the work place” was far from common practice. Secondly, this iron lady served and stood as Britain’s PM for an impressive 11 years, winning three general elections. Talk about stating the obvious here, but to win a general election you have to be voted for.

You don’t receive the title the ‘Iron Lady’ for being a pussy cat, from my understanding Lady Thatcher knew what she wanted and indeed how she was going to get it, regardless of who may have been standing in her path, which is where the divide appears - those who fell fowl to the changes she implemented and those who believed the changes were for the greater good of the country. Perspective and experience is everything.

There will undoubtedly be conflicting views and opinions on any public figure that is charged with representing the interests of all of us, despite the way we vote. Tough choices will bring hardships, often to those least equipped to deal with it. But what is central at times when these tough decisions have to be made, is the buy in of trust. Trusting an individual in power - much like the reputation of a business – can take years to gain and build upon. However, all that hard work can come crumbling down in a split second – especially in today’s world, thanks to our ever evolving social media habits.

Like her or loath her, Margaret Thatcher left a legacy that changed Britain forever.

Alex Underwood

Account Executive