Chameleon PR

At the end of a recent pitch the prospective client asked how much value we could deliver in our proposed relationship. Our answer was “that pretty much depends on you.” This response was met with a momentary silence, a raised eyebrow and a face that said: “Typical – yet another slippery PR consultancy that won’t commit to targets!”

Then we explained. The ensuing discussion was very interesting as the potential client started to appreciate the real rights and responsibilities of the client/consultancy relationship. At the most basic level, clients have a right to expect a stream of agreed results but it’s their responsibility to enable the consultancy to deliver its best work.

From the agency side, where you live or die by hitting targets, it’s obvious that the effectiveness of the service delivered is directly impacted by the efficiency of the client. Yet from the client side, it isn’t always so clear.

Ever faithful to the maxim ‘keep it simple, stupid’ in getting across an apparently contrary point, we deftly avoided the usual over-blown consultant spiel that involves copious magic quadrants, inverted pyramids, normal distribution curves and so on. We even sidestepped discussion of measurement models, but, guilty, we did grab a Nobo pen and draw a couple of concentric circles on a whiteboard.

An electronic version of the resulting minimalist masterpiece accompanies this post. You’ll notice that one circle is very much smaller than the other. What the areas of the circle in our model represent is the time and effort taken to achieve a single CEO interview in a major publication.

The small circle represents the estimated resources needed to create a pitch for a CEO profile piece for hypothetical client A.

The process is this: Agree target media; ring an appropriate journalist; pitch story; secure a face-to-face interview; set a time and place; produce a briefing document and host it. Communicate with client all the way through. Allow for post interview follow up, analysis and agreeing next steps in the PR strategy. That’s it.

The large circle represents the estimated time taken to create a pitch for a CEO profile piece for hypothetical client B.

The process is this: Spend days to agree the media to be targeted; get the original pitch approved after endless versions as client announces stream of strategies de jour; ring an agreed journalist; pitch story; secure a face-to-face interview; set a time and place; uninvite the originally-secured journalist because of a change of heart at the client about who the CEO is prepared to meet; secure a second interview; change the agreed venue for the interview; and then later alter the time of the interview at the client’s behest. Produce a longer briefing document than originally agreed, at which the CEO will not even glance because they don’t have time and care even less; drop out of hosting the meeting because someone in-house wants to host it, but feels they need an in-depth briefing so they can brief the CEO about the briefing that they are now hosting; conduct briefing over the phone and supply complete summary of what you just said. Ring journalist to explain you won’t be there as expected.

Reluctantly, call the journalist again after the interview to find out how it actually went as the client appeared to star struck by their proximity to the CEO to take note of the conversation and when the article will appear; order multiple copies of the magazine at client’s request; and then raise the number of magazines pre-ordered as client changes their mind. And then revise down the number of magazines pre-ordered because the number of magazines ordered is now way too expensive, despite the client accepting the original estimate. Chase the publication house because the magazines haven’t been delivered, only to find they have arrived and were signed for days before but have been lost in the client’s internal post.

Having seen the copy, create an email ‘selling the results’ of the coverage so that the in-house team can copy and paste it for internal use, with a PowerPoint detailing just how important the coverage is and with an accompanying montage slide of the coverage itself. Then get a quote for a large coverage board dedicated to the coverage. And then produce the artwork for the coverage board, and two or three different versions of the coverage display, and then go through a tortuous related approval process whilst the client vacillates over corporate power structures. Subsequently discuss the number of copies, in endless size variations that are required, with quotes for every option. Of course, the final decision is changed at the last moment. Lastly, chase up the coverage board production company because the coverage boards haven’t shown up in time; only to find out they were signed for days ago, but got lost in the client’s internal post.

By this time, of course, the client CEO, couldn’t care less about the results of some interview they did in some country on their world tour weeks ago because it’s now ancient history and they are focused completely on the end of quarter results. Similarly their executive assistant doesn’t think some press cuttings stuck to a bubble-wrapped piece of board that has loitered behind their desk for days is important enough to interrupt their boss’ schedule in order to show them…

So, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry “a client’s gotta know its limitations.” The question is which client do you most resemble and which client is getting the most value out of their consultancy?

Answers below please…

Something over the past few weeks has been bothering me, and since noticing what it was, it’s now really starting to get on my nerves.

It’s people tweeting political messages.

Growing up, I was taught there were two things you should not discuss at the dinner table. Religion, and Politics. Both are very similar, in the respect that people can feel very strongly about what they believe. The reason for it being such a social faux pas to discuss over the dinner table is not only that people feel uncomfortable with their beliefs being questioned, but also due to individuals’ strong feelings relating to their political or religious beliefs. That ‘discussion’ can very quickly turn into a heated argument, especially when people make short, flippant comments, without properly considering their point before they make it. This ultimately leads to an awkward vibe over the table, where everyone has lost their appetite, and would much rather just go home then sit and listen to any more of the crap coming out the persons mouth sitting opposite.

One of Twitter’s downsides (and in some ways, it’s the thing that makes Twitter so great) is that you only have 140 characters to get your message across. This forces the author of the tweet to be very blunt, and owing to the nature of tweeting, authors are often not properly considering whether their tweet may be offending some people, especially when it comes to something like politics.

140 characters allows you to voice your opinion on a subject, but leaves no room for explaining your argument, or why you feel that way. This is why I believe that politics and twitter do not go hand in hand. It’s like taking those awkward one liners that ruin the dinner party out of any context, putting them in a frame and hanging them up for all to see.

• “Anyone who votes Tory is just a bad person or a mental person. There’s no other excuse really”
• “Anyone who votes Labour needs a slap”
• “Only a muppet who doesn’t understand politics would vote lib dem”

Tweets such as the ones above (all real, and taken from the general twitter stream) are directly attacking individuals and their voting beliefs, and quite frankly, there is not much difference in directly attacking religions either. There is no reason to directly oppose someone’s political beliefs in such an unfounded way, regardless of your own.

Coming up to an election, many of us are faced with the decision of who to vote for, and I like many have very considered and strong beliefs on who I think should be running this country. I’m not saying ban tweeting about politics altogether. Twitter is a fantastic medium for communication. However, there needs to be much greater consideration of the content of the tweet when discussing a subject people may feel very strongly about. 140 characters isn’t enough to get much of a logical argument across, but it is enough to offend.

I have to admit, I enjoy lists. Succinct, to the point, getting messages across without wasting anyone’s time. I recently read Chris Evans’ autobiography, who had the neat idea of preceding each chapter with a simple list.

Talking about his deal with Richard Branson back when he was at Virgin Radio, he lists 10 things necessary to get a deal done.

Timing
Groundwork
Energy
Honesty
Holding your nerve
Two willing parties
Money in place
Two men on the inside
A Pen

Whilst he didn’t list hiring a great pr agency as one of them (of course a fatal flaw!), this is a great and simple summary with points three and four of particular importance, be it business or personal. Energy, and honesty should always be a key part of business mantra!