Chameleon PR

Two weeks have passed since England’s national football team arrived home from the FIFA World Cup, and the buzz from South Africa is still ringing in their ears. The buzz, however, is not the result of excessive celebration after winning the world cup, Germany’s fantastic performance in the first knockout stage saw to that. Instead, the ringing was the result of the Vuvuzela, an instrument so annoying that many fans in the UK turned away from the action.

The 2ft plastic horn, which produces a droning monotone note, became the unofficial symbol of the World Cup in South Africa, with fans from every nation embracing the instrument on match day. Football lovers in the UK, however, were not so embracive, comparing the noise to ‘a swarm of killer bees’.

Research carried out by OnePoll.com revealed that six out of ten fans who tuned in at home were doing so with the volume turned down in order to silence the constant horn-blowing, and over 70 percent of those interviewed called for the instrument to be banned from stadiums altogether.

The criticism did not come from fans alone. High profile footballers such as Portugal and Real Madrid ace Cristiano Ronaldo also condemned the noise, stating: ‘It is difficult for anyone on the pitch to concentrate. A lot of players don’t like them, but they are going to have to get used to them.’ Websites, such as antivuvuzelafilter.com, even went as far as to create a download which generated a series of inverted sound waves in a bid to cancel out the noise.

But did the instruments really ruin the World Cup? Sure, the constant droning of a single note can irritate even the most hardcore football fan, but was it in any way different to the drunken, and often abusive, chants screamed across English terraces?

Reports suggesting the vuvuzela could have been banned from stadiums were quickly quashed by FIFA chief Sepp Blatter, and I for one welcomed the move. The vuvuzela, despite its irritating tendencies, is a part of the footballing tradition in South Africa, and something which the locals are proud of. If the instruments were banned, would the South American dancers, who flock to stadiums up and down their continent, also be repressed in Brazil during the 2014 World Cup? Would the Mexican wave follow suit?

Although I’m in little rush to purchase ‘the horn of Africa’ myself, the vuvuzela should be embraced as a colourful aspect of the World Cup, one which gave locals the chance to express themselves to the world. I do still hope it’s confined to South Africa alone, but with Sainsbury’s pushing to sell 75,000 vuvuzelas by the tournament’s end, you can expect to hear the unforgettable sound at a football ground near you.

Until then, we still have one more semi-final to look forward to, with my money placed firmly on Germany to avenge their Euro 2008 final loss at the hands of Spain. Indeed, whoever progresses from tonight’s semi-final, expect a mouthwatering clash against the Netherlands in Cape Town on Sunday, with the Dutch aiming to lift their first Jules Rimet Trophy.

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…

Traditional media advertising, spanning the printed press to television, is set to take a backseat in the economic recovery (such as it is) with new technology expected to revive the industry.

At least that is according to an annual survey carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers which was published in The Times yesterday. Revenue across the advertising industry fell almost 4% last year, dropping slightly below £50 billion. Spending on television advertising in the UK alone fell 11% in 2009, with radio fairing little better at a slump of 7% over the same period.

Yet PwC is forecasting that revenue across the entire industry is expected to grow until 2014, where it is likely to top the £60 billion mark (20% up on 2009). Much of this growth is expected to come from digital media outlets.

As recession has rocked the economy, demand for smartphones, such as the iPhone, Blackberry and Android devices, has continued to grow. With its ability to target the consumer round the clock, the portability of the smartphone has become the advertising industry’s dream, linking the industry to over four billion worldwide mobile users.

While the smartphone currently makes up only a minority of mobile devices on the market, the increased availability of high-speed mobile broadband, and operator subsidies aimed at boosting data traffic, expect these numbers to grow considerably for the foreseeable future. Indeed smartphones, along with tablet computers such as the iPad, will inspire a revival in the advertising industry. PwC says mobile advertising revenue will reach £335 million by 2014, a rise from £75 million in 2009. While these figures seem small in comparison with the overall revenue expected to be generated by the industry, the sharp rise in mobile advertising cannot be ignored.