Ewan Robertson's Media Blog

Mr Stripe, Dazzlephant and James Bond are just three of the characters that have put smiles on the faces of Londoners this summer. Residents and visitors to the Capital were treated to a visual feast as 260 brightly painted, life-sized, fibreglass elephants appeared across the city. these sculptures were designed to raise awareness of conservation efforts for Asian Elephants.

Each elephant featured a unique design created by such luminaries as Alice Temperley, Tommy Hilfiger and Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla. Organised by the charity Elephant Family (hyperlink

The inspiring initative generated over £4 million when the sculptures were auctioned for charity and also engaged members of the public from all walks of life. While the beautiful sculptures themselves could only be purchased by those with large enough wallets, establishing a shop in Selfridges selling miniature versions of the designs ensured that everyone could feel they were making a contribution.

So while not everyone had £25,000 to purchase a sculpture of their own, people delighted in finding an elephant on their route to work or tracking one down via the organisers’ interactive online map. By dispersing the elephants in public spaces across the city Elephant Family ensured that the campaign felt inclusive, with people quickly picking their favourites (though how anyone could look beyond Ziggy by Matthew Williamson is beyond me).

So what can communications professionals learn from the Elephant Parade? Firstly, while years of experience have made many of us cynical that only bad news sells papers, this campaign showed it is possible to secure cut through with uplifting positive ideas.

Secondly, it demonstrated the power of creating truly integrated campaigns, incorporating experiential activity, traditional PR, social media activity and advertising. In a world where communications campaigns are increasingly targeted at specific demographics and select media platforms it is great to see a successful multi-channel initiative with mass market appeal.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so expect to see waves of animals filling the streets next summer. We have already seen naked statutes of Anthony Gormley atop vantage points across the city, a smattering of open access pianos and an invasion of fibre glass cows. Don’t be too surprised next summer if we see statuettes of boars in Westminster and sharks in the city.

This quote is eminently applicable to the media, for whom objectivity and a search for the ‘facts’ seems to be in ever shorter supply.  Increasingly speculation and conjecture is presented as fact, taking the place of real news.  The ‘truth’ is merely an individual’s interpretation of events, which gains credence through repetition and endorsement.  However, this recognition does not mean that journalists should not strive to report as objectivity as possible and present information that approximates what we perceive as facts rather than conjecture.   

Reports on the manhunt for the now deceased fugitive Raoul Moat exemplify the current trend for fabricating news.  Television news broadcasts featured a motley crew of ‘experts’ from psychologists speculating on the ‘crazed’ gunman’s state of mind, to specialists on Northumbria’s walking trails and countryside.  Viewers were treated to such insightful musing as, Moat could be ‘hiding in a forest’ and ‘is likely to be mentally unstable.’ Wow what incredible insight, the man that accused his ex-girlfriend of sleeping with the policeman heading the case that saw him sent to jail and shot three people might be unhinged!   

This problem is exacerbated by the trend for a single news story to dominate television bulletins, taking up the vast majority of a broadcast and relegating other items to a cursory round-up.  With few hard facts available news teams are forced to fill airtime with speculative commentary and irrelevant puffery.  Two-way interviews with a journalist ‘live from Northumbria’ merely served to repeat what few new revelations had been leaked out and had been presented earlier within the same bulletin.  In an increasingly globalised marketplace there can be no excuse for a single story to completely dominate the news agenda.    

There is also an argument to be made that a lack of real news has led the media to over expose certain aspects of stories, where the public interest might be better served were they to remain unreported.  While reporting on the Moat case one news outlet provided a handy guide on ten ways a fugitive might evade capture.  While such piercing insights as ‘cross a river to put off sniffer dogs’ might have been stolen from an SAS survival handbook circa 1980, the individual that commissioned the feature might want to question whether they are acting in the public interest when producing such items. 

 A recent new report provided a simple terrorist training manual, listing the materials required to make a bomb and revealing that the internet has all the necessary information.  Yes most terrorists could track down information on bomb making via the web, but it makes it a lot easier if the ingredients are listed to be used as key words to speed a search.        

Perhaps it is time the media reappraised how items are presented and whether blanket coverage of a single story is desirable.  If the truth is out there, it certainly isn’t to be found in many of the UK’s ‘flagship’ news broadcasts.

As yet another public figure has been caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar we see the standard celebrity crisis response programme rolled out.  They should produce a manual, or teach celebrity crisis communications 101, as the response is entirely predictable. 

Take the case of Tiger Woods, who was caught in the ‘rough’ and saw graphic descriptions of his sexual escapades plastered across the globe.  Tiger followed the time-honoured celebrity redemption mantra, apologise publicly to your family, seek treatment at a clinic, withdraw from public view for a time and then re-emerge stating you are transformed and apologetic.  This strategy has been followed by such luminaries as Kate Moss, Chris Brown and err Kerry Katona.  Be they A list or decidedly Z list the strategy for rebuilding a shattered reputation is the same.   

Tiger’s team managed the crisis expertly given the circumstances, allowing the furore to die down before Tiger faced tough media questioning.  His first public interview was given to ESPN, a sports station, reinforcing his professional credentials and avoiding the lifestyle media.  The one failure was the crass Nike advert featuring a voiceover from his deceased father admonishing Tiger, which should have been avoided.  It would have been better to focus on redemption through sporting success. 

The Duchess or York used the power of Oprah to launch an impassioned defence of her misdemeanours.  Apparently, she was under the influence when promising access to her ex-husband for the princely sum of £500,000.  Royal connections are still enough to pull powerful strings with the media in America it seems.  In the UK she might have been forced to resort to apologising in the likes of Hello! or OK! magazines.      

One could question whether a public apology is necessary when a celebrity has made private lifestyles choices.  Should public figures be forced to go before the cameras and apologise to their ‘fans’ for infidelity?  One could argue it simply reaps further humiliation of the wounded party and legitimises any allegations, allowing them to be played out in the media ad infinitum. 

Celebrity crises are not always handled reactively, often fierce negotiations and horse trading go on behind closed doors to try and prevent news leaking out or to ensure an understanding ear.  This results in either the celebrity outing themselves, making a heartfelt apology and receiving a sympathetic write up, or else the media outlet being offered exclusive access to a story at a later date – be it photos of their first born or wedding.

Handling a celebrity crisis handling was once seen as something of a ‘dark art’ handled by a small cadre of publicists and agents.  However, increasingly the process has become regimented, formulaic and predictable.  One thing is sure however, there will always be a ‘celebrity’ shocked to be exposed by a fake sheik, businessman or ex-partner in the media for acting inappropriately.

Selfridges & Co is a leading London department store; an emporium of menswear, womenswear, household goods, home entertainment and much more.  However, its Emarketing team seem to believe that the only people wishing to receive its email newsletter are women.  The glossy newsletter pings into inboxes across the globe featuring predominantly images of women’s clothing and accessories. Just a small tab links through to its menswear offering, but otherwise men appear to be given short shrift.  Surely given the breadth of its online and in store offering keeping marketing communications so narrowly focussed is costing the company sales and potentially alienating existing customers.    

This type of email marketing is not untypical.  Emarketeers all too often employ a single mail out to all subscribers, loading the content to make it gender specific.  There are a number of simple solutions; either have gender specific mail outs, determined through a tick box to opt in at sign-up, or balance and rotate the content of these emails for both genders.

Designers should try to make their email communications as intuitive and user friendly as possible.  Lastminute.com and Toptable both regularly produce fantastic Emarketing collateral that conveys their brand values, engages the consumer and undoubtedly drives sales.  Companies do not even need to invest significant resources in design, if the message meets the needs of the consumer.   Voucherscodes dispenses with expensive design conceits altogether, using a plaintext interface, which given the nature of the offering is quite acceptable.      

All too often firms fail to effectively translate the ethos and values of their brand in the online environment.  Given the maturity of the internet and email as communications platforms, surely at a Board level senior executives should be critically reviewing their company’s online presence.  A brand experience is now just as likely to be enjoyed by a consumer sat at their desk during work lunchtime, as it is to be found on a Saturday afternoon laden with shopping bags in store.

New York invasion

BskyB has revolutionised sports broadcasting in the UK and is at the vanguard of technological innovation in the sector. From introducing new computer analysis, player cams and 3D screenings of matches, Sky has changed the face of British sport. The Premier League has grown fat from Sky’s riches and armchair enthusiasts have access to more sports than ever before. Though the prices are not necessarily cheap for the consumer, does this mean it is Sky’s fault for building a successful business model? One cannot help but feel some sympathy for the Murdoch owned broadcaster as Ofcom has ruled it must cut the price it charges competitors for its premium sports channels Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 by 23.4%.

While it is hard to argue that consumers should have choice and value, in this case it appears Sky is being penalised for its success. While other broadcasters rested on their laurels Sky has scooped up the rights to more and more events. Setanta tried and failed to match Sky’s success, overpaying for rights without a sustainable model to pay for it.

What is so interesting in this case is that Ofcom was not responding to a complaint from consumers but from Sky’s competitors. BT, Setanta, Top Up TV and Virgin Media asked the regulator to look at the way BSkyB sells its premium content to its competitors. Sky does not have a monopoly and other broadcasters can bid for the rights it owns. We don’t see the OFT investigating industries where a firm signs an exclusive distribution deal for a product in the UK. How is it anti-competitive of Sky to buy rights on the open market and why should they be forced to share them?

 So what next? Sky will undoubtedly seek to delay proceedings by launching a legal injunction against Ofcom. It will be interesting to see who emerges victorious from what is likely to be a hard fought and potentially lengthy battle. What is also interesting is that the Government already has a list of protected sports events, which must be transmitted by either BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, Channel 4 and Five. Given the events broadcast on Sky 1 and 2 are not protected in the same way, surely it is up to Sky whether it sells the rights. Rival broadcasters such as ESPN certainly have the financial backing to muscle into this space should they desire. In addition, if the rights owner wants to make their sport as accessible to as many viewers as possible they could package the rights for multiple broadcasters. It looks as though Sky has fallen victim to competitors’ sour grapes.