Posts Tagged ‘communication’

What is it about national print coverage that gets in-house PROs so excited?

Ruder Finn recently launched its Future of Communications report, based on a survey of 100 in-house Public Relations Officers (PROs) and 20 in-depth interviews with PROs.

The research, which looked at in-house PRO attitudes to digital communications, threw up a number of interesting angles including the inconsistent costing of digital services which Ruder Finn UK MD Nick Leonard discusses here.

But for me the most interesting was the fact that nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of PROs said that given the choice between getting their story placed in a national newspaper or the online version of the same publication, they would choose print. Even the supposedly more tech-savvy technology PROs still preferred the print to online coverage.

There is nothing wrong with being more comfortable with what you know, but a fear of the unknown shouldn’t blind PROs to the more obvious benefits of the digital world. Online press coverage is permanent, more likely to be read by someone you really want to read it and contributes to your search rankings; a newspaper is here today and gone tomorrow.  I know national print coverage has that wow factor, but in terms of tangible impact on a clients’ business is it really worth more?

What do you think – do you work in-house? What is it about national print coverage that really gets you excited? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

John Lydon enjoying some margarine

Much of my PR experience has been in business technology so the opportunity to use a celebrity to endorse a product/service has been thin on the ground. However, I am fascinated how brands choose celebrities and what effect they then have on awareness/sales/buzz and also on why public figures choose to endorse certain products – apart from the filthy lucre of course.

There have been two recent advertisements that have really surprised me - John Lydon for some margarine or t’other and Iggy Pop for a car insurance firm. Two of the most anti-establishment figures around in their seventies heyday and possibly the least likely people to pop up on TV advertisements - who would honestly have picked them as brand ambassadors? Yet both ads have attracted a lot of attention, and according to Brand Republic the John Lydon one has been hugely successful, with an 85% increase in sales. If you had said to Johnny Rotten in 1977 that he would end up hawking margarine on TV he would have had some choice words to say to you. And he would no doubt defend his right to do so now, but he remains an unlikely brand figurehead despite the campaign’s success.

The same goes for Iggy Pop and whatever car insurance it is he is flogging. I am not even sure that Iggy Pop is famous enough to do an ad like this. Anyone that had heard of him and knew his music would be vaguely appalled at the thought, whilst everyone else would be wondering who that weirdo is, ranting about the ‘gift of time’.

It is rare to see credible celebrities doing work of this nature but if it works I guess the brands aren’t complaining. Are these former punks really so short of a few quid though, that they are willing to compromise their musical legacy? Do John and Iggy really use the products they are endorsing (I think Iggy’s insurance premiums would be off the scale, what with all the, ahem, lifestyle choices he has made)? In a way it seems unfair that say, Eva Longoria can advertise ice cream and people don’t think any less of her (not that she looks like a choc ice has come within a yard of her) but for musicians and/or ‘edgy’ personalities it seems much more of a sell-out.

Or maybe other people aren’t as sensitive about punks in adverts as me.