PR FROM THE BEACH

Five awkward questions about the future of PR

Last year I gave a webinar for PRIA, the Public Relations Institute of Australia covering five awkward questions for the profession. As my blog languished during 2015, I thought I might pose some of the questions here via my edited notes for the session. To listen to the webinar  you'll have to head over to the PRIA site, but in the meantime, here's a long read covering a few of the issues I believe our profession must tackle in 2016.

Did Google's gifs shred media relations for good?

This week Google changed the media relations game. Now, it seems, we can send a cheery gif to mainstream media (via blog or our channel of choice) that expresses not only our organisation's perspective of the news story or issue but also a visual insight as to how we feel about it all.  

I have to say hats-off to Rachel Whetstone, SVP Communications and Policy at Google for her creative and honest approach.

Probably only Google - or possibly Facebook - could have got away with such a response at the moment but I suspect that other organisations will happily follow her lead as mainstream media diminishes in power and influence.

In the last year or so, other organisations have tentatively attempted to use their websites and other channels to correct the balance when it comes to mainstream media stories - even if it isn't with the panache displayed by Google's VP. All organisations are news publishers as well as news providers and so, as publishers, they can tell their own story, own their own narrative and explain their perspective on things. That's not to say that everyone will agree with their version of the story or even their perspective, but at least they have the opportunity to disagree with it at source rather than see a fragment, a smidge of commentary or a scanty quote buried in a third party's interpretation of a situation.

Over the decades, the journalist's call has struck dread in the hearts of many organisations - not because they don't want to comment or engage but because they know the chance of fair representation or balanced comment is remote. Publications and journalists alike arrive on the doorstep with an agenda (commercial or political) and will, in many instances, adjust the story to fit their predetermined frame - yet few practitioners have been brave enough to challenge the approach of those who are simply trolling for a tale.

Thankfully, journalistic integrity still exists - harder to find - but there nonetheless. For those journalists, concerned with fair reporting, breaking stories that inform, expose or prompt change, an insouciant organisational attitude will be unhelpful and damaging for all involved. 

It will be absorbing to watch the coming transformation. Will  journalists challenge the developing 'new norm' and will spokespeople be brave enough to challenge old school traditions in media relations? We shall see - but I suspect it may be some time before the evolution is complete.

 

 

 

 

A question of equality - the case for International Women's Day

I've been intrigued by female colleagues grumbling about International Women's Day. One said she was always taught that if you put your mind to it, you could do anything you wanted to and that having a 'women's day' actually marginalised women. I'm sure that if you are fortunate enough to be in an environment where the hardest part of progress is making your mind up to do something, then yes, it is possible to succeed and make it happen. But if you are oppressed, marginalised, subjected to violence and control - well then the strongest mind is going to have difficulty 'getting on and succeeding'. It is certainly going to be tricky if you are one of the 62 million girls worldwide denied any form of education.

International Women's Day does more than celebrate a gender. Inequality remains rife even if the advantaged fail to recognise its existence.  Statistics from the UK's Independent newspaper and elsewhere paint a grim picture that all people (not just men or women) should read, understand and take action to change.

Every job, profession or paid pursuit seems to include an automatic wage gap between men and women - with women always the lower paid. Our own profession of public relations and communication management is no exception.  The CIPR is trying to address wage equality although the UK is not alone in this - it is a global problem that must be addressed across the world and across all types of work. 

Here, the Executive Director of the UN Women's explains it well:

 

We still have much to do - gender equality is a required condition for the success of any global agenda but it won't happen without a shift in the power relations between men and women. 

So celebrate International Women's Day - shout and make a noise. Don't belittle it - instead, draw attention not just to the inequalities that exist but the solutions that would see such inequalities resolved. When the clock rolls over at day's end, take what we've learnt from others and start making some changes. Then, we might just start to achieve an equal world for all.

Je Suis Charlie - Nous Sommes Charlie

 

The murders of 12 people at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in France yesterday have left 12 families bereaved and bereft. In Egypt, Al-Jazeera journalists are still held in jail.Worldwide, in 2014, 61 journalists were killed. Everyday, around the world, people are being killed for speaking out, for not agreeing, for holding a different opinion or belief. 

The magazine satirises everyone - religions (of all kinds) politicians (of all kinds) and any topic, person or subject deemed worthy of lampooning. Since the murders, debate on the perceived 'rights and wrongs' of Charlie Hebdo content has been heated - here in New Zealand, remarks by a former broadcaster have prompted a storm of social protest.

But the focus should not be on debating the rights and wrongs of content. Instead, words and images that accurately describe the evil men who perpetrated this crime should be chosen with care. They are not fighters for a cause, warriors in a war or any other of the descriptors assigned to them.

They are murderers, pure and simple, who took the lives of 12 people and injured seven others. Their actions contravene civil and religious laws. They will be caught and granted a fair trial.

As for the rest of us, such murders should not constrain our thinking or our speech. The spontaneous vigils held throughout the night of the murders showered sparks of hope on a dark day - would that such vigils continue for the thousands upon thousands around the world currently at the mercy of other ruthless murderers.  

I would urge you to use your words to affect change - write on behalf of those, like the Al Jazeera journalists, imprisoned for doing their job. If you don't know where to start, then Amnesty International can guide you. Write to your politicians and media urging them to do what they can to encourage, rather than suppress freedom of speech and the spread of ideas. Speak out when someone is hounded on social media for an opinion or idea that contradicts, satirises or challenges convention. 

As Edmund Burke possibly remarked: 

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

Nous Sommes Charlie - nous devons tous parler.

 

 

Beware the creeping algorithms softly invading your privacy

Hot on the heels of the EU Court of Justice ruling around the 'right to be forgotten', I attended the Auckland Writers' Festival debate with Iraqi/English scientist Jim Al-Khalili, Dutch historian Frank Dikotter, New Zealand privacy expert Bob Stevens, and British broadcaster, writer and comedian Sandi Toksvig.  

Under scrutiny was the topic 'Is privacy an outdated concept' and, while Jim and Bob made some interesting points around the nature and history of privacy, Sandi and Frank won the night (for me at least) with their arguments in favour of retaining and strengthening rights to privacy both online and off.

What were they thinking? State Services Commission 'bans' tweeting at press conference

I thought it was a hoax when I first read the tweets from journalists at the State Services Commission press conference today - they had, apparently, been banned from tweeting. Then, later this afternoon, out came the story via the Herald and Newstalk ZB that this had, indeed, been the case.

It is beyond me that those in charge of this press conference could be so impossibly behind the times. Aside from demonstrating a complete lack of understanding as to mainstream media operation, how social networks, particularly Twitter, break and drive the news, not to mention the seismic culture shift of the last ten years, surely common sense would tell you that to 'ban' journalists from doing anything when you've called them together is a bit like the old red rag to a bull?

A few years ago, New Zealand's State Services Commission were actually quite innovative when it came to social and digital policy.  Obviously something has gone wrong - very wrong - for this to have happened today.  I would recommend a refresher course in basic communication management along with a PR101 session for all those involved.

So has the first Cyber War begun?

Amazon has now had a blip, Mastercard and others have experience distributed-denial-of-service attacks and Saturday's UK Guardian announces that the hackers claim the first global cyber war has begun.

Back in 2006, when I first stumbled on the film 'V for Vendetta' you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who would go along with the conspiracy theories that fuelled the plot. After all, they would say, nothing like that could possibly happen in this day and age - we're much too smart. And besides, ordinary folk just don't get off the benches and do that sort of thing. Interesting then that the Anonymous group, alleged to be behind the attacks, has adopted the Guy Fawkes mask from the film as their collective avatar as they ostensibly stand up against the demise of the WikiLeaks site and arrest of Assange. But are they the 'ordinary folk' behind the mask that they purport to be? Elsewhere the hackers have been described as ordinary people rising up to 'right the wrongs' they perceive to have occurred. There are definitely some serious wrongs going on in this sorry saga, but I do wonder if these 'ordinary hackers' are sincere in their stand for 'the people's rights' , whether they have stopped to consider the consequences of their actions or whether they are merely keen to exercise a little anarchistic muscle.

It might seem inconsequential for most of us - something happening beyond our control out there in cyberspace - where, let's face it, many mostly go to check Facebook, chat on Twitter or email out some Christmas greetings.  Truth is, even if claims of the first global cyber war have been exaggerated, the implications of the online actions of all those involved - from WikiLeaks, to Governments, hackers to downloaders - are considerable.

I've written about this before (back in 2007) and again more recently following the China hacks and we all need to be concerned, aware of what can and can't be done in such circumstances and also - most importantly - that the web is not the bastion of free speech that many of us would like to believe it to be.  Frustratingly, not many people seem to care and, worryingly, there is very little collective business, individual or organisational will to address the problems this sort of denial of service can cause or to address the social and economic impact it will have on the real ordinary people who will find they can't get their money, or buy food or operate within a system increasingly dependent on online interactions. Somehow I can't see the hackers themselves coughing up the cash refused to the hungry, cold pensioner because 'the computer says no'.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the players who withdrew services from the WikiLeaks site did so to maintain their political licence to operate, rather than to ensure everyone toed the line when it came to site terms and conditions. Shame should rest on the political masters who may have engineered such reactions.  I am also convinced that at least some of the hackers currently dealing out 'payback' are doing it because the WikiLeaks affair provides a useful sandbox environment that allows them to see just how far they can get. Now, as always, two wrongs don't make a right.

As with all wars, the innocent are the ones caught in the middle and even a cyber war will see casualties mounting. Sadly, I suspect the first great loss will be the opportunity the web provides for Freedom of Speech. Another bleakly Orwellian view I can glimpse is that Freedom of Thought would be the next human right to bite the dust as first the governments, then the web giants, then the hackers seek to control - from behind their respective and particular masks - what we say and do online and off, as well as what we are allowed to hear and see.

 

It's NOT ok to feed the oglers

Long story short, the ladette website nzgirl has launched a 'campaign' purporting to 'raise awareness' for breast cancer, paying $1000 dollars per 50 photos of readers' breasts uploaded to their site.

Over the years we've had astroturfing, greenwashing, pinkwashing - and now we have boobwashing. The site claims it's all in a good cause. The site fails to say exactly which breast cancer charity they will be paying the money to. They also trumpet the fact, via Twitter and elsewhere, they have 'removed' advertising around the publication page. Yeah right. Big deal. It is still a cynical and distorted means to drive traffic to the site - the only 'awareness' raising being done here is for nzgirl, its website and the long-term ad rate it will be able to charge on the strength of distorted visitor numbers.

I've lost several nearest-and-dearest to breast cancer and currently count among my closest friends two survivors and one mid-fight.  I asked them - and those around them - what they thought of this slapstick and juvenile enterprise, thinking maybe it was just me, maybe I'd got a bit set in my ways. Their unanimous verdict was the same as mine - it is unethical, undignified and unacceptable.  

nzgirl has accused detractors and critics of being 'PC' - well yes, I am - Perfectly Cynical in my view of the means, motives and outcomes for this pathetically purile publicity promotion.

To me, it is sadly proof that the young and the bright among us can still manage to stoop to the nasty, tawdry 20th (even 19th) century Phineas T Barnum stunt school of cheap publicity.

nzgirl has succeeded in creating a circus today with the media as ringmaster and the unwitting - and probably well-meaning -  supporters the dancing bares.

In many ways, it's a sad indictment of our society. Long after the circus has left town, the oglers (probably the same ones who line the streets for the Boobs on Bikes debacle every year) will still be pushing up the visitor numbers at NZ Girl, which has effectively bought itself a peepshow for a few grand. New Zealand girls and women deserve better than this, as do all those who have and continue to battle this disease.

 

PS: I've come back to this post this evening, having read two other blog posts on the same subject. First from Lance Wiggs and second, via @CateOwen's tweet, some great observations from Boganette. Both well worth a read.

Would you join 'National Naked Scanner Opt-Out Day'? TSA faces People's Revolt

Today, Wednesday 24 November, has been dubbed 'National Naked Scanner Opt-Out Day' in the USA in protest at the new full-body scanning devices now installed at airports across the country. Travellers crossing the States on one of the busiest travel dates of the year - tomorrow being Thanksgiving - are being urged to refuse the scanner and opt instead for the even less pleasant invasive pat down.

Essentially, the public's agreement for the intense security measures employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is being withdrawn and the issue is leading, slowly but surely, to a withdrawal on the part of the public of the TSA's 'licence to operate' - in short, it is a real public relations crisis.

Having been travelling the last few weeks, crossing the USA, UK, Europe and finally Hong Kong, the issue of airport security and the way in which it is handled has been much on my mind.  Although I had my share of adventures, I did not experience anything like the search suffered by the six-year-old boy in the YouTube video below.  Social media is being used as the catalyst to encourage people in the USA to take part in the 'opt-out'. How effective it will be, I really don't know - fear plays a part for travellers who are loathe to do anything that might draw attention to themselves, not because they are plotting some ghastly event, but simply because they don't want to undergo the humiliation, rudeness and downright nastiness displayed by some of those responsible for 'heightened security'. It is interesting to see that the 'fear' barrier so cleverly and effectively erected by the powers-that-be since 2001 is now being dismantled as people lose patience with a system that tags them as 'suspects' and subjects them to humiliating and very personal scrutiny just for heading off to visit Grandma.

What has happened, I believe, is that the balance has been lost.  Security in Auckland is tight but polite. We understand the need for vigilance but nobody is treated like a criminal just because they are travelling - something which is, unfortunately, often the case at USA airports. In Hong Kong, Zurich and Geneva again, security was tight, but passengers were treated with courtesy and responded with cooperation, a match which, if anything, speeds up the whole process.

Somewhere along the line, the powers-that-be in the USA have got so absorbed with the implementation of security measures, they have forgotten the purpose - to catch the baddies, not harass the travellers. Even Hilary Clinton has been added to the list of those unhappy with the process. The sad fact is the real 'baddies' will find ways through even the most ingenious and stringent security measures as they have proved in the past. Meanwhile the rest of us suffer indignities, delays and humiliation or, as is the case with the organisers of Opt-Out day, work out a way to redress the balance and have their voices heard.

 

Internet Access a 'human right'? Finland finishes first in making it work

Today, Finland becomes the first country in the world to enshrine internet access as a legal right for its citizens. This piece from the BBC provides a quick overview of what has been accomplished, and follows on from the BBC survey earlier this year which identified access as a fundamental right. The Finns passed their bill in October 2009 and the aim is to provide citizen access to 100mbs - by right - in 2015.

Last year, France declared in its courts that internet access was a human right and other countries are following suit - but Finland wins the game today with its activation of last year's law.

Here in New Zealand, where we still struggle with connectivity, an effective duopoly of provision between Telecom and Vodafone with a few minnows struggling upstream, means the statistics are not so good. In Finland, 96% of the population is already on line. With a population of 5.3m, that's not so much bigger than us, yet Statistics NZ's number release in April this year advises that only 1m Kiwis are active broadband users, 80% are regular users but rural populations are still struggling along on dial-up.

There was a reasonable and robust programme of digital engagement under the last NZ government. Since John Key and the Nationals were elected, there has been far less emphasis and discussion on how we can ensure that the digital divide is bridged - and bridged quickly.  Areas of access, digital literacy, digital education have all faded into the background. Sadly, basic infrastructure is lacking along with the will to change and despite our much vaunted Kiwi ingenuity, I fear that unless there is some real leadership, we will soon find ourselves far behind other countries in the world. And it is very easy to 'slip behind'.

Technology is a key enabler. It facilitates education, change, progress and problem solving. Access in itself is not a 'human right' but making it a 'legal right' certainly helps us all to improve the level of human rights around us.

Below is a great TED video from Hans Rosling from 2007, which looks at progress through the eyes of a very creative statistician, who demonstrates that change is possible, nothing is impossible - but we do have to be able to distinguish between goals and means if we are to make any progress at all.  I hope that our own New Zealand government uses Finland as a credible and praiseworthy example as to what is possible in the area of digital access and starts sorting out an infrastructure that will allow everyone here to benefit in the same way as the citizens of Finland.