by Leigh Andrews
on 01 February 2012
In this week’s editorial desk article, I wrote about the fact that the credibility of figures regarding readership, circulation and ad sales are often brought into question, yes this is often the basis for media planners making a decision to choose a certain publication, station or programme over another.
Added to this, a good two-and-a-half years ago, I blogged about the value of AVE in the PR industry, stating that it’s still used as proof of ROI, even when multipliers are used to reach the figure. Despite this, it is treated as the industry standard. After all, we tend to believe everything we read. There’s so much information bombarding us on a daily basis that we really need to remind ourselves to remain critical thinkers and to not believe everything that is presented to us at face value.
We turn to the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABCs) for circulation and readership figures, and SAARF’s Radio Audience Measurement Survey (RAMS), Television Audience Measurement Survey (TAMS) and All Media and Products Survey (AMPS) for the broadcast industry. But there’s more to it than just accepting a figure, slotting it into a system and deciding ‘this is our best option’. ADS24’s CEO, Linda Gibson, recommends that advertisers looking to get more bang for their buck should also look at various sales statistics when choosing the best print space: instead of just concentrating on ‘total circulation’, also look at core circulation figures, which include “the total number of subscriptions, copy sales and digital editions minus third-party bulk and ‘print media in education’ sales.”
So there you have it – the figures are out there, the methods are treated as industry standards ... but do you trust them? Do you look for more than what is presented and accepted as ‘fact’? Share your thoughts below.
by Darren Gilbert
on 01 February 2012
For all the talk about PR and what it can achieve, Lange 360 managing director, Ruth Golembo still believes that the industry suffers from a bad image. For her, there is a misunderstanding when it comes to what effective and strategic PR is all about. “Many clients come to us and say they want free publicity.” But of course, that is not how PR works. You need to have something that is worth saying first. She has already emphasised in my article that PR is not about spin. But what else? Here is her take on what PR is not.
“PR is not a press release.” This is a general problem when it comes to PR, Golembo believes. It is often equated to the distribution of the press release and while that might be an honest misunderstanding, it needs to be rectified. Instead, PR needs to be looked at like this: it includes press releases, yes, but it’s about much more than that. As she states in my article, PR is about creating trust around a brand and maintaining a reputation through a variety of channels.
“PR is not necessarily cheap.” Golembo likes to point to the anecdote of clients seeking out PR when they don’t have enough money for an advertising campaign. It’s a disappointing view of how seriously companies really take PR. To be fair, she did admit to it being more cost-effective in terms of building a reputation, but that doesn’t mean it is cheap. If you want PR to be effective, you need to treat it with respect. It’s not just a fun add-on to your advertising or marketing campaign.
“PR is not about asking the client how high to jump.” When it comes to a strategic level of communication, Golembo believes asking such a question of your client when they tell you to jump is just not worth it. “Unless I understand why I am jumping, find someone else to do it for you.” That may seem a harsh statement but it needs to be said. It also circles back to the introduction: have something worth saying first so that when you do go the PR route, you don’t waste your money.
There are other things that PR is not. It’s not free advertising, mere written communication, marketing fluff or balloons and parties. It is instead about providing people with credible reasons to believe in your brand.
by Darren Gilbert
on 26 January 2012
There is something that needs to be said about manufactured situations in advertising. Such advertising pursues these situations in an effort to create controversy. You don’t need to look further than an ad from Benetton to understand that. There is also another thought though: They can smack of desperation, a fact that FoxP2 managing director, Charl Thom believes leads to the damage of your brand. There is debate over how lasting that damage is, but that’s a whole different blog post.
So what about the Daso poster? Well, as I stated at the end of my article, there is certainly a hint of controversy surrounding the poster. However, that doesn’t necessarily make the poster controversial. In fact, it really isn’t controversial. I acknowledge it may be uncomfortable for some, but interracial couples are a reality. If it had come out 50 years ago, then I’d put up my hand and agree that it could be controversial. However, not now. In fact – and Artwell Nwaila, creative editor of COUP, backs me up here – if anything, the image is an outdated concept. “Posters of black and white people holding hands with a rainbow over their heads are as boring as hell.”
Neither does it smack of desperation. The reason behind the unveiling of the poster was to spark much-needed debate on the issue of race. And it did just that. Of course, there was a bigger debate than was expected with a lot of overreaction (such as Cosatu’s recent claim that it promoted “white supremacy”) but isn’t that what a thought-provoking (and not controversial) ad will do? It will cut to the bone and force you to confront issues and preconceived ideas. If an advert aims at representing the truth, how can it be controversial for the sake of it?
There is a big difference between a controversial advert that was made to shock and a thought-provoking one that was made to create debate. I feel the Daso poster, regardless of the reaction it has received, falls into the latter category, not the former.
Tags: No tags added
by Samantha Cook
on 25 January 2012
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t necessarily consider punting a green lifestyle one of my priorities.
Now, before you head in my direction with the stones and pitchforks, let me clarify: I don’t think that I have any authority to be lecturing others about their carbon footprint when I am yet to significantly decrease my own. Don’t get me wrong, I am trying (I recycle, my car is allegedly ‘environmentally-friendly, and I try to be more aware of the products and packaging that I buy), but I’m not 100% there yet, and quite frankly, I don’t expect anyone to take me seriously until these changes start making a difference.
This, I feel, is one of the predominant challenges faced by both green companies, and PR agencies that must publicise climate change issues. For companies and corporates, it is extremely difficult to convince fellow (or rival) companies of the benefits of introducing ways to reduce their carbon footprint, when those changes may mean a short-term financial hit, or the green company cannot show any immediate benefits of doing so. Similarly, PR agencies face an uphill battle when it comes to advocating for green changes in the corporate world, as it takes more than the average press release to get businesses on Planet Earth’s side.
However, this is why meetings and events like the 17th Congress of the People (COP17) and the World Climate Summit are so vital in promoting awareness around these issues, and introducing companies to green technologies, because these are times when the corporate world, and the greater country, are more susceptible to embracing this information, and the entire issue’s profile is raised. But did these events have the desired impact on corporate South Africa? I guess only time will tell.
Tags: No tags added
by Christine Greyvenstein
on 25 January 2012
There is a major difference between the three words I have used in the heading of this blog. There is also a very fine line between their meanings and this is where the problem comes in. There is nothing more irritating than receiving an over-the-top boastful press release. Not only does it make you cringe but also takes so much longer to rewrite and alter into something that is suited to post on your website or in your publication.
I honestly think there should be a control system that restricts the use of adjectives. I’m sure there is a way for companies to get their message across without sticking out its peacock tail feathers every time it has to issue a press release. Why do PRs and companies include flowery descriptions if they know that journalists will simply cut them out before publishing? Maybe they are just pushing their luck and hoping that their boastful statements somehow slip through.
How do you feel about boastful press releases? Are they really that annoying or is it just my own pet peeve? Leave your comment below.
