Chaos ensued as only two group members were allowed to star in the video and the other person had to film – inevitably this ensured that the point of the challenge was missed. Instead of spending the eight hours available to them coming up with a creative concept which might warrant spreadability, they bickered about who would be front of camera.

The results were pretty woeful. One group did a skit on Prince William and Kate Windsor (nee Middleton) on their honeymoon night, another also centred on the sex sells theme and spent the afternoon dressed as nuns flashing anyone that passed by and the third took the comic route of having someone dressed in a sumo suit exercising on the edge of a pond who was given a shove by a very Jim Carrey Riddler-type character. Despite being allowed to send the clip to one contact per group to spread the word and get the metaphorical ball rolling between them they didn’t manage even 1,000 hits. As one of the judges waspishly commented: “About as much buzz as wasp flying into a window”.

This just goes to show that creating a viral isn’t easy. What you may consider funny, isn’t to other people. The key is to think about what would make you forward something onto your friends. The programme rightly said that ad agencies (and indeed PR agencies) are increasingly turning to viral as a medium as it is a cost effective route to gaining wide scale awareness – however it is only cost effective if it does create wide scale awareness – otherwise it would probably be cheaper to place an ad in Downstream magazine (a specialist title for the Oil and Gas industry) which has more reach.

Viral isn’t easy and it just goes to show that not everyone with a camera can generate buzz; it is all about understanding how to get the clip correctly seeded out so that it does get those all important views. It is here that PR comes into its own. We have the skillset, the contacts and the heritage in creating conversations – both online and offline.

As a PR, I’m not remotely threatened by the damage Borkowski suggests will be wrought on my reputation, or that of my industry, by the characters in Absolutely Fabulous.  The show, arguably a classic of British comedy, is populated by caricatures and scripted around hyper-real situations, told to the audience in a familiar comedic format, set to a laughter track.  What’s more, it’s been part of the television landscape, on and off, for two decades.  Will its appearance really make any difference to how PR and its people are perceived, especially when it’s worth noting that with the greatest will in the world, these new episodes won’t stray more than a few drunken steps from the themes of the original, for fear of disappointing a nostalgia loving audience?

My issue with Borkowski’s viewpoint is twofold.  Firstly, it doesn’t matter what the wider audience thinks about Ab Fab; it’s what our audience thinks.  Are we really suggesting that client budget holders, the channel owners, the industry experts, the media at large, the users of our skills and services, will base their opinion on something that’s been part of the national consciousness for so long?  Anyone can tell I’m not from the Ab Fab mould within the first 30 seconds of meeting me, so what’s the worry?  And secondly, if we’re going to think about changing perceptions, shouldn’t our time and effort be focused on building on the existing stature and value of PR to these aforementioned audiences, so we’re able to secure even larger shares of the budget?  This, to me, should be based on what PR can and does achieve, and has nothing to do with bemoaning the misadventures of an obviously fictional character.

Yes, Lynne Franks received some stick through association, but that also didn’t stop her highlighting her role as the show’s inspiration (in true self-promotional style).  Say what you like about her but Franks has always been a smart PR operator, especially when she recognised the value her association with Ab Fab delivered over any negative connotations, and went on to build a career out of it.

Getting hung up on a TV show which the entire audience knows is nothing more than a fashion-conscious joke seems a little like overreaction, or perhaps it’s simply a way of Borkowski saying something mildly controversial to generate some self-promotion of his own.  I suppose that’s what ‘PR gurus’ are famous for.

This time however, direct marketers were ready. The industry comprising 280,000 jobs, the industry which contributes £27bn to the economy, the industry that created Tesco Clubcard joined together under the DMA and took a stand and let it’s voice be heard. And what a roar it made! Using social media and the hashtag #panoramamail debate whizzed round twitter; 574 tweets were logged reaching 48,000 people.  Eulogy! spent much of Monday seeding the hashtag and encouraging industry members, thought leaders and consumers to join the conversation whilst the programme aired. And judging by the buzz, the industry’s first foray into social media self defence was a resounding success. We felt proud to represent the industry.

Much has been said about the inevitable impact that Twitter and Facebook have had on our social lives (including this interesting piece from Gord Hotchkiss), but it really is incredible how strong the urge is to reach for the nearest mobile device when consuming media which once upon a time, used to be enough all on its own.  Take Masterchef, for example. I love Masterchef, as my colleagues and family will tell you, proven by my bookshelves groaning with cookbooks and my constant droning about how much I love Dhruv Baker, last year’s winner. However, when the long-awaited new series started last week, I spent so much time tweeting about how much I disliked the new format and finding out through Twitter / Facebook what everyone else thought, that I actually missed over half the programme.  When I tuned in again the next night, I forced myself to put the Blackberry down (well, actually, I was forced to because the rollerball broke), I realised that I actually loved the new format and I’d missed some cracking dishes the night before.

It’s not just about television, either.  As Hotchkiss rightly points out, we’ve now got to a point where social networking is starting to overshadow social interaction.  And I mean basic conversations with our friends and families.  I heard a client talking the other day about her two teenage children, who will sit on the sofa chatting to their friends for hours.  ‘How perfectly normal’, I hear you cry.  But these teenagers were not chatting in the verbal sense.  They were writing on each other’s Facebook walls. How sad that something so full of potential and innovation has turned into something which actually starts to negate all that it stood for in the first place: the ability to communicate.

So the moral of the story is that although it’s fantastic that we now have a medium, literally at our fingertips, with which to share and express opinions and pure joy about the programmes we love and the world around us, maybe it’s time we all gave in to the broken rollerball once in a while?  As my husband loves to tell me, maybe we all need to “stop talking about it and flipping watch it!!” And maybe even talk to each other once in a while?  Verbally?  Now there’s a thought…

Last year James Murdoch launched a really quite amazing attack on the BBC, claiming that “the scope of its activities and ambitions is chilling”. It’s worth reading that back and reminding yourself that this is from the man set to inherit the reigns to one of the world’s most powerful media conglomerates. And now that BSkyB has purchased Virgin Media, we can surely expect to see plenty more anti-BBC rhetoric coming from both camps. BSkyB itself is no stranger itself to concerns over market dominance, so just how much credibility should we, as consumers and license fee payers, attach to these concerns?

As far as BSkyB and Virgin Media are concerned, the BBC is harming competition across several of its platforms. The BBC was arguably the first to realise the huge potential in video-on-demand services, for example, and stole a march on its rivals with the launch of the iPlayer back in 2007. James Murdoch was again quick to voice his concerns, claiming that the iPlayer was launched as a “pre-emptive intervention” aimed at “squashing competitors” in the broadband TV market. Just a few months ago, the BBC came under fresh criticism (again, from James Murdoch) for looking to strike a deal with ITV and Channel 4, amongst others, to share content on the iPlayer platform.

Presumably Mark Thompson hasn’t been holding a gun to anybody’s head during these negotiations, which would theoretically result in more people accessing ITV’s and Channel 4’s content. It’s easy to understand why BSkyB would be concerned over the potential success of such a deal, but isn’t that just the nature of business?

The fact that the BBC is answerable to the BBC Trust gives its competitors the opportunity to play this same debate out in the newspapers which, with their vested interest, are happy to peddle the issue. If it is the job of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom and the BBC Trust to protect the interests of consumers and citizens and to promote competition, surely they should be encouraging the fact that the license fee contributes towards such innovation. And if that makes the wider industry up its game, all the better.

I’m a little behind on my TV viewing but last week I had the pleasure of settling down on the sofa to catch up on the new series of Dragon’s Den, which returned to our screens a fortnight ago. It’s a wonderful concept – you get to snigger and marvel at some of the more ludicrous ideas a la X Factor, but because it’s about ‘business’ you feel totally vindicated about watching.

True to its form the first episode included some howlers, such as a strange lighting system for street signs, which received the dubious accolade of being named the worst idea ever to be presented on the show. It also saw some exciting ventures that received investment from the Dragons including a Devon-based vineyard owner that was looking to fund his fractional concept – selling plots of the vineyard to consumers for a number of years, resulting in their own-brand sparkling wine  - I rather fancy a bottle of Dom Osmondignon, if I say so myself. http://www.pebblebed.co.uk/

However, the over arching success story of the first episode was Kirsty Henshaw, a young entrepreneur looking for investment for her frozen dessert business, which was borne out of her son’s food intolerances: http://www.worthenshaws.co.uk/. She clearly knew her stuff and had managed to get intent from the UK’s largest supermarket for a trial. The Dragons were clearly very, very impressed and it became obvious that a bidding war would ensue. She eventually ended up accepting a deal from ice cream aficionado Duncan Bannatyne and Reggae Reggae sauce success story Peter Jones. An excellent result for her business. Or is it?

My ears pricked up during her pitch when she asked for £65,000 for “branding and PR”. This sounds like a lot of capital for a fledgling business, but when you start breaking it down, you realise that it will soon diminish. Branding doesn’t come cheap so taking a reserved estimate you can expect that she would part with around £35,000, leaving £30,000 for PR, not to mention that she also needed to find the money to increase stock, so actually the PR budget would probably be even less. Given that the product is new and very different to the norm she would firstly need a trade PR campaign to introduce the dessert to the market and encourage buyers to list her. Once achieved it is likely she would want also to invest in consumer PR – spreading the word amongst the people that she wants to give her pudding freezer space. This is a huge task and one that certainly wouldn’t fit within the very modest budget that had been earmarked. This reminded me of a jewellery designer a few series ago that thought she could invest £500 a month in PR, but you have to ask yourself, what’s the point? You may as well save your money as £500 is not going to create a strategic campaign that delivers on the bottom line.

My point is that it seems many people have an unrealistic view of the price of PR – evidently some of the Dragons included. Only Mr P told her that £65,000 wasn’t enough and tried to offer her a further £35,000. I’m sure that behind the scenes, once the cameras have been switched off, the money that changes hands is actually very different to what we, as viewers, see. But even so it’s a depressing time for the PR industry when business stalwarts are undervaluing our market.

Nike has just launched its 2010 World Cup ad, featuring the likes of Wayne Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo, Didier Drogba, Kobe Bryant and Homer Simpson (yes, really). It’s slick, it’s blackly funny and representative of the excellent football ads we’ve come to expect from the likes of Nike. However, it’s the little intricacies that truly point to this being a great ad. Wayne Rooney in a trailer park and an egotistical statue of Ronaldo are strokes of genius – someone over at ad agency Wieden & Kennedy has truly got their head screwed on.

Apologies for the bleeding into the sidebar – widescreen YouTube is the bane of this blogger’s existance!

If we were to really nitpick, the only flaw with it is Ronaldinho’s appearance, despite him not being included in Brazil’s World Cup squad, points more to the pitfalls relying on ageing sports stars for an ad campaign than a failing of the ad itself.

But honestly, who cares? It’s an amazing ad – no doubt it’ll probably be the best thing we see all summer after England crash out in the group stages.

For a majority of consumers, 3D has always been about film, but a recent series of media developments have thrust into the mainstream.  Whether it be sport,  television or even the first-ever 3D catwalk at the Burberry’s  London Fashion Week show, I think we can safely say that nothing is off-limits from being ‘three-dimensionalised’.

Without question, the success of Avatar has had a huge impact, so much so that I wonder how long it might have taken the phenomenon to catch on if it wasn’t for the 3D James Cameron epic. Could we still be fumbling around with dodgy old novelty glasses with the lenses cut out and replaced with cheap blue and red cellophane? Probably not, but I don’t think that would be miles from the truth. For the general public, Avatar made 3D cool.

But the million-dollar question is where the technology will take us. The explosion of excitement around 3D makes it seem like anything is possible. Who knows, with the pace of technology in ten years’ time, 2D viewing might be as archaic as the gramophone. It’s even been mooted that 3D contact lenses could be the norm.

All this seems very exciting. But at the same time, I have to wonder if there’s going to be a bit of a backlash.  How much do we really want to see a close-up of a sweaty rugby player as he grapples with four other guys in the scrum, or a malnourished model limping towards us on her way down the catwalk?

Whatever your opinion, 3D is upon us and this time it would seem well and truly here to stay.

How much does this impact the realism of the storyline? Well apparently enough for the Government to decide that it’s time to abolish laws preventing product placement on UK television screens. Although the BBC remains exempt, as do children’s programmes, this is one of the biggest changes in our recent television history.

But does it work? The Government’s own research has found that less than a quarter of people have felt influenced to buy something after seeing it on a TV show. So why are advertisers so keen to get their products in our programmes?

When the cast of The Hills cruise in their Lexus and Porsches, the judges of American Idol carefully display Coca-Cola or Carrie splurges on yet more Choos –  millions are watching. And it’s not just about getting in front of people. The subtle, or not so, power of association can be worth more than any cheque, and brands are clamouring to align themselves with the aspirational characters we love to watch. 

As broadcasters wrestle with the ever-tightening grip of declining ad budgets product placement represents a fruitful source of revenue. Ad funded programming has sailed silently into our TV schedules and we’ve hardly even noticed. Plus more budget means more new commissions, so surely we’re onto a good thing?

A word of caution. Done wrong, product placement ruins the programming it’s supposed to enhance and alienates viewers. The rules are clear. For consumers it has to be relevant and fit the context of the programme. For brands it must align with their broader strategy and create a meaningful engagement with the audience.

There has been a slew of TV channel rebrands in recent years, from the now ubiquitous Dave to the more obscure Alibi and Yesterday.  There’s even a channel called ‘Really’ – really?

Eulogy! client Comedy Central was one of the more recent rebrands.  Formerly Paramount Comedy, a name that said safe, US comedy, the rebrand to its bigger, badder and bolder parent channel from across the pond meant audiences knew exactly what they were getting – a modern comedy channel, dedicated to delivering top-notch comedy.

So do channel rebrands work?  Well, viewing figures certainly say so.  Dave has recently recorded a record 2.66 million viewers for its resurrection of Red Dwarf and Comedy Central’s viewing figures have shot up by 59%.  What’s most important though is making sure your proposition is clear and unmistakable.  It needs to be more than just a gimmicky name – the programming needs to fit with the brand values already associated with the new name, so viewers understand exactly what you stand for as a channel.