One of the biggest stories dominating the media over the past week has been the BBC Strategy Review and Director General Mark Thompson’s decision to shut down BBC 6 Music. For a nation of licence fee payers, it’s inevitable that any change to the structure of the BBC is greeted with a tide of reaction. While we are all entitled to voice our opinion, should we have any say in the way the BBC is actually run?

The BBC is one of Britain’s greatest remaining institutions, and is rightly respected the world over.  But due to the unique way it is funded, it is faced with the impossible task of pleasing everybody all of the time. Many have viewed Thompson’s announcement as a pre-emptive measure in the face of the possible election of a Conservative government which, according to many, will continue to kowtow to Rupert Murdoch in exchange for the support of News International.

With Murdoch effectively dictating Conservative media policy for his own ends, the heat on the BBC could become almost unbearable in the wake of a Cameron government. Yes, there is without doubt a debate to be had about the way our licence fee is spent. But that debate should be led by the public, and not triggered by the demands of a commercial rival.

6 Music may cater to an audience of ‘only’ 700,000, but when it costs just £6m a year to run ( a mere 2% of the BBC’s total radio output) compared to the £100m that the terminally dire BBC Three haemorrhages, you have to wonder if it’s being held up as something of a sacrificial lamb. Is £6m really that much to the BBC in the overall scheme of things?

As you would expect of an audience of DAB listeners, fans of 6 Music have utilised social media to launch a campaign to save the station. With the high-profile support of megastars like David Bowie, Radiohead and Lily Allen, not to mention a U-turn from Tory culture spokesman Ed Vaizey, hopefully the BBC Trust will see sense and block Thompson’s proposals. Otherwise, we’re left with Fearne Cotton as BBC radio’s voice of alternative music. And how depressing is that?

Over the past few months it been hard to avoid the tabloid furore over un-faithful celebrities. First it was Tiger Woods, then came John Terry and now Ashley Cole has returned to the spotlight once again over allegations of adultery. But as the sordid reports continue to roll in, it’s not just the reputations of the celebrities that are becoming tarnished.

Each year, organisations invest millions of pounds into using fame and power to endorse their brand. Understandably, the use of the right ‘celebrity advertising’ at the right time can prove highly beneficial, but the reliance on famous personalities can also have the adverse effect. Already in 2010, we’ve seen Nike, Tag Heur, Gillette and Accenture cut Tiger Woods from their alliances for fear of their own public image. This is not to mention the stir John Terry and Ashley Cole’s recent behaviour has caused – their affairs could cost the entire England team a £30m sponsorship deal.

Celebrities carry a massive responsibility both through their career and their social life. As role models, they are expected to keep a squeaky clean appearance for all to see. This means that the sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle of Ronnie Wood is entirely unacceptable for those fronting a family brand like Iceland – a mistake made famously by Kerry Katona last year.

Ultimately brands have no control over their celebrity endorser’s private life, but I think recent events will certainly see organisations become savvier in their marketing decisions. Perhaps Citroёn’s new campaign with John Lennon and Marilyn Monroe could prove the way forward for ‘safe’ celebrity endorsements?

TUACA is a delicious Italian spirit that has been part of the Eulogy! portfolio for several years. Our latest PR campaign initially focused on achieving product placement in consumer magazines with recipes for the signature serves, but eventually we found ourselves within the online space – a new foray for the brand.

The key messaging behind TUACA has always been about ‘discovery’. This is reflected in TUACA’s UK launch. Initially discovered by a Brighton snowboarder who tried it on the slopes of Colorado, and then returned to tell all her friends about it, TUACA is all about word of mouth.

Since then, TUACA has always been the darling drink of the snowboarding community. Admittedly it’s a very niche audience – but while other brands may try to shed cult status and go for a more mainstream approach, TUACA uses this to its advantage. Because it’s a drink for the type of person who likes to discover a secret and pass it onto their friends, online PR and word of mouth is a perfect platform.

In the last year, TUACA has built upon this notion of discovery and word of mouth by launching the first-ever TUACA Traveller competition.

The competition offered one person and a friend the opportunity to win a two-week snowboarding trip undiscovered slopes across Europe. The site was hosted by snowboarding enthusiasts’ site Mpora.

To support the campaign, team TUACA launched the TUACA Traveller Blog. The blog is written by the winner and was supported by video content of his adventures picked up by sliding sports sites like  Gone Boarding and Life’s a Beach.

We are now looking forward to further cementing TUACA’s presence with the sliding sports industry for 2010, including regional activity in our key cities.  So watch this space because TUACA may surf up on a shore near you soon.

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.

Despite the recession, it seems that one of the things consumers are not ready to give up just yet is their weekly or monthly fix of their favourite titles. Magazines are considered by many as an inexpensive luxury, which can bring a little light-hearted relief to everyday life. As such, six of the top 10 market sectors have shown growth, according to the report.

Even before the report was released, the CCR was making headlines, as the publisher of CondeNast’s Vogue accused NatMags of using multipacks as a way of even though it is a perfectly legitimate marketing tool

In terms of circulation trends, satirical magazine Private Eye saw a year-on-year circulation increase of 3.4 per cent, taking sales to more than 210,000 for the first time since 1992. However, we were more impressed with Private Eye editor Ian Hislop’s quip: “The Eye’s circulation figures are like John Terry’s shorts. In the past they may have been down – but now they are firmly up again.”

Debut circulation of Wired magazine, which launched last April, was 48,275 in the second half of 2009, whilst Sky Magazine retained the highest distribution of any magazine,, mailed to 7,423,570 BSkyB subscribers.

The ABC figures released this week paint a familiar picture for the music press: year on year, music titles are facing a brick wall as prominent as Pink Floyd’s; their readership being squeezed like Jools Holland on a bad day.

Weekly titles NME and Kerrang! announced falls in circulation of more than 20 per cent, while monthly titles MOJO and Q also posted circulation decreases, albeit on a smaller scale. It poses the question – what must a music publication do to survive?

NME, for example, has evolved and diversified to fit the needs that today’s tech-savvy reader demands. Far from its humble beginnings as a grassroots newspaper nearly 60 years ago, the magazine is now part of a multi-faceted music brand which includes its own TV and radio stations, concerts, awards, merchandise and a website that boasts 3.5 million unique users a month.

The print publication of NME – while still arguably the most iconic aspect of the brand – has simply become just one part of a much bigger remit. Those who interact with NME now do so across multiple platforms, engaging in content that moves far beyond the page.

In establishing a multi-platform offering, NME has not only safeguarded its brand, but enhanced it, too. The brand offers a much more tangible experience: for example, you can read the review of the new Marina and the Diamonds record in the magazine, listen to it on NME Radio, read her interview on the website and watch her live on the NME tour.

There’s a lesson to be learned here in the ongoing debate surrounding newspapers’ attempts to safeguard their existence. In creating a coherent brand across various platforms of which the print magazine is just one part, NME has negated the risk of readers flocking to other publications to consume their music content by effectively creating a ‘one-stop shop’.

The ABC figures may paint a picture that NME will forever struggle to replicate its readership figures of the halcyon days of the 70s and 80s. Then, the magazine regularly shifted a quarter of a million copies a week, compared to just 38,486 now. The truth may be closer to the fact that its readers, like the NME brand, are simply evolving in the way they consume music content.

The launch of a campaign aimed at eradicating ‘PR spam’ caused something of a stir at Eulogy! Towers last week.  The offending site managed to infuriate almost the entire agency, and sparked lively discussion on what is no doubt a significant issue, and one which we don’t take lightly.

What’s most interesting to me is the suggestion that we need a ‘bill of rights’ to govern our actions and ensure best practice in the way we communicate with journalists and bloggers.  I fiercely disagree with this presumption.

Good PRs will adhere to these, and other, rules of engagement, and will reap the rewards accordingly.  Those with a lesser understanding of how to engage with journalists and bloggers will miss out.  That’s the penance.

And ignoring the fact that the ‘extensive research’ this campaign is based on stretches to what constitutes a tiny sample (even in PR extrapolation terms), if journalists are ‘demanding’ this, what about a code of conduct for their treatment of PRs?  We’re not all the same; we don’t all telephone after every press release we send; we don’t all bang out any old crap in the hope that something sticks.  Yet ‘journalists’ collectively ignore phone calls and emails (even when the pitch is spot on and highly relevant), and can give little or no feedback to the ideas and content we generate, and offer to hand over on a plate.  But if it’s something they want, they’ll happily be spoon fed.

Of course I’m generalising – not all journalists behave in this way.  But neither do all PRs behave in the way this campaign accuses.

PRs and journalists (and to a less extent, bloggers) rely on a close working relationship – very much you scratch our back, we’ll scratch yours.  In fact, continuing that theme, perhaps the best way to educate PRs on what’s acceptable and what’s not is to train them, like you’d train a dog.  Reward the good behaviour, ignore the bad.

The inconvenient (or do I mean convenient) truth is that PRs and journalists form part of a wider industry, a communications microcosm.  And even if PRs are the algae at the bottom of the evolutionary pool, as nature has taught us, you don’t kill off the foundation of the food chain.

Talk has been rife in the media world about the waning importance of print media and whether it is due to have the final nail banged into its coffin.  In his blog, the COMMS corner, Adam Vincenzini is undertaking a substantial experiment to put to the test accusations of digital media cannibalising print media.

On January 1^st he embarked on a quest to go one year without buying or reading a print newspaper to see how it would affect his role as a PR consultant.

So far, he is discovering a lot – particularly about the ways he consumes digital media.  There is flexibility in digital news that allows him to choose which articles he reads, depending on his interests. He’s also become more aware of the rapidity with which he receives news throughout the day by following the Sky News breaking news Twitter feed.

I agree that taking in news digitally allows for immediate consumption. For example, when I get into work in the morning, I scroll my Digsby Twitter feed to get a steer on the stories that are due to be breaking later in the day.

But no matter what, I’ll always enjoy reading the paper. For me, the difference is that I’ll purvey a newspaper leisurely over my bowl of cereal. I look at newspapers almost as magazines now. I use them as leisure material, whereas I log on to actually read the news.

This is personal consumption, though. Professionally, I still can’t beat the feeling of seeing my coverage in the newspaper – it feels more real.  The sense of achievement is higher, and it’s something tangible that I can show friends and family. Maybe I hold print coverage in high esteem because I am quite new to social media. But having been encouraged to engage with online communities in my final year at university, I expect this to change.

I like print, I prefer it as I would Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference range to Sainsbury’s own brand, but do I really need it? I imagine not. Good luck to Adam with his ‘no newspapers’ challenge.

Less than half a century ago, newspaper publishers still divided their power base between London and the regions. The provinces were considered just as important as the capital, and the nationals all had fully staffed operations in northern cities, particularly Manchester.

Fast forward a few decades and the regionals have undergone cataclysmic decline. Even the biggest groups are cutting jobs left, right and centre – or at least have plans to. Some might argue that mourning the demise of local journalism is a bit like crying over spilt milk. Speaking from the harsh experience of traipsing round grim town centres scouting for stories (at one point I remember scrawling ‘news’ ideas on the back of a pastie wrapper), I agree to some extent that the information provided to the dwindling local readership can often be paltry fare.

But this is about more than funerals and flower shows. Local papers remain a breeding ground where some of the best budding journalists cut their teeth, and in those pockets of the UK where true communities continue to exist, engagement with local news teams is still important to people.

From a PR point of view, the regional print and online titles remain a vital outlet to ensure London-based clients’ messages extend beyond the M25. So I was outraged to hear from a friend in the North-west that his publisher intends to axe sub-editors in favour of multi-skilling reporters, who will ‘write stories directly onto template pages and create print and online headlines, reducing the need for sub-editors’

This raises the terrifying prospect of PR. If stories being posted are unchecked by green (or simply talentless) reporters – who knows how many client wrangles this potential drop in standards might cause?

Image graciously borrowed from SMLXL’s post on the death of local newspapers

I, for one, used to quite enjoy reading Thelondonpaper.  Finding out about Sarah Harding or a Geldof’s nightly exploits became rather addictive reading after a long day in the office.  However, in the five months since tlp closed, I haven’t quite found anything to fill the gap, so I’m intrigued to find out what the mysterious forthcoming London Weekly has to offer.

A quick trawl of its site reveals a rudimentary selection of news stories, but it’s the celebrity ticker at the top that gets my attention.  Calling itself ‘fresh press’, London Weekly is a great idea for those of us hungry for the latest celebrity news.   Unfortunately, further investigation leaves me expecting more after being directed to the ‘news’ that the Gallagher brothers still aren’t speaking to each other.

So what more can we learn?  Alas, not much.  There’s no launch date on the site, though other sources claim it will hit our streets on 1 February.  It’s certainly ambitious, aiming to give away 250k copies a week on Fridays and Saturdays outside Tube and railway stations with regional editions planned by 2012.   Other than that, we’re left none the wiser.

The challenge for any freesheet is that they need to be all things to all people.   Metro’s concise mix of news, sport and celebrity has been a nationwide success story. Yet despite their best efforts, the giants of UK newspaper publishing, Associated and News International, couldn’t crack the London market.  The newly free Evening Standard is having a good stab at it, but has anyone managed to pick up a copy after 6.30pm?  A free paper backed by five private equity investors might provide what Londoners are looking for, but at the moment, they’re not giving much away.

]]> http://blog.eulogy.co.uk/2010/01/will-the-new-london-weekly-be-what-the-capital-is-looking-for/feed/ 1