NHS

Firefly serves as lead PR counsel for NHS Shared Business Services (SBS), a joint venture between the Department of Health and IT services leader, Steria. Firefly was also the communications engine that enabled proactively-driven NHS SBS coverage in publications like The Times, Daily Mail, Independent and SkyNews.com; as well as relevant comments in wider stories about NHS transformation.

Through education, news generation and proactive briefings, we were able to engage with media who sought credible points of view about shared services as a driver of cost efficiencies and increased productivity – in public sector healthcare and other industries.

Mark served Firefly for over 23 years, joining the fledgling company after just nine months of trading. He was instrumental in guiding, shaping and building the business.

Mark was a great businessman, an excellent PR operator and dedicated dad. He will be missed by many.

For those who would like more information or to leave comments, please visit www.fireflycomms.com/markmellor.

Mark Mellor 16.9.1962 – 28.1.2012

But sometimes the most powerful PR stories are the ones that, to some extent, are unfortunately out of the PR person or team’s control.  The Twitter storm that erupted on Tuesday afternoon over LA Fitness was a perfect example of a story that seemed to suddenly become the responsibility of the public relations or social media team.

Starting off as a reader letter in The Guardian, the Twitterati picked up on the story when a member of the public contacted the LA Fitness UK Twitter feed, asking for them to comment on the case.

For anyone who missed the Twitter storm around this case, at the centre of it was a married couple from Billericay who were trying to cancel their LA Fitness contract after six years of membership. Their case was compelling for a combination of reasons: the need for cancellation was due to pregnancy, redundancy and a home move 12 miles away; and yet they were being held to a two-year notice period.  The Guardian took over negotiation on the couple’s behalf, but even after thorough investigation of rights, was only able to negotiate the required notice period down to six months (incidentally, the length of many board director notice periods, to put this in context).

A Guardian reader tweeted @LAFitnessTips on Tuesday afternoon, asking for them to comment on the story. In my view, it seemed to be the coldly corporate @LAFitnessTips tweet, which was – to paraphrase – “we do not comment on individual cases”, that started the thunderstorm.  (Incidentally, this seemed entirely incongruous in light of the “We’ll get there together – in the gym, in life and online” that is LAFitness’ 140-character Twitter biog.  What a lovely brand personality… that was not in this case, practiced).  Incidentally, the offending tweet has since been removed, in a careful erase of social media history, to be replaced with a series of well-messaged, carefully-worded tweets.

The power of the Twitterari, which in this case included Caitlin Moran and her 180,000+ followers, soon turned the case around.  The same day, LA Fitness withdrew all charges and all contractual obligations on the couple.  This is the power of social media in practice.  But sadly, the way in which this was done left the brand rather more workout-weary than post-exercise exhilarated.

Looking forward, my advice to LA Fitness is that to succeed in the social space, the customer services team must be properly integrated with other core channels, and the front line (and boy, must it have felt that way on Tuesday!) must have the correct support and training for successful issues management.

So, McDonalds, LA Fitness, even Tom Watson’s intern have all been the source of Twitter backlash this week. What’s next and what will we continue to learn along the way?

Any brand who hasn’t set up a Facebook page but is thinking of doing so, needs to be ok and prepared with the fact that you will get negative comments as well as good ones. Rob’s (from Age UK) key piece of advice is to keep it real and experiment. Using Facebook as a source of instant feedback, Rob questions his Facebook community as opposed to forcing messages at them. My only niggle with instant feedback in an open forum is that there is risk of backlash – this may be my overly-cautious side talking here!

Laura from British Gas has taken a different approach, to, in her words, “manage the moaning”. She has disabled comments on the wall and uses an app called ‘Talk to Us’, to give the company a much more controlled approach to complaints.

A refreshing point to hear is that both Age UK and British Gas understand that people need to vent. Their stance is that at least people are telling them what’s wrong, giving them an opportunity to learn or address the issue.

So what’s the best approach here? Plan, plan and plan some more. James Whatley at Ogilvy said that you must plan for the worst before thinking of setting up a page. For a brand’s reputation, the emphasis needs to be on how you manage issues as opposed to the issues you face.

Cautionary tale or plain bad luck? I think the author’s comment about McDonald’s being a brand that polarises people is clearly a valid one. Invitations to engage via social media carry risk; and in this case, when is it ever NOT open season for mega-brand, fast food bashing? Or was it merely a case of – to cite another post from the Wall – a hashtagfail?

Contrast this with the Twitter campaign against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which used the hashtag, #factswithoutwikipedia, referring to the Wikipedia blackout. The tweets ranged from the absurd (“Charlie Sheen is a model citizen”) to the all-out silly (“The Great Wall of China was built to keep the rabbits out”).  But the owners of the hashtag got their point across. True, they were riding the already huge crest of anti-SOPA sentiment.  But the hashtag was well-crafted: it got people to think, get creative, then comment, versus issuing a more deliberate call to action (e.g., #signthepetition). You could say the McDStories hashtag achieved all of this; but in doing so, it exposed a certain lack of self-awareness about the full range of customer sentiment that would be on offer.

What’s been your favourite, PR campaign-generated hashtag? And do you think the direct (#dothisrightnow) or subtle (#youknowyouwantto) approach works better?

Crises, by their nature, are very unpredictable. There’s no knowing when they will strike, and no amount of preparation is a guarantee against further surprises. Based on our own experiences of helping clients through crises, they can be a daunting challenge for even the coolest head and the steadiest hand.

Having read through the reports of what happened, the most surprising part of the communications is how quick Costa was to point the finger. In a statement issued on its website, the company said, “While the investigation is on-going, preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship’s Master, Captain Francesco Schettino, which resulted in these grave consequences.”  Not giving a statement is a disaster in itself, but jumping the gun could prove to be much worse.

The public spat between the captain and the cruise line operator will be seen as insensitive and ill-timed, having occurred before any official investigation was carried out to determine what actually happened. This does nothing for the survivors, the families of those still missing, not to mention Costa’s overall reputation.

Hindsight is 20/20 and it’s easy, from a comfortable distance, to critique how a company handled a PR crisis. But some things on the Costa Corcondia update page, reading in chronological order, may have resulted in more questions than answers. For example, there was a four-hour gap between their first official statement and the acknowledgment of a tragedy. That said, “victims” are referred to in the second statement without any prior mention of fatalities. In addition, the emergency contact details for families were not issued until (an agonising) eleven hours after the accident. There was also no human face stepping forward early on, to express the compassion and grief that was only referenced in their press statements.

Our best advice for companies in this situation is to be in possession of the full facts. For any company who unfortunately finds itself in the midst of a crisis, it’s about knowing exactly what has happened. Ensure the chief executive is available (a spokesperson of this level of seniority is the most appropriate in such cases) and provides regular updates. Make sure that only information that is factual and accurate is relayed. The company should do all it can to help the people affected, putting lives first over commercial interests.

The blame game is a dangerous route to take. It creates the impression that a company will jump to conclusions before all the facts are known. In Costa’s case, the cruise ship’s black box has still not been released and investigators haven’t reached a definitive conclusion. In addition, what if investigations conclude that the captain was not to blame and lack of training or an engine failure was the reason?

Crisis comms is often judged on the quality of the information, timeliness of response, the channels of communications used, and the (promised) actions taken. Only time will tell whether Costa got the first part right.

To rewind: agencies – most notably, Bell Pottinger – have come under fire for heavy-handed editing of Wikipedia profiles on behalf of clients. The latest furore comes to us via Stella Artois and the attempted removal of “wife beater” from their entry. The brewer, InBev, said it disapproved of the reference to domestic violence; others yet said Stella “shouldn’t look to change details that are factually correct”.

Wikipedia belongs to everyone and no one. But people do feel proprietorial about its contents. It’s not just the image police who try to re-write history: disgruntled employees or anyone with an axe to grind can also have a go. (Firefly itself was the target of some unkind editing whereby, buried in the lower levels of text and not immediately obvious unless reading the whole script, were unflattering and factually inaccurate comments about the company). Ultimately, the ‘disgruntled’ are unlikely to be successful, given Wikipedia’s official rules of engagement; but that’s where its metadata is fascinating, because it can sometimes reveal the motive behind these edits.

On matters of editing, it’s easy to say, “stick to the facts”. But in these naked days of PR, one should do exactly that. Goodness knows there are enough policies and guidelines to make that line in the sand between fact and fabrication very painstakingly clear. And if you still had doubts, more guidelines look to be on their way from the various industry bodies.

So why do PRs still get it wrong? Is it because real brand-neutrality (for a client or one’s employer) can be difficult to achieve? Personally, I don’t think this tells the whole story.  Contrary to some people’s beliefs, PR is not an industry where you’re brow-beaten into submission, even when your moral compass is pointed in the right direction.

I think the Wikipedia crisis has revealed a crisis in writing. We need a re-training of the mind to write in a way that is simple, factual and is there primarily to inform –not necessarily influence. There are plenty of other vehicles for that.

Wikipedia’s importance – to companies, PRs, the media and the public at large – is not in question. But I have no doubt the quality of many entries can actually be improved with PR intervention. Of course, I would say that: but I would also put my money where my mouth is and participate in industry dialogue or training on this topic, to make sure I was doing a heck of a good job (acknowledging that “good” in this context can be subjective; in time, I hope it won’t be).

Firefly’s top six Wikipedia editing tips:

• Write for facts, not feeling, even if the text looks and sounds slightly dispassionate at first
• When in doubt, think back to section 2.2 of the PRCA guidelines: “Have a positive duty at all times to respect the truth and shall not disseminate false or misleading information knowingly or recklessly, and to use proper care to avoid doing so inadvertently.”
• Work with an editor when updating Wikipedia entries and have hard proof or evidence to substantiate your claims
• Sit down with a colleague who’s more removed from the task and ask him/her to critique your work
• Be prepared to have (potentially difficult) conversations with your stakeholders about what Wikipedia is and isn’t, including its mission, purpose and limitations

And last but not least, in true Wikipedia fashion, engage; engage in the dialogue, as there is certainly more to come in this hotly-contested space.  

PR agencies like award nominations and wins for the same reasons that many of our clients do.  They offer us (in no particular order):

• Respect within our industry, for the quality of our thinking and results
• A compelling proof-point, to help us grow and fulfil our ambitions
• Appeal to potential new hires, meaning we continue to attract the best staff
• Critical conversation – oh, Twitter, how we love thee when word gets out!
• PMA (positive mental attitude, hey Linford?) , upping morale and staff retention

Our Give as you Live Christmas campaign, which we talked about in a blog post back in November, has made the Golden Hedgehog shortlist.  We’re honoured to be on the list with the likes of 1000heads for Nokia, Frank for Beatbullying and Splendid for Smirnoff; and we’re looking forward to hearing the judges’ verdicts in March.

But the shortlist itself, threw up some interesting observations amongst the Firefly team.

Firstly, that the shortlist for the ‘Social Media Campaign of the Year’ consisted of the maximum eight campaigns.  This tells us that, according to the Golden Hedgehog shortlist, suddenly ‘Social Media Campaign of the Year’ awards are amongst the most hotly contended out there.  That’s more shortlisted campaigns than in ‘Integrated Comms Campaign of the Year’ (a huge favourite of the early-to-mid 2000s, in response to our clients’ “360-degree campaign briefs”) and ‘Best Use of Research’.  This is a landscape that even a year or two ago, would have been entirely different; these are truly exciting times for social media evangelists.

Secondly, we noticed that amongst the shortlisted entries three are squarely in the tech/consumer tech space, two are cause-related marketing, and all, including our own, seem to have been communicating to a consumer audience.

Why is it that, when it comes to social media, B2C campaigns are so ahead of the curve?  Friend of Firefly Peter Thomson has some interesting points to make in his blog around why B2B businesses aren’t taking enough responsibility for their social media.

Interestingly, the myths that his post goes out to bust, are very similar to many of the myths that we have found ourselves tackling over the years with our B2C clients, too. Take for example, “social media isn’t about selling”.  It can be, used correctly.  Or, “social media doesn’t have a clear ROI”.  It does – and it is our job to communicate it.  “Social media can replace offline marketing.” Show us the brief – but we suspect it’s better used in combination.

We’re excited about our award nomination, as it helps us to tell the story of how we can help brands and businesses to use social media more effectively. And we suspect that the landscape will continue to change: next year, how about some B2B businesses fighting for those award nominations?

But how often are such punishing promises kept– or even remembered? If January is supposed to be the most depressing month of the year, why are we going out of our way to make it even worse?

That’s why this year, Firefly isn’t advocating the throwing out of the biscuit tin, nor the ditching of post-work drinks on a Friday. Instead, we’ve come up with a list of positive, proactive habits which we think all communications professionals should commit to in 2012. Here they are:

• Social media - In 2012, there will be little-to-no-excuse for sitting on the sidelines of social media. Like that first, post-Christmas abdominal crunch, the key is to engage conversational muscles you never even knew you had. With public relations moving further and further into the digital space, we predict an exciting year for developments in online communication and campaigns. So sign up for that Google+ account, perfect the 140-character pitch and get clued up on Facebook for business. It could – and should – begin to play a significant role in this year’s campaign plans.
• Networking – there’s no doubt that building a network is central to the role of an effective communicator, and for many Fireflies, networking is the buzz-word for 2012. We’re already looking at a packed calendar of training courses, journalist briefings and professional networking events for the year ahead (and fighting it out amongst ourselves over hotly contested places!).  Note: simply attending doesn’t qualify as ‘networking’ – so have your little black book at the ready.
• Results – Outcomes should be at the forefront of the PR professional’s mind over the coming months, with a focus on using communications as a means to that all-important end: influence. Anything less than this is a distraction.
• Measurement – accountability forms an integral part of the PR-client relationship. Committing to a PR measurement system facilitates effective benchmarking and forward planning. But don’t allow yourself to waste time measuring the things that aren’t important. Develop KPIs and review them regularly, to remind yourself of what you are trying to achieve. Then use the available metrics to find out which tactics succeeded, which were less successful and –most importantly – what you can learn for next time.
• Forward planning – when taking on a new client brief, we sometimes marvel at the absence of a (prior) PR plan.  But it’s so important to be future-driven, hard as it might be to visualise what you’ll be doing nine months from now, as  it will help inform what you’re doing  right now, and how you should be doing it right now.
• Positivity –finally, we’ll all be beating the January blues with a positive outlook. This means approaching each task with renewed enthusiasm, high energy levels and an appetite for meaningful results. We’ll be celebrating each victory, however small, be it for ourselves or for our clients.  Because after all, if we don’t get excited about what we do, then how can anyone else?

Since then, Palm’s fortunes have waxed and waned. Smartphones are the kings of consumer gadgetry, with one brand looming quite large in our lives and general consciousness.

Since we’re now in the throes of another CES extravaganza, wizened tech industry PRs are probably looking back at the various bright, shiny objects (BSOs) they’ve launched over the years; perhaps with wistful nostalgia. Did their BSO change the world, become subsumed, or suffer a crash landing?

This is all the more relevant because – although there are few really big shows like CES anymore –  there is treble the pressure for return on trade show investment.

One thing is for sure: it takes a village – literally – to prepare for the kinds of announcements we’re already seeing and will continue to see from CES. The output of energy devoted to product launches at CES could, I believe, power a small English village until Easter.

It’s bloody hard work. After a big product launch, what slings and arrows of outrageous PR fortune lie in wait? It takes a huge output of energy to shape a brand’s narrative and far less time to tear it asunder. That’s why, before any major launch, I always ask my clients if there are any skeletons hiding in the reputational closet…

So spare a thought and well-wishes to all the CES 2012 freshers and returning alumni, and especially all the PRs who keep the whole thing humming, well after the last delegate has left the building.