Visit speed website Earlin' PR abuse home
January 12th, 2012 by Steve

It’s over: American English has won

And not because it’s better.

But because in Britain – or at least in England, which of course gave rise to it – we have abandoned the very thing that binds us as a people, that stiffens the backbone of our culture, and that marks us out as the country which did most to kick-start the formation of the modern world.

Not that we should be proud of all of that, but we should at least be proud of the thing I’m talking about here: our language. English. British English. Or, as it really is (cue patriotic drumroll), English English.

But that pride has gone now, torn to pieces and abandoned to pick its path slowly along a miserable gutter to the darkest of sewers. Because we have succumbed to the utterly morose. We’re beyond caring. We’d rather be idle, dim, cheap – we want the easy way out. We want convenience, and to get it we’re prepared to tolerate the banal. We’re prepared to gaze lazily upon centuries of history and scoff slovenly.

And the reason I say this, the reason that the tipping point of the true English language’s fall from grace is now behind us, is that Waterstone’s has dropped its apostrophe. Which is incorrect. One of the country’s foremost providers of books (yes, books, full of the supposed English language, source of intellect, where we expect our language to be beyond reproach) thinks apostrophes have no point any more because too few people understand them these days and digital media doesn’t register them as well as it does words without them.

So ’people’ need to learn their own language and digital media needs to grow a brain.

I don’t care if Mr Waterstone hasn’t worked there for years. An apostrophe is an apostrophe. English is English. Wrong is wrong.

Anyone who has read Bill Bryson’s excellent Mother Tongue (probably available at Waterstone’s, but beware the crowds of punctuation-hating moronic shoppers if you elect to visit and buy a copy) may have considered that American English is ‘purer’ than British English these days anyway.

Yes American English may be a little laughable to us Brits, but our own language has been subject to whims and fashion for generations, so we can hadly criticise. It’s just different.

And now, given the irreperable rot that has set in with the original, I think the only thing I can do to preserve my sanity is to cross the pond, linguistically speaking. American English may be a bit sloppy in places, but at least punctuation and grammar hold firm, even if the sentence structure is somewhat ‘out to lunch’. From now on, I may as well just use (shudder, horror, the turning of souls in their graves) American English.

So, Waterstone’s, let this sorry episode be a lesson to you. And if the apostrophe has truly gone, and it’s not set to later return to raise suspicions of a planned PR exercise, at least update your web site rather than commiting brand inconsistency too.

No good can come of this.

Although for Daily Telegraph readers, as least it has provided an opportunity for another picture of Cheryl Cole

And if this is all a PR stunt, should I undertake my own, visiting branches across the country to put the poor little blighters back?

April 16th, 2010 by Steve

PR department of the future, final part: evolution theory

So I’m hoping to wrap things up with this post, having covered quite a lot of ground already:

- A quick history lesson and thoughts on a new intermediary role
- The fragility of agility: why as conventional and social media all just become media, speed is the need
- Are agencies even worth hiring? The myriad of choices for PR buyers today and what the future may hold

Let’s start with a question. If you work in-house, think of your own team. If you work for an agency, think of your clients. Question: how has the PR department modernised or changed to capitalise on media change in the past five years?

My point here is not that it has all gone stale and that PR teams are failing to move with the times. It is that all must realise that PR is going to look quite different in the future and we are all in the midst of an evolutionary process. You may well have your finger on the pulse of media change and have taken many smart steps to up your game in the past few years. More, much more, is yet to come.

Reputation: no control
Brands have never really had control of their reputation. But unless they keep track of and respond to media change through the way their communications functions operate, influence will be harder and harder to come by.

If you’re going to try to understand how you should evolve in order to protect and develop your reputation in the future, you must first understand and continue to chart media change. Reputation is the result of what you do, what so you say and what people therefore think and say about you. The digitisation of media can put you in greater command of it, but only if you play it right.

Spin gets thin
I’ve already outlined that in my view conventional and social media will evolve rapidly in the next couple of years and before long will all just be ‘media’. These posts are all intended to give some thoughts on how PR teams must evolve to align to that changed media landscape and get the right value out of the agencies they work with. There’s no magic formula for what the ideal PR department should look like and do, as needs obviously vary.

But while I’ve looked at the need for faster action in meeting media information requests reactively, let’s just quickly consider what the PR department will need to do in order to influence a media agenda in the future. I say influence rather than dominate, because spin as we know it has changed. It’s probably dead, of if not dying fast. With a handful of newspapers, fewer broadcast outlets and limited online publications it used to be far easier to set and lead a media agenda. Today the attention of major conventional media is still a big asset, but there are dozens of other influential channels that attract the same audience, often simultaneously. Plus a brand that attempts to be anything but completely honest with the media can be quickly shamed via social media.

Priorities for evolution
This bit should really be a conclusion, but I think I’ve already tripped across that several times: PR departments must evolve to meeting changing media needs or they will become less effective in influencing reputation. Worst case, their influence will slip away.

Here are what I see as the priorities for making sure a PR department is ready for the future:
1. Acknowledge that media change will affect you
2. Start a conversation about all of this with the people in your organisation responsible for how PR is funded, undertaken and supported
3. Recognise that you need to be able to move faster. If not, it won’t just be a case of a few missed opportunities, it will be a case of your reputation in the hands of others
4. You will have to continually assess which media is creating the influence you seek. This will not be comfortable or easy, but needs pragmatism and a long-term view rather than being swayed by any hype or FUD
5. By all means talk to agencies, but do not put contracts out to tender before you are clear about what sort of service you need. The word ‘might’ can be dangerous. Figure out what you want to do commercially, define your brand strategy, then look at how and what PR can best deliver for you. Then you can assess who you want to reach and understand what media is best, and what content you’ll need. And recognise that media change will be ongoing, so your plans must be agile too

Hopefully this is all useful, even if in places it is fairly obvious. One final question, if you’re in-house, you should probably ask your agencies is how they plan to evolve to meet the requirements of media change.