March 11th, 2010 by Steve

Part four: what Gen Y means for a PR industry in pain

The emotive word there is pain. Let’s not spend too long on that though, because hopefully anyone who reads this blog regularly, or has tripped across it and reads through some of the other posts, will recognise my point of view on this – PR is in pain because it must continue to modernise, and too few people who call the shots have figured out what to do about it.

I state that as if it were fact, while of course it’s merely my opinion. Feel free to challenge it, but be prepared for a passionate barrage of evidence and anecdotes that add elephantine weight to the argument.

Like pre-lunchtime tummy rumbles, I feel a list coming on: here are 10 points of pain that are making PR agency bosses feel most uncomfortable at the moment:

1. Digitising media. The media doesn’t know what it’s doing either mind. But PR agencies either have digital ghettoes of coneheads while the big bosses fight shy of the internet or they’ve given the whole job a digital lick of paint, or they’re clinging stubbornly to the darlingluvvy world of print. All will founder if they carry on that way.

2. The value of media relations (as we knew it) is sliding away

3. Most agencies have a fudged take on what the future holds for them so struggle to communicate any meaningful vision to their staff, instead banging on about how they influence influencers and such like

4. The counsel that’s most valued is about how media is changing and how we can create new value for clients, yet too many just want to stick to their knitting

5. Too much international or global business is held by firms that are part of large listed groups beholden to advertising. Advertising is even more pained than PR. So investment in modernisation for the agencies who have those big global accounts is hard to come by, and the fear is they’ll fall behind. Double ouch

6. Lack of transparency about business plans and performance can leave staff feeling undervalued. But those who haven’t started modernising may not have much good news to share, beyond the short-term

7. Everyone feels they should talk about how the market seems to be looking up, but they know that’ll mean people who’ve had pay freezes want more money. Modernisation costs money. Quick fix or long term improvements – what balance is best?

8. Evaluation is no longer woolly stuff that can be pulled over the eyes. It needs to be done properly. But without having modernised to embrace all media it is difficult to do it meaningfully. And clients can be reluctant to pay for it – you could make them understand the value, but that might mean they see you haven’t got the bigger picture of the conventional/digital media future cracked (in fact you’re turning a blind eye to it)

9. People are getting itchy feet because they’re not getting the skills they need to allow them to do the PR jobs of the future, and the recruitment fees for replacing them might wipe out your training budget. Catch 22.

10. Some are still not convinced that digital isn’t just a passing fad. Perhaps their predecessors used to think the same about TV

What’s the impact of the Generation Y issue on all of this?

Doesn’t help, does it?

To be honest, I don’t think that’s really what the point is. It’s more that with everything else that’s going on in the turbulent world of PR at the moment, the growing issue of Gen Y seems to have fallen by the wayside. Which is pretty short-sighted.

And fair enough. Agencies do need to modernise. The PR people who call the shots and set the commercial wheels in motion do need to knuckle down and transition their businesses, their management approach, their services and their marketing to meet the rapidly changing needs of where the industry is heading.

PR has enough problems without Generation Yers not pulling their weight (at least that’s the kneejerk view of some senior/experienced agency people).

But if PR agencies aren’t able to modernise in a way that enthuses and engages Gen Y, the impact of the modernisation won’t be long-lived. Because Gen Y will sod off to do something entirely different.

Should Gen Y just wise up and fall into line with everyone else?

No, of course not. Honest guv. Agency businesses are not charities (despite the odd expenses claim I have to sign off) and can’t model themselves around the new needs of a new generation. Equally though, agencies have to wake up and get to grips with generational change and the pace of evolution now in play.

Tomorrow I’ll try to blog some conclusions. Which won’t be easy. But I have some ideas.

Thanks for those who’ve sent comments, collared me in person and sent emails/DMs with input this week. Some interesting views. Strangely though, very few from Gen Y.

Perhaps the crusties do read blogs after all.

emailAdd to del.icio.usDigg This!Share on FacebookStumble It!
March 10th, 2010 by Steve

Part three: what is Generation Y thinking?


How would I know?

I’m Gen Xer. First record was a 7ins vinyl by The Wombles. Waited excitedly all week for The A Team on ITV so I could talk about it in the playground on Monday morning. First car was a battered Ford Capri. Still occasionally refer to portable music players as Walkmans.

How would I know what Generation Y really thinks about PR, the opportunities agencies offer these days, their career paths, their motivations and what they think the future holds?

I don’t. But I am trying to understand, and I’ve been taking the time to hear from as many of them as possible.

I would love to get comments on this from Generation Y. Lord knows you’ll be wasting your time at work reading this won’t you, given you spend all day f*rting around on the internet rather than doing any really work (joke, sorry, didn’t mean it, honest!).

Does Generation Y give a shit?

Yes. But it’s different shit these days. The world of work is very different now, business continues to change, media is changing daily. So there are different ways and means of progressing a career and getting the right work/life balance.

I think the commercial value of PR is right at the heart of this. While PR has always been notoriously difficult to measure, in the days of most clients focusing largely on a mixture of print and broadcast media proving you were doing a good job and so progressing within the agency was more straightforward. Got some good results with that trade campaign and the client now loves you? Good chap. Twisted that into a big splash in a national paper? Rising star that kid. Got them on telly he did, we should think about how we can develop him faster as he’s becoming more valuable to us.

These days, proving value is more difficult than ever. Yes the industry (some pockets of it at least) is working hard to address this, but still it is more difficult today to recognise that someone is progressing well in an agency job than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Managers need to have a 360 degree view of performance and achievement. In a busy world, that is not easy.

Then there’s the communication technology. Enthusiasm and achievement in the workplace used to be more audible. You had to hit the phones all day. Today more and more is done in silence. You might be the best account exec in the world getting blinding results for your clients every day, but if you rarely do anything by phone and the client does not sing your praises because they question the real commercial value, will your boss get to know about it?

Your boss should probably adopt new ways of finding out, but that’s another story.

The feedback I hear is that Generation Y does give a shit, but for different reasons. It realises the world is changing, it’s probably more in tune with that than other generations. But it too does not properly understand
the motivations of other generations and so can struggle to make sense of where this is all going. What is this agency really trying to achieve and how will it get there? What’s my part in that? How does my work really make a difference given value is so difficult to prove? And even this stuff is all addressed, will I ever be able to afford more than a bedsit in Peckham?

Pace of change seems to have knocked the wind out of PR agencies’ conventional approaches to managing and developing people. Gen Y gives a shit, but for different reasons. Again, agencies should perhaps rethink how they manage and develop people in order to achieve their commercial goals.

What does it think of other generations in PR?
I’m not sure Gen Yers really know what to think, or lose much sleep over it.

Many seem to be, or have told me, they’re jaded over their long-term prospects given the state of the economy, the prospect of an at-best meager pension, the cost of housing, etc. Fair enough. But this is a people business, it is (painfully) modernising to improve its standing and providing everyone does the right things overall, talent will rise to the top.

So is Gen Y just lacking clear direction and real inspirational leadership? It’d be a sweeping statement, but it does strike me that older people in agencies are frustrated that Gen Y doesn’t show the same drive and work ethic as them, while Gen Y questions why doing things differently would ultimately make any difference to them. Somebody has to stand up and shake things up, otherwise we’re on a slow path to shitsville.


What would make Generation Y better, more satisfied PR people?

More money? Perhaps for a little while. Not going to buy you four floors in Chelsea though is it? Yet recessions can be the best time to start businesses, create new ‘value propositions’ and profit from market changes that open new doors.

So perhaps Gen Y should be more optimistic, and realise that a different approach now could pay dividends (perhaps literally) in the future. Showing people how they can better develop their careers and enjoy their work tends to make them better at their job and makes them stick around longer.

But Gen Y can’t do it alone. If there’s one constant that seems to be jumping out from this (doubtless) riveting little serial it’s that we all need to understand each other better. And do something about it.

More tomorrow. I’ll have more time, and it might be a little feistier. It’ll be about what this means to the industry. Give me some dirt and I might name names.

emailAdd to del.icio.usDigg This!Share on FacebookStumble It!
March 9th, 2010 by Steve

Part two: Generation Y – what are agencies doing?

F8ck all.

Actually that’s not strictly true. Some of the senior people running agencies or teams are griping about it, but I don’t know of any who’ve confronted the issue.

Why is that?
I truly don’t know. But what I suspect is that it either hasn’t been acknowledged as a commercial issue, or managers are pasting over the cracks by suffering in silence.

Is it a commercial issue? Do bears defecate in wooded areas?

PR, agency-side at least, is a people business. Without people you cannot run clients, you cannot develop business. So if social factors are either having or likely to have a destabilising effect on your business, you bet it’s a commercial issue. Certainly HR people from large corporations I have met view it or already treat it as a board issue. If PR is serious about being committed to people and their development, it had better get its head around it.

One notable exception is Lewis, which has at least had the balls to blog (via its San Francisco office) about the problems with recruiting apathetic Gen Yers. Conviction, passion and commitment – all in short supply, say the moguls of Millbank. Fair point. Equally, many agencies could look at some of their senior staff who’ve got it too comfortable and level the same allegations at them.

So not everyone is a rampant careerist and it’s unfeasible for agencies to never hire another person born after 1984. What’s the solution? It does not mean a crisis committee. What it does need, in the opinion of those I’ve canvassed, is recognition that it’s an issue and a managed approach to developing a team with widely varying aspirations and motivations. Sound like a hippy who’s got his head up his buttocks? Let’s put it in commercial terms then. If people now aren’t as hung up about career progression as they generally were in the past, then agencies structured around a ladder of relatively rapid promotion with associated salary increases, with additional bonuses in good times, some nifty perks and the lure (where applicable) of share options should take a long hard look at what they’re offering and how they’re set up in the first place.

Of course if Generation Y is an increasing factor amongst your staff, you can’t afford to keep paying more if people aren’t achieving results for clients. That’s a road to nowhere. Equally, agencies are organisms that thrive on people developing rather than stagnating. And the worst thing you could do would be to shy away from the issue and create two streams of reward and development: one for the career-hungry, one for those who aren’t.

“I turn up pretty much every day. What about a pay rise?”
So the question, probably, is what individual success in an PR agency should look like. There are some commercial fundamentals here that we can’t escape from: everything is about the sustainable growth of profitable revenues, so if you can foster that, you should be rewarded based on your ability to (and achievements in) doing so. That applies both to people who largely work for clients and people who’re wholly unbillable. But if you’re not bringing in the bacon, you shouldn’t have a leg to stand on. More bacon, more dough. Simple. Or at least it should be.

There are a few trends that fly in the face of this logic, such as:
- People getting (OK, a lot of agencies still have pay freezes but some don’t) token pay rises just because the impact of them leaving would be a risk to revenues
- Digital PR specialists being paid way more than their actual market value by agencies paranoid about missing the digital boat
- People who are developing quickly not being given headroom to progress. Sometimes overall agency finances won’t support it because that development isn’t mirrored across the agency at large. Other times it’s because others on loftier salaries have become sluggish and aren’t adding what they should be. Sometimes investments have been made that simply preclude it: regardless, if this isn’t managed, the best people of tomorrow will get itchy feet

I don’t have all the answers here. In fact I’m not sure I’ve given any in the verbage above. Changing the approach to people development to accommodate changing and varied aspirations across a team is not an overnight task. Nor is coming up with a more progressive and multi-dimensional pay and rewards structure.

Perhaps others have examples of how agencies are tackling this proactively. Speed has acknowledged some of the issues, but still quite some way to go. I guess my overall point is this: if Generation Y typically possesses many of the traits I’ve been looking at, then they’re not the people who’re going to tackle this. It’s agencies who have to pull their heads out of the sand and be bold.

emailAdd to del.icio.usDigg This!Share on FacebookStumble It!
March 8th, 2010 by Steve

Part one: Generation Y – why?

So let’s start at the beginning. Why is Generation Y a commercial issue for PR agencies and a career issue for an increasing number of the people who work for them?

What is it?
But before we do, what the hell is Generation Y? Many will recognise it at the one that came after Generation X. Yet definitions vary widely. It was first referenced in 1993 apparently, but then referred to people born after 1974. For me, that’s not Gen Y. If you were born in the mid 70s the first music you bought was probably still on vinyl, you didn’t eat anything microwaved until you went to secondary school and you remember your legs sticking to vinyl car seats on hot days.

So I’ve come up with my own definition of Gen Y, for the purpose of this blog. If you have ever made arrangements to meet someone in a pub without the benefit of either of you having a mobile phone (so once you made those arrangements, you had to stick to them because new information couldn’t exchanged while in transit) then you are NOT Gen Y. I still remember calling friends on home landline phones on a Thursday to arrange which pub to meet in on a Friday evening: time, pub, area of the pub. If you were 10 minutes late, you risked everyone having moved on. Text was a noun, not a verb. But we digress.

This marks Gen Y out as being (with a little leeway on the licensing laws) born after 1983, assuming mobile ubiquity by about 2001.

How Generation Y compares
For me, it comes down to this: from all the conversations I’ve had about this, Gen Yers have different motivations to other generations. This Guardian article from a couple of years ago is a good précis. Above all, the ability to earn more money seems to matter less: work/life balance and the ability to make personal choices matters more than the fury of building a successful career.

Without giving too much of a history lesson, let’s look a few of the generational observations I’ve been given about this:

- The generation who fought in the Second World War: valued freedom most, and money far less. Then the baby boomer children came, and the older generation frowned upon their frivolity, questioning why their generation had fought and died for freedoms that were being p*ssed up the wall at a Friday dance

- The baby boomers: new money, new freedoms, new innovations and labour-saving devices, new entertainment, new (any) drugs. You might envy this generation, but without them we wouldn’t have had the progress we’ve had since the 60s. This generation may have bought homes in the 70s and now be sitting (often) on properties that have benefited from a rocketing market. Which is all good for them, but subsequent generations have had more of a battle

- And next came Generation X. Technological progress means we started out on black and white TVs, and digital watches were awe-inspiring when launched. Our parents ‘had it easier’ than their parents. Yet Generation X also joined the workforce either during the frenzied capitalism of the 80s or (like me) in the 90s, when we progressed from a tough recession to the early days of the internet to rapid growth and the dot.com boom. And often, we didn’t have our parents to fall back on, at least not much. Career hunger, particularly in formative years, was paramount. The question was not whether you’d arrive at the office before you had to, it was whether you’d arrive before the cleaners had left. Seventy-hour weeks were normal. Everything was about fighting your way up. Getting on the property ladder. Pushing for the next promotion

- So to Generation Y. For me, there are several important factors about previous generations that have shaped this one. Property: buying even a small flat these days is incredibly difficult, and many people seem to feel it’s either beyond them or too much of a burden. Careers: you probably (assuming some higher education) came into the workplace from 2004 onwards; after an economic wobble, things were on the up, with employers fighting over you – travel for a while, get a job, change jobs, whatever. Motivation: yes you’re ambitious, but if there are lots of opportunities then you can move jobs and get ahead faster somewhere else. Parents: well they’re probably sitting on a reasonable nest egg so if things go wrong you can always go back to them

Why Generation Y is an issue

First, a bold statement: other generations might bemoan Gen Yers in the workplace, but they should first take a long hard look at themselves. Gen Xers may see themselves as being more motivated to progress their careers and get frustrated with those that don’t, but equally the world of work has changed markedly from the 80s and 90s. I wasn’t working at the time, but I suspect that the raw capitalists of the mid 1980s were sneered at by an older generation that had grown up valuing freedom and had the Three Day Week lingering in the memory.

But this does all help to illustrate why Generation Y can cause tension in PR agencies these days. People who worked at agencies in the 80s and 90s, who have worked through a couple of (albeit fairly moderate) boom and bust cycles and who remember what it was like to try for a year to get the right job generally put up with Gen Y between 2004 and 2009 – they needed the staff. And then when the credit crunch hit and cutbacks began, they wondered why Gen Y was (as they saw it) less willing to graft and fight. Today, they’re wondering why Gen Y is, given the faint whiff of optimism in the industry, starting to demand many of the sops and opportunities that were afforded to them during the boom years of the second half of the last decade.

It’s probably time for a list to help make this all a little clearer. Ten things Gen X PR people have said to me in the past 12 months about their frustrations with Gen Y:

1. They keep asking about what their career here holds for them; they should realise it’s them and the effort they’re putting in that’s the problem

2. They just don’t understand how tough it is and that they’re lucky to have a job

3. They keep talking about how they feel, but they don’t seem willing to do anything about it

4. Why don’t they have a career plan? I’ve always had a career plan

5. Why do they just seem content to work 9 to 5.30?

6. I struggle with managing a team in which some people are ambitious and the others might say they are but don’t have the work ethic

7. I spent way too much time mollycoddling people and should just tell them how it is

8. They’re always looking for the employers to do more for them yet they don’t do more for employers

9. Doesn’t he own a f&cking tie?

10. Why won’t people simply do what they’re told?

Some bitterness then, some frustration, and a lot of lack of understanding. But if you had gone through such tumultuous economic change, felt the property ladder was greased against you and felt that no amount of effort you made might make a difference, perhaps you’d be more sympathetic.

Or perhaps not.

This is the first of a five-part series, so is not the full picture. Not by any means. So you may have issues with the scene that’s been set above. Which is good: send me feedback please, ideally with a comment below. I have probably missed things, so fill in the gaps.

I should declare my own circumstances here: I am 36, started my career in 1992 (after several years of toiling in supermarkets and on paper rounds), bought my first property in 1997 and have divorced parents still paying off their mortgages.

Tune in for more tomorrow.

emailAdd to del.icio.usDigg This!Share on FacebookStumble It!
January 21st, 2010 by Steve

Update on NLA and Meltwater tribunal: it’s getting a little dirty

Meltwater’s bid to get the NLA’s new approach to digital copyright assurance reviewed by the Copyright Tribunal has just got a bit feistier.

The NLA has put out a press release (see below) about its intention to get the tribunal not to hear Meltwater’s case because the news reporting service does not have a NLA licence. I can see the point, but am not sure the Tribunal will. Time will tell.

The whole issue is continuing to stir strong feelings. After my blog post on this last week, NLA commercial director Andrew Hughes called me and wanted to put his side of the story.

The NLA’s perspective on what Meltwater has to say is that its digital licensing approach offers “simplicity where there is certainty”. And fair enough, if there are cut and dried copyright infringements that organisations would make unless they were licensed to prevent them from doing so, then a fee for that service is rightly due. The big question here is whether Meltwater’s activities represent copyright infringement. One for the legal experts to decide on, but for me it remains a grey area.

Andrew made the point that publishers had a “uniform” view on copyright and this new licence is in the interests of all of them. That’s understandable, although the issue remains that due to the variety of evolving revenue models we’re seeing from the UK media, there are many routes by which the PR or media monitoring sectors could potentially infringe copyright. Forwarding links to web-based content may not be profiteering from intellectual property, although that’s one for the officials to argue over and the NLA maintains that Meltwater’s service goes further than this and so crosses the line.

Thanks to Andrew for his comments and taking the time to pick up on what I had to say earlier. Meltwater, I’m all ears.

The NLA says Meltwater’s approach to the digital licence issue is unfair. Meltwater is saying bollocks, we’ll challenge the legality and appropriateness of this. The NLA is now saying come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough, but please make sure you have the requisite authority to make your point in court.

It’s not going to make EastEnders scriptwriters weak at the knees, but it’s a fair debate and one that needs to be had. And one I look forward to hearing.

In the meantime, here’s the press release:

Press Release
21 January 2010 – Newspaper Licensing Agency challenges Meltwater News

The Newspaper Licensing Agency has today written to the Copyright Tribunal arguing that, without having taken a licence, Meltwater News is not entitled to seek a review of the NLA’s web licensing scheme. If the Copyright Tribunal accepts the NLA’s challenge Meltwater should take an NLA licence for its reference to proceed.

David Pugh, managing director of the NLA, said: “If Meltwater wants the Copyright Tribunal to review the terms of our web licensing scheme, then they should, in fairness and in law, first take an NLA licence.

“The vast majority of press cuttings agencies and aggregating services have already agreed to the new licensing structure and are now licensed. Meltwater is an exception. By remaining unlicensed, it has a competitive advantage over other monitoring agencies and has created uncertainty for clients. All monitoring agencies should be on a level playing field.

“We are confident that the Copyright Tribunal will recognise that our web licensing scheme is measured and reasonable.”

The Newspaper Licensing Agency’s remit was extended to cover paid-for monitoring of newspaper websites from 1 January 2010. The NLA is also building a database – eClips web – which will increase the quantity and value of newspaper website content available to licensed users when launched in Q2 2010.

More details of NLA eClips web database and licensing services are available at www.nla-web.co.uk.

Notes to editors:
The NLA is owned by the 8 national newspaper publishing houses and generates B2B revenues for 1,300 national and regional publishers through licensing use of their content by press cuttings agencies (PCAs) and their client companies.

Web monitoring services are cuttings from newspapers or other websites generated by specialist software searching against specified keywords.

A full list of licensed monitoring agencies is available at: http://www.nla-web.co.uk/downloads/LicensedMMOs(2).pdf

emailAdd to del.icio.usDigg This!Share on FacebookStumble It!
November 19th, 2009 by Steve

Should regional publishers set up PR agencies?

No.

Great piece in the Press Gazette this week about Trinity Mirror’s Neil Benson suggesting that setting up a PR arm on the side would be a shot in the arm for struggling regional publishers.

It’s not a completely crazy idea. There is the obvious editorial integrity problem. But having started out in regional newspapers myself and witnessed reporters openly taking cash payments in exchange for stories that local businesses or big-wigs wanted to see in print, there’s a point of view that to an (illicit) extent the lines between PR and journalism in the regional media are already a little blurred in places.

Regional journalists have the contacts, knowledge, appreciation of local sentiment and, typically, know the local media like the backs of their hands. What most of them (and why should they?) have sod all knowledge of is marketing. Example: as a chief reporter I was once asked to spend a day on a “marketing exercise” because the paper was expanding its circulation area to a town in the next county. My brief was to “have a drive down there, go to a few pubs, put yourself about a bit and get to know a few people”. The local populace was just drooling at the prospect of next Monday’s farming section after that.

So to my mind regional publishers should focus their energy on the thing they have fought shy of for way too long – how to change their business models so they can make money across diverse media platforms, given new technology is changing the way media is consumed. The nationals are feverishly (and in a few cases, a bit clumsily) attacking the problem, yet I am still to hear of a regional publisher that is doing anything more strategic than “doing a lot more stuff online now”.

Would regional journalists make really good PR people? Many of them undoubtedly would. And many of them would make disastrous PRs. Mates I have in journalism all fit into one or the other of these categories. Often the best investigative reporters would be great journalists but struggle with being the middleman between clients and the media. Should regional publishers needing to let reporters go look to place them with PR agencies, much like recruiters, and charge a fee? That might work. But then publishers should stick to publishing and its ailments, not look to take on recruitment firms.

One thing, above all, that this discussion left me with is the thought that regional publishers should work more closely with PR agencies. Our specialism is in delivering content that they can profit from using, and at the moment they’re struggling to figure out how to make those profits flow. If we worked together on that, PR could have sustainable outlets for the content and publishers could have sustainable business models.

emailAdd to del.icio.usDigg This!Share on FacebookStumble It!
July 9th, 2009 by Steve

Are the best PR people those who could cut it as hacks?

typewriter

It’s often said that the good PRs are those with the ability to think like a journalist. But let’s cut to the chase: ultimately, are the best PRs those who could actually be a journalist?

It’s a viewpoint that makes logical sense. To be really good at your job of securing publicity and tweaking media output to create influence for clients, you need to second-guess the motivations of individual journalists. You need to be able to write like them. You need their news sense. You need to understand their competition and the commercial agenda of their publisher.

If you can do all that with your eyes shut, surely you could actually do the journalist’s job? Probably.

So here’s a contentious point: are the best PR people those who could cut it as hacks, and should the industry be doing more to develop news skills rather than the routine PR training packages? Journalism as an industry may be shrinking, but as agencies move from largely doing media relations to doing proper public relations, the ability to understand news drivers as you engage with audiences directly is more important then ever.

I’ve been in PR for 14 years since switching from journalism and can honestly say that I’ve met and worked with PRs who could comfortably cut it as hacks on any UK newspaper, radio station or TV news show. Then again, I’ve come across swathes of PRs who wouldn’t have a bloody clue how to be a journalist and wouldn’t know a story if it jumped up and sunk its teeth in their fleshy arse.

Equally, I have mates who are journalists who would make great PRs, and mates who are journalists who would be the world’s worst PR people, regardless of their news prowess. Plus I’ve worked with clients who I think would make good journalists.

Conclusion: the best PRs are those who could turn their hands to journalism tomorrow, and have the commercial nouse and self control required to counsel clients.

emailAdd to del.icio.usDigg This!Share on FacebookStumble It!