Monday 29 July 2013

Front cover faux pas


Following weeks of hot weather headlines, we've finally been exposed to an exciting new topic – the future King has been born.

But despite this being a monumental moment in British history, some magazines still manage to devise something negative to publish about the supposedly joyous occasion. OK! magazine released a cover story the day after baby George was born, boasting about having talked to Kate’s personal trainer on how she is going to lose the baby weight. It is the timing of this cover article which I find most disagreeable, giving it just a day before Kate’s baby weight has been publicly highlighted. This could not be further from the fundamental news that a future King has been born.

These disfigured views on what’s important are a reflection on society in general. If magazines are writing what sells, then this bad press sells. It most certainly has given OK! magazine an enormous amount of publicity which is never a bad thing for the company. Even if the reasoning for the publicity isn’t a good thing, some may say bad press is better than no press at all.

Members of the public took to twitter to express their outrage. The hashtag #Don’tBuyOK was created in an attempt to boycott sales of the magazine. The social networking site gave an opportunity for the public to create a strong resistance against OK! magazine which they could not ignore. OK! released a public statement:

“Kate is one of the great beauties of our age and OK! readers love her. Like the rest of the world, we were very moved by her radiance as she and William introduced the Prince of Cambridge to the world.

We would not dream of being critical of her appearance. If this was misunderstood because of our cover it was not intended.”

In my opinion, this statement is full of empty words. To claim that ‘OK! readers love her’ completely contradicts what they have published. If they really did love her –  they would focus on the happiest times of her life rather than how glamorous she should look a few days after giving birth? OK! magazine’s intentions are clear. Their fundamental aim is to sell magazines and make money.

There has to be a line however on what can go on the shelves. This kind of abuse is published everyday about celebrities, but it has taken comments aimed at Kate Middleton for it to be addressed. Considering that the editorial board of OK! magazine is majority female, including the official Editor Kirsty Tyler (who coincidently has only been in the chair for a few weeks), they should be ashamed of themselves. Whether it is royalty or not the message portrayed is morally wrong.

Regardless of the magazine’s sales and publicity, it can not be considered commendable.

By Louise Greenway

Wednesday 24 July 2013

Redemption for dry bars


Last weekend saw the opening of alcohol-free bar, Redemption, the brainchild of Ex-Virgin Marketer, Catherine Salway.

If thoughts of you, sipping away on your umpteenth fizzy beverage while secretly longing for a vodka cocktail or glass of Prosecco creep into your mind- banish them immediately. Redemption is set to be unlike any other alcohol-free venue and I have to admit, with its combination of coconut martinis and cool ice-teas, the drinks list does sound aptly refreshingly.

With these temptations, alongside live music and guest DJ’s on offer, one could easily live without a stiff drink. However- and there always seems to be a but with too-good-to-be-true ventures-  the food available will be an unflinchingly virtuous vegetarian menu. Ahhhhh why is there always catch?

But is it all a bit too healthy?

Having already converted to an alcohol-free life, I’m rather taken with the idea dancing the night away among other fully-fledged teetotallers. A life without naughty snacks however- potatoes smothered in melted cheese or a handful of chocolate M&Ms- seems too hard to handle. Don’t we all need a little indulgence of some sort? A guilty pleasure to make the week complete? I’m not convinced by any concept that rejects all kinds of dietary misbehaviour.

Redemption isn’t a revolutionary idea. The first dry bars appeared back in 2007 in the north of the country, starting with ‘The Halal Inn’ in Oldham, Greater Manchester, aimed primarily at Muslims wanting to socialise away from alcohol consumption. Redemption differs in approach from many of the dry bars of the past by not alienating a large group of the population. It does not position itself as the reserve of specific religious groups or AA members, redeeming it to some extent in my estimation.

The pop-up venue, Netil House, Hackney, opens its doors to the public on 21st July for the next ten consecutive Sundays, before Redemption takes up permanent residency in West London. Right now, with the sun glaring through the office windows, I can’t imagine a better way to spend a chilled-out Sunday with friends than sipping a guilt-free Mocktail. And without the worry of hangovers on Monday Morning. Bliss….


By Manny Sidhu 

Monday 15 July 2013

Who’s making our decisions?


My name’s Imogen Catterall, I’m 17 and for the past week I’ve been doing work experience at Wordville PR and marketing agency.

It sounds strange but I have always been blissfully unaware of myself as a consumer. I have never given a second thought to the decision process behind my purchases, or how the behind-the-scenes activities of marketers may affect them. I had no idea of the forces at play. Until I came to Wordville that is.

One week spent at the agency, where the impact of every word on a client’s reputation is considered, has made something as simple as shopping at M&S an enlightening experience. Suddenly I’m questioning what I think about products and brands and, more importantly, why I think them.

So I was in M&S buying my lunch and I found myself documenting the numerous factors on which my choice depended: Does it look nice? How many calories are in it? What’s the cost? Will I enjoy it? And were the companies thinking of me, taking these questions into account when designing and making these products.

As soon as I entered the store I went over to the drinks section and picked up a pink lemonade. My attention had been caught by the bright pink liquid and the fact it seemed lighter and healthier than other choices e.g. a coke. Marketers would have considered both the label and bottle shape when deciding how to appeal to their target consumer. The label had a simple but encouraging design, with an upside down bottle cap, pink writing and a pink background to match the drink- not too much going on outside, no unnecessary ingredients inside- seemed to be the subliminal message.

Once I’d chosen my drink, food was next on the agenda. After a painful five minute deliberation process, I finally selected what I wanted. But what was it about the roasted vegetable cous cous that made me bite the bullet? How had it been made to appeal to me? First, it looked wholesome and healthy- something that I occasionally make an effort to be. The transparent packaging and clear nutritional information helped confirm this image, making me think that it couldn’t lead me that far off my route to a beach-ready bod. In a raw nutshell- this product projected a ‘what you see is what you get’ image. And what I saw looked good.  

Without my time at Wordville I would never have noticed any of these things or realised how the littlest thing can affect a consumer’s decisions and their perception of a brand.


By Imogen Catterall

Thursday 11 July 2013

If you want to get on – get out

If it ever feels like the hands on your watch spin around like a propeller, I’m right with you. Despite the life-enhancing technologies, convenience culture and super-speed connectivity to everything, there’s never enough time. What that can mean is that the ‘desk’ becomes the factory. You clock into your laptop, wherever you are, and start dealing with the conveyor belt of communication that is delivered to you minute by minute.  It’s efficient. You tick off hundreds of requests like a Selfridges Santa, motivated by the satisfaction of keeping the queue down.

But creative people must engage with the world.  And I don’t mean through Tumblr and Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn and Snapchat.  It sometimes takes a breath of fresh air – a genuine breath of fresh air – before you recognise how much you needed to get out in the breeze.

Yesterday I attended a roundtable debate at the Institute of Directors on flexibility at work. A good subject and something I feel strongly about.  Something that we hold dear at Wordville because it’s our view that the most creative people are those with full lives- those resourceful, engaged, social individuals who take on responsibilities and are connected to their communities. They require flexibility and we’re happy to trade a more open-minded working structure for their commitment to making our agency unmatched for originality and service.

So I was excited to have a discussion about a favourite subject. What I hadn’t given myself time to consider were the people I was going to meet – from entrepreneur Tracey Bovingdon (http://www.tea-monkey.com/Index.aspx) to Microsoft Envisioning Officer, Dave Coplin to Havas UK Group Chairman Kate Robertson – and the effect they would have on me.  It was terrific to be inspired by a group of 11 informed, opinionated, open-minded business folk.

I loved the debate – we didn’t all agree – but the interaction was invigorating. Getting to grips with different businesses, different approaches and different views is always enlightening.  I love the ‘art of business’ – and enjoy engaging with clients, the press, the analyst community and my colleagues and partners.  It’s important to step in amongst a group of strangers now and again. It changes how you feel. You may not feel you have the time to do this¸ but believe me – you don’t have the time not to.


By Lucy George

Monday 8 July 2013

How not to make an argument


I doubt we were the only PR people that watched askance as Katie Hopkins, already of dubious public image, crucified her reputation live on This Morning last week.

Hopkins, who first achieved notoriety in 2007 after appearing in BBC reality TV series, The Apprentice, was on This Morning’s sofa to discuss children’s’ names. What with the royal baby fast approaching, this is a hot topic and one that Katie has some outrageous and unfounded opinions on.

Over the duration of the segment, Katie denounced a number of children’s names. She said they were implicit of the parents’ lower socio-economic status (and therefore poor attitude to education and discipline) and that she would try and keep her children away from any child bearing them.

The appalling ignorance of Katie’s ramblings and the numerous counter-points to them, have by now been well documented in the media. What I found equally shocking about her appearance was the lack of preparation in her argument and her method of conduction, which riled the audience and This Morning’s usually unflappable presenters.

From the interview’s outset, Katie adopts a mode of speech that assumes everyone else in the discussion is of the same opinion as her. Her lack of preparation is then made laughably apparent when it becomes clear that this is not the case. She has no discernable evidence for her assertions- any statistics identifying a correlation between names and criminality etc. and in consequence is left just sharing opinions that are easily bulldozed.

She shortens Holly Willoughby’s name to ‘Hols’ – a gesture at best over-familiar, at worst patronising and goes on, much to Phillip Schofield’s dismay, to attribute her own opinions to the presenter through the baffling over-use of ‘we’ and ‘our’.

Now I’m prepared to admit that Katie has made a living out of being controversial. Perhaps she feels she does not need to prepare an argument, that it is suffienent to turn up, make assertions in an abrasive manner and watch the media storm unfurl. Even so, I cannot see this as a long-term career strategy. Any flash-in-the pan celebrity can be hired to say something, far fewer to say something intelligent.


My advice to Katie would be… If you want a career in social commentary, found your case on fact not opinion, respond to counter-arguments with more than just reassertions and respect the intelligence of your opponents. 

By Polly Robinson