Train rides and teas

My name is Emily Smith and I’ve been working at Wordville for the past three days on work experience. It’s certainly safe to say that I’ve had far more opportunities working here than I would have had done in Tesco, and I am very grateful for the chance to work here and for the insight the experience has given me into how PR really works.

Day one: The commute. With the number of large business men surrounding, getting to work was a daunting prospect in itself.  Once here I was bombarded with tasks: clippings, magazine overviews, meeting arrangements and more. I quickly started on clippings. All of this work was shocking, as my friends’ texts complained they did nothing but watch videos on Youtube, make teas and watch men e-mail all day.

Although work is never supposed to be fun, I was happy to get on with it. That way I wasn’t twiddling my thumbs for hours like my friends back in High Wycombe.

Day two: Clippings finally finished, onto the next tasks. One thing that I appreciate is the kettle. As on weekends I seem to have a cuppa every couple of hours, schooldays feel like 6 hour long periods of tea deprivation. The copious tea consumption at Wordville meant there was always a cup of PG’s on hand. I was also given the huge responsibility of post duty which was an honour.

2:40pm I left Wordville towers to get the train and sit in on a client meeting. This was beneficial as it gave me an idea of the client PR relationship and the way in which collaboration is crucial. This also meant an early finish. By 4:10pm I was out of the meeting and on Tottenham Court Rd with Dorothy Perkins and a rather nice blue dress calling my name.

Day three: Today I have written up meeting notes, researched PR stunts and now I’m just waiting for Jess’ tasks, bobbing along to a bit of Radio 1.

Tomorrow there is a video streaming that I’ve signed up to watch on www.prweeklive.com and I’m also being taken along to another client meeting at that I’m looking forward to.

Overall my experience at Wordville so far has been very enjoyable and everybody here has been very welcoming in the office.

So for my impressions: Lucy is very on the ball during work, with bags of energy in the way that she speaks and acts. Jess is hugely competitive and always well prepared. She knows exactly what is needed when it comes to her clients. Steph is calm and very efficient in the tasks that she does, whilst Pema is a great guide and explains everything extremely well. Last but not least, Polly is great and very ‘in the know’ with her work and prepared for what anyone throws at her. 

Before I came to the company I thought PR was simply organising events for businesses. Working at Wordville has shown me that PR here is all about helping companies ‘punch above their weight’. The Wordvillains have fun but also really care about their clients, and this is something I admire.

By Emily Smith

Not for nervy flyers

Like thousands of other people, I tuned in to watch Channel 4’s The Plane Crash last week. I’m a bit of a masochist really; a nervy flyer due to fly out on a business trip just seven days later. But I went ahead and watched anyway.

As I boarded my plane this week, I couldn’t help but think back to The Plane Crash. In the staged crash the nose of the plane snapped off, “killing” the test dummies unfortunate enough to have been placed in the front 12 rows. According to the programme, those sitting at the back would have escaped unharmed. So I made a beeline for row 31, smug that I had bagged myself a “safe” seat. The people in “club class” were welcome to enjoy their extended leg room and extra cups of tea and coffee – at their peril.

Many critics argued that The Plane Crash was little more than a publicity stunt for Channel 4, and accused the broadcaster of bad taste considering that 19 people (seven of them Britons) had died just nine days earlier in a plane crash on the outskirts of Kathmandu, Nepal. I share their sentiment on that, but also, did Channel 4 not consider that it was bad publicity for flying?

My short flight to Milan was the longest two hours of my life. Every bump sounded like an engine exploding; every creak sounded like the bodywork breaking; and every time the engine quietened I was convinced the plane was going to drop from the sky. I couldn’t help wishing I’d refrained from watching that programme.

I also noticed considerably more people sitting towards the back of the plane – but in truth it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference where you sit as every crash is different. Is it really healthy to add to the nerves of flyers, and have them spouting all sorts of irrational theories and paranoia about where and how to sit?

The multi-million pound experiment was meant to provide data on the impact crashes have on the human body. It may have done, but will it really help passengers in future crash situations, when the exact circumstances of landing are as yet unknown?

One thing that struck me during the experiment, was that while the poor passengers were left in the plane to meet their destiny, crew members simply slipped on a parachute and effortlessly jumped to safety. I was left questioning why this option is not available for passengers on ordinary flights. If The Plane Crash is anything to go by, there would be plenty of time to get everyone out before the jet ploughed into the ground, thus saving the “lives” of the test dummies in rows 1-12.

My point is that while The Plane Crash was without a doubt a compelling change from Z-list reality drivel, it was bad PR for flying. If I were a press officer for Easyjet, British Airways or Ryanair I would be less than thrilled with the documentary, which bought the reality of flying into sharp relief. If something goes wrong at 30,000ft, there’s really not a lot anyone can do.

By Jessica Matthias

Brands fall face-first for extreme marketing

So unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, then you would have heard, read or seen something about the Red Bull Stratos jump. This publicity stunt was the one to end all publicity stunts – Red Bull somehow convinced dare devil Felix to free fall a jaw dropping – 96,000 feet or, in other words, from the edge of space. Now as someone who is terrified of heights, to me, this is crazy, insane, bonkers – take your pick.

It did however get me thinking about publicity and the lengths that companies will go to capture their audience’s attention. As time has gone on, marketing stunts have grown more outrageous, risky and in this case, out of this world.

There’s no denying that successful publicity stunts have news value and create buzz around a brand. Google has confirmed that the stuntman’s supersonic dive over New Mexico was watched by eight million concurrent viewers on YouTube, the largest in the website’s history. On Facebook, the first picture of Felix was shared nearly 30,000 times in 30 minutes and Twitter said the event generated more than 3.1 million tweets.

In terms of creating brand buzz, it’s safe to say Red Bull has done that. Hats off to Felix. He’s a true daredevil and now a world-record holder. However I think another risk taker forgotten in this stunt is Red Bull. Yes their activity has generated has lots of media attention and a social media sensation, but the fine line between success and failure here was very fine.

If Felix had gone into a rapid spin, he could have passed out, damaged his eyes, brain and cardiovascular system. If his space suit had ripped his skin would have boiled. On replay, this would be terrible to watch, but imagine the whole world viewing it live. The lasting damage to the Red Bull brand would be both lasting and catastrophic. I doubt anyone would pick up a can or feel inspired to take on the world for quite some time.

As great as publicity stunts can be, they have a dangerous flip-side that can create long term, irreparable damage to a brand, person or product. World records in stunts just don’t cut it anymore. Instead marketers are turning to this form of ‘extreme marketing’ to create stunts so outlandish that they are virtually impossible to beat.

Nevertheless sitting here, with both feet firmly positioned on the ground, I can’t help wondering how long it will be till one of these stunts beats a brand.  

By Pema Seely

Women say no to Crispello

This week, Cadbury’s kicked up a media storm, announcing the release of its latest chocolaty confection, Crispello.

The company is pinning its hopes on the new product, the first since the 1990s, to reverse a worrying downward trend in chocolate sales. According to industry research, annual sales of single chocolate bars fell by 6.6 per cent last year, in a market worth approximately £800m a year.

Now apparently women are to blame for this. We are all too weight conscious and have therefore decided to forgo fatty snacks in favour of nuts, raisins and rice puffs. Taking this as our (dubious) starting point, you can understand Cadbury’s logic in designing a slim-line chocolate bar that would appeal to women with one eye on their waistlines.

Nevertheless, it is one thing to design a light chocolate bar which may appeal to women, it is quite another to market it so unashamedly to an out-dated female stereotype.

A Cadbury’s spokesperson described the concept behind the new bar, “The mix of wafer and chocolate is a lighter way to eat chocolate, and we know from experience that women are attracted to this particular format. It will also appeal to women, because it is in three separate portions so they can consume a little at a time rather than in one go.”

Much as I hate to admit it, I am just the kind of girl that this bar should appeal to. I find a whole snickers hard to handle and have a tendency to buy a bounty, only to leave the second half for later (much to my flatmate’s consternation).

But if there is one thing I hate, its being patronised.

Susan Berfield summarised my feelings exactly on Bloomberg BusinessWeek commenting, ‘I’m sorry, did the spokesman just tell women how to eat chocolate?’ 

Everything about the Crispello, from the tragic strapline (‘A little treat for you’), to the condescending comments of the Cadbury’s spokesperson, makes me want to inhale a king-sized Mars whilst burning my bra.

I do not deny the business sense or effectiveness of gender specific marketing. I do however think that marketers need to spend more time ascertaining how that gender would like to be marketed to. Women in the 21^st century may still count calories, but we’ll be damned if anyone counts them for us.

By Polly Robinson

Putting a face to the name

How important are the people behind the brands?

Everyone knows the big names behind Virgin, Apple and News International but do they contribute to the way people feel about their brand? Rupert Murdoch certainly has seen how his actions can affect his business.  

Brands are always fighting to become more human and customers are always after that personal touch. After all, everyone wants to be wanted.

Richard Branson, to some people, is seen as a big figure head in the business world. Rated as the UK’s 4^th richest citizen in Forbes’ 2011 list of billionaires, it’s clear to see he’s doing something right. And it’s not just his business ventures and accomplishments that people aspire to – he’s a real person. He’s a family man - this was clear to see when his holiday home was destroyed.

But he’s also not afraid of adventure. He launched his first business at just 16, and now heads up a multinational conglomerate with over 400 companies worldwide.

A brand needs to be likable, interesting and human for it to make an impression on a large scale. Maybe Branson has all those qualities and that’s what’s been behind Virgin’s billions.

But some house-hold brands, that are just as well-loved, if not more, hide their CEOs from the limelight.

Mulberry, a quintessentially British brand, started out producing fishing bags and jackets, inspired by the country pursuits of hunting and shooting. It was only after the brand grew throughout the UK and internationally that the iconic Bayswater was born.

But have you ever seen Mr Mulberry – or Roger Saul as he is officially known? No. Even after he left in 2002, the faces behind the brand have never really entered the limelight.

For the company that was started with £500 Saul was given for his 21^st, it hasn’t always been an easy ride. A brand that is now known for quality and luxury was once seen as ‘stuck in the countryside’.

After nearly sinking in the 90s, the company went through an extreme image overhaul. Rather than shoving the brand’s backers into the limelight, strategists chose to celebrate the famous faces of those who have inspired collections – Alexa Chung & Lana Del Ray. These ladies have revitalised the brand, lending it a cool-factor that has contributed to its cult status.

There’s no doubt that placing a face behind, or at least beside a brand, adds value. But does it need to be the founder? Of course an individual who has started a successful business from scratch will always be a source of intrigue. However, without a little charisma, without that… je ne sais quoi, their connection with the brand has very little commercial value. If this is the case, it would be far more worthwhile bringing Brandgelina into the mix.

By Stephanie Rock

What does your coffee say about you?

This week, hot beverage politics hit the headlines, as news emerged that Ed Miliband plays the role of coffee boy in the opposition offices.

David Cameron chose Prime Ministers Questions as a fitting time to divulge this information, clearly hoping to suggest that Ed Miliband isn’t ‘butch’ enough to take on the top dog position of PM.

In the same week Ed Balls shrugged off claims that that he split a cappuccino over a colleague’s papers. Don’t be mistaken for thinking that Mr Balls was embarrassed at defacing government work though.  On the contrary, he was upset at the accusation that he drinks a sissy cappuccino, when his preferred choice is a double espresso with an extra shot of hot water.

Discussion of the inappropriate timing of David Cameron’s comments, and the implicit suggestion in both Balls’ and Cameron’s statements that you need to be ‘butch’ (manly) to succeed in politics, could go on for hours. Nevertheless, the incidents also relate to another controversial topic: What foods/ drinks give a good business impression?

After all, agree with Balls/Cameron or not, you can see their simple logic: Strong coffee= strong personality. Recognising this however can open the door to a whole range of anxieties. Does displaying a weakness for chocolate immediately pigeonhole you as sweet? Does choosing Chinese over Indian make you a boardroom pushover, unable to handle the heat?

A quick browse of the Internet unearths a wealth of similar food/office questions and insecurities. One forum I came across was completely dedicated to what you could and couldn’t eat in business meetings, offering numerous scenarios dependent on what those around you were eating and what time of day it was.

Another particularly entertaining article from The Guardian discussed the rise of the breakfast meeting and the issues of tucking into a full English whilst others reach for a low-fat soya fruit pot whilst downing a wheatgrass shot.

Nevertheless, by far the most sensible piece of advice, and one which I will forever follow, came from Karen Brady who tells women not to shun the canapés at dinner parties, ‘because you can see the pained expression on their faces.’ Karen is right, people may disapprove of fatty but no one likes a killjoy.

At the end of the day, people may judge others on what they eat. However, I hope I am not alone in thinking that to judge an individual’s business credentials based on their choice of coffee is utterly ridiculous. Ed Balls can drink a skinny frappuccino with whipped cream and a caramel shot for all I care, as long as he does his job. 

By Polly Robinson

A picture speaks 1000 words

In public relations we are considered words people, using the power of the pen to tell our stories.

It is sometimes forgotten the power a picture can possess. Yes words are better at conveying nuanced messages, helping you to speak directly to your audience; however often one image can capture the hearts and imagination of a nation in a way words rarely do. Images are not exclusive; they speak a universal language which can be understood by everyone.

The Vietnam War was often considered the first ‘television war.’ In the 1960’s people could see the Vietnam War in colour and in the comfort of their living rooms. In the mid-1960’s, television was considered to be the most important source of news for the American public, and possibly the most powerful influence.

Initially the coverage was pro-American, with interviews and a generally positive spin. The violence in the news reports often involved little more than puffs of smoke in the distance, as aircraft bombed the unseen enemy. It was only when the war came into urban areas that the destruction and suffering started to appear regularly on TV.

The real change came with the beginning of American troop withdrawals in 1969. The focus was still on ‘American boys’ and the troops were still presented in a sympathetic light. Nevertheless journalists were growing increasingly sceptical of claims of progress, and the course of the war was presented more as an eternal recurrence than a string of decisive victories. Visuals from the war zone, although not violently graphic, placed emphasis of the human costs involved.

The power of these images being beamed directly into American homes and around the world helped to change the tide of public opinion, putting pressure on the government to eventually pull out of Vietnam.

So I suppose if there is a moral to this tale, it is this. Sometimes we should put down our pens- because there is truth in that old saying; a picture speaks 1000 words.

By Pema Seely