Elastoplast to promote...
First Direct looks to show it is...
Churchill Insurance unveils two...
Absolute rubbish. These pictures were published to draw attention, and the Sun have followed suit.
The "story of the story" is not about a cowed UK media, it is a story of a media that is starting to understand the difference between private and public life. Or at least a set of Editors that understand that the public are fed up with their past behaviour.
Let's get back to marketing, and recall that great slogan by the Las Vegas tourism bosses, "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". And with no laws broken, everything happening in the privacy of a hotel room, that is what should have happened with this story.
It is an interesting story. We do not know what discussions were held in the Council, and what view the PR professionals brought forward. Whether they are seriously going to look at other options for communication, or whether this was just an attempt to draw attention to a lack of balance in local reporting.
But I do think it is strange reaction from the bodies representing PR, they almost seem to be suggesting that Liverpool are obliged to engage with this newspaper. PR engages with the media for a reason, with an objective in mind. The Council has an obligation to engage with its taxpayers, but not with any particular newspaper.
As Craig points out, there are many other ways of communication that could be considered. The local newspaper lobby have been quite effective in battling against Council newspapers, and have support from Government Ministers, but new channels are, at some point, going to be more effective than a local newspaper story.
Anonymous - have you read this magazine before? It is all one big pitch for business - from the client wins to the opinion pieces via the people moves.
Problem with this type of article is the contributor is making comments based on their understanding as an outsider. Anyone who worked on the planning for this announcment is going to be bound by confidentiality.
You make some good points.
Most of the time we only see the tip of the iceberg.
No doubt her video message was a mistake. But I think you are right to say that she is probably just reinforced her position as standard bearer for the Tea Party.
Palin continues to develop her "insurgency" strategy that sees her by-pass the mainstream media in order to appeal to her supporters. She has been using social media in its best form, to build and engage with a community.
There are about 2.5 million who 'like' her Facebook page, about 400,000 twitter followers (not all supporters I am sure). But it has been successful. During the recent elections her support was the most valuable of commodities within the Republican Party.
The controversy over the use of the 'blood libel' will be taken by her supporters as just more liberal bias in the mainstream media and will just bolster her further.
In the meantime she has a number of other projects that might reach out to mainstream Americans - e.g. her work with Fox as a commentator, another series of shows about Palin's Alaska, and more discussions about a reality show following her family.
Ah well. The usual attack on communications when politicians want to grab some headlines.
The NHS is no different to any other organisation that has to communicate with its users, with its staff and with the wider public.
These communicators are also involved in public health campaigns, many of which have been covered in this magazine and which have been proven to save money in the long-run. A legitimate choice to invest in prevention.
Or to respond quickly during a pandemic, to supply the public with information about what they can do to protect themselves. And the experience of 2009 was, that in the absence of a vaccine, simple messages communicated by the NHS to change behaviour played a part in preventing the spread of the virus.
Of course the irony is that the media and politicians expect someone to explain and be accountable to the public, and so someone needs to be employed to do that.
I was involved when the NHS Trusts were created, and we certainly saw an increase in communications. And in places where there were no PR officers, these tasks were taken on the clinicians. The clinicians took longer to do the role, because they were employed to be clinicians not communicators. So eventually it became there full-time job. Not a great use of resources.
Cheaper rate to access exclusive DRUM content & events discounts
Receive fortnightly magazine + yearbooks + supplements