Murphy's Law

Tom Murphy

Archive for June 2002

Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:21:14 GMT

When good analysis turns bad…and costs you your job….
Story today from the Register about how Apple’s Australian PR Manager has been fired for sending out favorable Gartner research on the superior usability of the Apple over Wintel-based PCs. Seemingly Gartner hadn’t approved the release and when the story got picked up world-wide they hit the roof….be careful out there!

Written by Tom Murphy

June 27, 2002 at 11:21 am

Posted in General

Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:39:34 GMT

The poor misunderstood press release….
It seems that everyone has decided that the poor unloved press release needs a good kicking. This is the latest rant from MarketingProfs. But while this article is billed as ‘standing up against the press release’ it’s not, it’s an article about the need for a rounded Public Relations program. That is good, but the press release is not the source of all evil.

I don’t mean to teach anyone to suck eggs but surely this is common sense to everyone and has very little to do with the usefulness of otherwise of a press release?

Of course PR is more than press releases. Of course spamming press releases with no news content is bad. But please don’t forget that today we live in a multi-dimensional media environment. A well written, targeted and relevant press release still has a lot of value to offer – not on its own – but as part of a program.

Smearing the press release is wrong. It’s a PR tool that sits alongside a wide variety of other tools that are valuable when used correctly. All this anti-press release stuff I’m reading recently is a little OTT. Watch the baby there….

Written by Tom Murphy

June 26, 2002 at 2:39 am

Posted in General

Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:29:46 GMT

PR, the Media and the Internet…
Recent story from O’Dwyers on some media views about PR and the Internet. Nothing too controversial in it!

Written by Tom Murphy

June 26, 2002 at 2:29 am

Posted in General

Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:12:24 GMT

More on the industry analyst conundrum….
Further to my earlier piece on industry analysts, the Wall Street Journal has a story today entitled “Glowing Report on Firm X Isn’t What You Might Think” (Subscription Required). The piece deals with paid research reports. However I think Lee Gomes (the author) is barking up the wrong tree. Vendors have been paying analyst firms to write research reports for years. There’s no hidden agenda here.

The real issue is the firms that HAVE a hidden agenda, who make decisions purely based on dollars – and that’s clearly NOT the case with firms in this piece. The issue is where an ‘analyst’ will only take a briefing if you pay. I’d love to name and shame those firms. They are all tiny. The established firms named in the WSJ have some of the best analysts on their books and they offer above board services – they are not the main issue IMHO – and my company doesn’t buy those services.

Written by Tom Murphy

June 24, 2002 at 10:12 pm

Posted in General

Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:27:32 GMT

When communicators fail at communication….
It’s a difficult business environment out there. No question. So any new business activities are to be applauded. Recently I recieved quite a few new business pitches from PR agencies. Some were very impressive, and I have kept their details, some have been absolutely appalling.

Looking over the really bad pitches, you can’t help but marvel at the irony. Here are organizations seeking to win your communications business and they fail at the very discipline that they want you to pay them money for.

Here’s the latest example for you. Today I received two packages in the mail. (Sidenote: I think well put together, well targeted paper-based direct mail is increasingly effective in a time when most commercial messages come over the wire) One from a west-coast agency was targeted, followed up with a call, personalized, good quality relevant materials and it was obvious they have visited our site and done some research. [Details filed]

The second was paper spam from a New York agency. No personalization, just a job title, and they spelt the company name incorrectly (!) and included a range of typos in the letter. Now I had never heard of this company before, and to be honest it was more likely I’d use their services before I became aware of them! If they can’t even communicate, target, pitch a potential client effectively (or even professionally) how can I expect them to work with media, analysts, investors or staff? The mind boggles sometimes.

Written by Tom Murphy

June 21, 2002 at 11:27 am

Posted in General

Fri, 21 Jun 2002 06:58:23 GMT

Flash Hall of Shame (#10)… How not to use Flash on a PR website 101…Ricochet PR (kindly submitted by Phil Gomes)

Written by Tom Murphy

June 21, 2002 at 7:58 am

Posted in General

Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:25:34 GMT

Flash Hall of Shame (#9)… McGrath/Power

Written by Tom Murphy

June 20, 2002 at 3:25 pm

Posted in General