Day: August 14, 2003

PR Week has released its 2003 Technology PR Report and it makes for some interesting reading.

The report is headed with doom and gloom.  Reduced sales and cut backs – that’s to be expected, but there are some more interesting angles in the report I’d like to address.

When the big PR firms began to really expand across the globe, when advertising groups started buying up PR firms, suddenly the message was that one global agency is the only way to go.

They tell us it will save costs, bring uniform reporting etc. etc.  In fact everyone should have one.

The quotes from the large agencies in the report underline this inevitable trend. In fact there is not one small agency quoted, not one rebuttal.  It’s accepted as fact that one global agency is the only way to go.

Eh. Excuse me?

I don’t pretend to be with world’s greatest PR practitioner.  I don’t have an intimate working knowledge of every PR sector, however I know quite a bit about global technology PR.  I have worked in both the in-house and the agency side of the fence on a global basis and I have the scars to show it. 

Nothing is that simple.

The success of any PR campaign is dependant on one thing and one thing only – People. This is where the “one global agency is the only way” argument falls down.

Successful global PR using one agency firstly depends on the client’s internal organization chart supporting that structure.

In companies where there is decentralization, you cannot successfully force unified Public Relations on your outposts for a prolonged period. Sure you can put it in place, but if the locals are restless and they have power they will make sure it fails.

Secondly, can these global agencies prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are the best agency with the best people in each local market? Or do you take on their local agency because it’s easier? I know I want my dollars being spent on the best, not the path of least resistance.

Global agencies do (or should) offer savings in terms of systems, uniform billing, knowledge managemet etc. but it’s not free. You are paying for it.

For some companies a global agency works very well, but contrary to what PR globalists will tell you, it is not the only way to do PR.  Furthermore I have yet to see a firm ROI study that evaluated the actual cost-benefit analysis of a global agency versus best of local breed with a client-side management function.

I sympathize with large agencies that want to get synergies from their large global presence.  But when that synergy is at the expese of recognizing that no firm is the leader in every market, when that synergy fails to acknowledge the fundamental importance of good people above everything else, then I shout stop.

I recognize that global agencies do work for many firms, just let’s not pretend it’s for everyone. It’s not. Ask to see their bruises.

This brings me to the next Red Herring (RIP) in the report. Consolidation.

“Oh the technology industry has consolidated we’re going to be left with a few big players.” Mmmm.  I think I heard this before. The last time was 1994 I think when the PC market for software was “dead”.

There is still a host of innovation taking place.  The Internet, wireless, person to person communication and open source is throwing up new opportunities every day.  There are thousands of new start-ups. Where’s the few players?

The nature of technology is change. That’s a reality.  If the market is stagnant where did Google and Salesforce.com to name but two, come from?

I think the point being made here is that there are few big players left.  That is, few large companies who will pay the large retainers for large firms. This is the flaw of excluding the medium and small sectors from an industry study like this.

The technology market is going through a difficult time, it is changing, but it’s not going anywhere for the moment.

One of the other major themes that comes from the report is the importance of PR focussing on the bottom line.  This I completely agree with.  We as a profession can be sometimes blamed for losing sight of the actual impact of our work on the health and success of our clients/employers. ROI is king, measurement is essential.

Now while the report talked about ROI, I was amused that in the same breath it was talking about branding.  I’m not sure branding and ROI are synonymous bedfellows. But let’s not get into that old branding chestnut just now.

I feel much better now.

News is slow these hot long Summer days, as can be evidenced by my past few posts.

However, even sitting in the dark, cool shade, one PR mistake that just keeps growing is SCO’s lawsuit against Linux, IBM and the industry.  We first tackled this back in May.

Phil Gomes, a committed Linux user, points to an opinion piece on CNET that examines the implications of trying to tackle a “movement” rather than a product – in this case the movement is Linux.

It contrasts IBM’s concilitory approach to Linux with SCO’s flurry of Linux-related subpoenas.

It’s an interesting PR concept and not one necessarily tied to technology. 

Getting back to SCO, I think their agressive stance is illustrative of how you can lose the battle for public opinion. Their partners are already distancing themselves from the fall-out.  Witness Intel pulling out as a top sponsor of their user event.

Compete in the market, that’s what it’s there for.

 Interesting look at PR around the PGA

 The Online Journalism Review has a lot of interesting articles on how journalists are using and adopting to the new Internet tools:

• Personal broadcasting opens yet another front for journalists
• Feeling misquoted? Weblogs, transcripts let the reader decided
• One man blogs prove there is money to be made from online journals
• News sites still figuring out what to do with online communities

Microsoft’s recent announcement that it would cease regular updates of Internet Explorer for Windows and cease development for the Mac version entirely is a silly move.

Now Internet Explorer for Windows, will only be updated with new versions of Windows. This is obviously a vain attempt at adding value to new Windows releases and therefore buttress declining growth in Windows sales.  But from a marketing perspective this is very strange. Internet Explorer is already lagging way behind new browsers like Mozilla and Firebird (my favorite), it doesn’t make much sense (unless you have a market completely dominated..).

Now Microsoft is ceasing all development on Outlook Express, arguably the world’s most popular e-mail client. If you’re using Windows, maybe you should look at Eudora again!