Day: June 1, 2005

• Jeremy Pepper has published an interview with Harris Diamond, CEO of Weber Shandwick.
  

  “I’m chair of the Council of PR Firms, and I wouldn’t say public relations is under fire. There have been one or two issues that have been raised. The Annenberg Study that has just been released shows that the relationship with the C-level suite for public relations is better than it has ever been.

  As a business, public relations is in very good shape, it is continuing to grow, and we will see more opportunities.

  There are issues, but these are no different than other issues that have come up. I don’t buy into it that there are more problems today than before. There are always spin doctor issues, issues about how PR works – it’s only natural. It’s similar with advertising and other marketing practices. Public relations is in the best shape it’s been in since 2001.”

• Kerry at the McClenahan Bruer blog highlights a press release issued by American Business Media re-affirming the publishers’ commitment to the division of editorial and advertising. They deserve great credit for coming out at this point.

The recent moves by Morgan Stanley and BP make me sick. They are a last desperate attempt at controlling the media. How do they fit their heavy-handed advertorial policies with their Corporate Social Responsibility objectives? I’m sure both organizations have a 300 page manual on how they work with the community – unfortunately these attempts at manipulating the media through advertising dollars show exactly just how committed these institutions are to society.

• Richard Bailey has some very insightful analysis on why PR students and new practitioners should and shouldn’t blog. It’s a recommended read for anyone considering getting a blog up and running.

• Off topic: Here’s a research report that was published ten years ago, that in my opinion, never got the publicity it deserved. It analyses one of the most oft-used conversational show stoppers of all time. Comparing Apple and Oranges. [Thanks to Nick Gall for the link]

Organizing analyst meetings is always a very enjoyable exercise. An exercise in patience, planning, faux-surprise and overlapping logisitics.

Recently I had two interesting (paraphrased) responses from two un-named research firms (it goes without saying the communication was from sales reps):

• 1) Sorry you can’t meet with Analyst X because according to our records you briefed him/her eleven months ago and as you are aware non-clients can only brief a analyst once in any given twelve month period.
• 2) Thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately we never made any progress in working together and our analysts have to keep a balance between client and non-client work. Why don’t you see if there’s an opportunity for us to do some business and come back to me.

We all have to make a living and I have to say (once again) that in my experience, the vast majority of research firms are above board and interested in finding out what’s happening in the market. But I have to ask the question: Are the analysts at these firms as knowedgeable as they should be (from their clients’ perspective) on firstly new technologies and products and secondly on how those products are being used in practice?