Gillette curse takes latest twist in Tiger's tale

I recently wrote a post about the 'Gillette curse' following the disgraceful cheating of their sporting spokesmodel Thierry Henry. This followed a post I'd first written in 2008 about the faltering fortunes of all three sportsmen heading the Gillette campaign: Henry, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer.

Now, following a tough couple of weeks for the Henry brand, now synonymous with cheating, Tiger Woods has made the leap from back pages to the business end of the newspapers and TV news schedules following speculation about his private life and an incident at his home which has got the gossip columns chattering, not to mention interested the police.

Today I notice The Independent has picked up on the 'Gillette curse' I first indentified over a year ago.

Update: Meanwhile, in another part of town... I see Gillette's PR team has waded, rather clumsily, in to the defence of the brand tarnished by Henry's behaviour. Many consumers are reported to be switching away from Gillette following the brand's support of Henry and clearly the company's agency felt compelled to act when this customer churn began to cast rival 'King of Shaves' in a postive light.

D'oh: Sponsor's chopper offends the public

I was at Newbury racecourse yesterday to witness, among other things, a moment of monumental stupidity and a major public relations own goal.

During the running of the first race a helicopter hoved into view, drowned out the commentary just as the horses reached the furthestmost point from the crowds, buzzed the horses and eventually landed in the middle of the track.

That at least one horse didn't get spooked, with all the potential danger that could entail, owed all to luck and nothing to judgement. Following complaints from the public and possibly sensing foul play, a stewards' enquiry was launched and eventually reported that the pilot had expressly been instructed not to land during the race but that request was overruled or ignored.

And who were the self-important passengers who showed such disregard for people's enjoyment of racing? Why, they were apparently executives from Hennessy, sponsor of the day's main race, the Hennessy Gold Cup, of course.

Nice to see the sponsors take so seriously their guardianship of this historic occasion.

Week three of my £500 Challenge

The latest update on my £500 'Betfair Challenge' has been posted here.

St Roy - Patron Saint of Press Conferences

Say what you like about Roy Keane but I've attended and even organised plenty of press conferences where I wish somebody on-stage would do this...

Populus media poll unearths crucial difference between truth and perception

I've just read an interesting article on PR Week's website. I was baited into clicking by a Tweet from a staffer on the industry title discussing the most influential media.

"...radio 'most influential' medium" said the business-end of the headline, a red rag to those of us who nailed our colours to the media mast marked 'web' some time ago, but a refreshing antidote to recent Twitterstorms and over-analysis of social media sensations such as United Breaks Guitars, where companies have been given a hard time on the interwebs.

A poll of 1,000 opinion leaders found radio had more influence than any other media on corporate reputation. Television came second and print third, while online languished in fourth place...

"Languished" no less.

Polling company Populus spoke to 1,000 chief executives and other business leaders, permanent secretaries across Whitehall and leaders in media and the public sector.

Now, in common with a great many polls this could be a true reflection of the situation. But, especially considering the demographic polled, I'm more inclined to believe all we've really unearthed here is the perception of a very particular group whose disinclination to the web should come as little surprise to anybody.

The article also states:

Among print titles, the Fin­ancial Times (FT) was seen to have the most impact on a company's reputation, followed by The Times and The Daily Telegraph.

You don't say?

The petty side of PR

Those of us who work in agency-land know it's a competitive place. In fact, Harvard PR, my new employer has recently moved into central London largely to ensure we're even more embroiled in the bun fight.

Of course we're aware that means there are now 50 competitors right on our doorstep. But I see that as good news. Strong competition should only make us all better at what we do and make the industry look more credible. Better still I've a lot of friends at those agencies and it's always good to have friends on your doorstep. Beyond it being fun, there's a lot we can all learn from one another without compromising our own businesses.

But of course, there will always remain those who won't play nicely with the other kids and it always surprises me to see the extent of seige mentality and insecurity within some agencies.

This week I saw an instance that actually saddened me, though I won't name the agency in question.

For the past four years I've been involved in occasional volunteer work for a particular charity. It's been a personal highlight of each year in which I've taken part. The past three years I've run a training session for the charity, working with less-advantaged kids doing presentation training and working on interview skills. Next week I was due to be running a similar session and I was hugely looking forward to it. Anybody who's ever heard me talk about these sessions knows that I love taking part.

And then I was told I wouldn't be taking part.

I was gutted and I've good reason to believe it is because somebody within the PR company which has very kindly donated time and office space for the sessions saw my name among the attendees and refused to allow me, a rival, onto their premises, even for a charity.

Put it this way: I was very keen to take part and the charity was still very keen for me to take part, so the decision could only have been taken by the agency in question.

Fortunately for me, when the charity in question heard I wouldn't be taking part they shared my dismay and have subsequently invited me to run a different session for them at a different office.

I jumped at the chance.

I can understand the need to be guarded, particularly in tough times, but I believe some agencies can be so focussed on digging themselves a trench they fail to spot the moment when it becomes a hole.

You've got to hand it to him: Did Henry's PR team have a hand his 'boo hoo' interview

Following last week's shameful behaviour in cheating Ireland out of World Cup qualification, Thierry 'Le Cheat' Henry is now embarking on the inevitable PR offensive to limit the damage done to his hand... sorry, brand by the unfortunate incident.

Today the BBC carries highlights of a sob story interview Henry conducted with the French media. Asked, with some priming, I assume, whether he had considered retiring following the universal condemnation of his cheating, Henry replied:

"Oh yes. Friday, when it all went too far, I was very worked up."

I'm sure there would be no shortage of people offering to help him pack if he did retire, but fear not basketball fans, Henry isn't going to be hanging up his cross court pass any time soon.

"Despite everything that has just happened and the fact that I felt let down, I will not let my country down."

Apart from reducing their presence in the World Cup to a single moment of cheating, that is.

It's a textbook "sympathy please" piece, often run in the aftermath of a reputation sinking scandal. "I thought about suicide reveals reality TV star", "I nearly drank myself to death says disgraced 80s pop star", "My infidelity cost me my friends and family, reveals shamed MP"... you get the picture, and so did Henry's PR team.

I can't help thinking Henry would have been better letting this one quieten down a little longer.

Betfair Confidence Project: Week 2 (updated)

This post has now moved to its very own shiny new blog. Check it out here.

Gillette stands by cheating Thierry Henry

Last year I wrote about the trials and tribulations of razor-maker Gillette whose advertising campaign appeared at the time to be a curse on its sporting spokesmodels. Roger Federa was struggling to win, Tiger Woods was injured, Thierry Henry appeared to be a shadow of the player Arsenal fans had adored.

But at least Henry wasn't universally reviled as a cheat.

He is now, and takes his place in the pantheon of forever-disgraced footballers alongside the likes of Diego Maradona.

It seems the Gillette curse has reached a new low. There can't be anybody in the world by now who doesn't know Thierry Henry is a cheat, representative of the lowest lows plumbed by modern footballers, such is the coverage of his sporting indiscretion and more tellingly his subsequent poor sportsmanship in cheating France into next year's Fifa World Cup.

Yet Gillette is standing by its man. I hope that is because they are already paid up and can't justify writing off his fees, rather than because they condone the disgraceful behaviour of their brand ambassador.

James Nunn, brand communications manager of Procter & Gamble grooming, told PRWeek:

"We are distanced from what happens on the pitch. We are not in a position to comment on refereeing decisions and they allowed the goal to stand. You win some and you lose some."

The same could be said of customers.

Gillette, the best a man can get? I actually think all football fans should hope for a little more of humanity than the kind of behaviour for which Thierry will always be remembered. Whatever his past achievements, his cheating will be his legacy and that's bad news for Gillette, whatever the company is duty bound to say publicly.

Certainly Wikipedia users appear to be having their say:

Introducing the £500 Betfair Confidence Project

This post has moved to its very own shiny new blog. Check it out, here.

Ever wondered about the size of the European media landscape?

Last night I attended a Press Index event. It was a product launch for something called Pikanews.com – have a look, it's a media monitoring service that lets you slice and dice the media any number of ways in search of key words. It's clever stuff (though the beta is a little shakey), even if I can’t quite shake the notion that they've really just put a sexy front-end on a lot of Google News functionality, minus RSS which I'm told is coming in a future release.

But anyway that's by the by... it was actually a slide the company presented during the evening that I wanted to share.

These are the media outlets monitored by Press Index across several European countries on the grounds that paying clients anticipate mentions in them, including 25,000 blogs of note and 15,000 websites. Those numbers put 'new media' at a 4:1 advantage over 'old media' across Europe - and 7:1 in the UK alone.

Yo! Sushi: What's second prize!?!

This sounds like the worst competition prize in the world. I'm sure it's a good job if you have to do it for a living, but it's a poor, poor, poor competition 'prize'. Perhaps second prize is working in a fast food restaurant for TWO days.

(Thanks to the lovely Gemma for flagging). I'd call this a PR fail.

If you'd like the chance to be my PA, or cleaner, for a week please post a comment below...

The growing fascination with 'Twitterstorms'

There are a couple of very interesting pieces in this weekend's papers pulling together the various strands of recent 'Twitterstorms'; from Jan Moir to AA Gill, via The Guardian vs Carter-Ruck.

First yesterday's Guardian, today the Times, home last week to AA Gill's baboon-shooting confession.

Perhaps the mainstream is genuinely wrestling with the relationship they must forge with social media. Or perhaps some are simply standing on the Prehistoric plains puzzling over the bright light in the sky which appears to be drawing nearer. Either way, old media's fascination with Twitter only grows by the week, aided by very accessible, celebrity-driven stories.

Both of this weekend's pieces encourage perspective - the Times reason for doing so being perhaps the more obvious, certainly the more fresh, saying of the Gill backlash:

Twitter erupted with outrage...many postings were too crude and abusive for publication in a newspaper... Gill was described as “mental”, “adolescent”, “worthless” and “obnoxious”. Not everyone was critical, however. One poster observed: “I’m glad AA Gill killed a baboon, those things are scary”.

Perhaps showing the Twitterverse in an unflattering light is intentional. After all, the arguments of the barking and profane do little to credit to much of the more eloquent argument against Gill. However, I have already argued there were many reasons why that outrage simply didn't take off. And I was pleased to see the Guardian pick up on that argument in its own piece, quoting TheMediaBlog.co.uk alongside Stephen Fry:

But it is Twitter's function as ...the mouthpiece of the masses that is perhaps most interesting. Fry...goes so far as to wonder whether "the age of politics as we knew and loved it is now over". Do the two recent big Twitterstorms, he asks, mark a fundamental "shift in the very focus of democracy" – has "the Twinternet become the new Fifth Estate?"

There is a danger we could still be getting a little carried away with the power of Twitter. The Guardian piece is certainly rich in criticism of the "mob reaction" on the micro-blogging platform. Though that doesn't mean its not the real deal.

The Guardian quotes Harper Collins' publisher Scott Pack:

"I've got a way of saying something now. And if enough people agree with me, we can really make a difference."

That is the ultimate reality that the worriers and naysayers conveniently forget about Twitter. Sure, there are some 'keyboard heroes' out there who will criticise from the relative safety and anonymity of Twitter but their opinions will only gather critical mass if the 'mob' approves it. For all those who say the self-selective nature and predominantly liberal, progressive attitudes of the Twitterverse is a danger to democracy the truth is quite the opposite, there were simply far fewer people who found Jan Moir's take on homosexuality agreeable, while Gill's tone and account left people more divided or indifferent, for example.

Perhaps the fact the liberal Twitterverse is becoming more powerful is a reflection of the fact the traditional media is predominantly right-wing and politics in Europe shifting that way too. Perhaps that is as unsettling for those of a liberal disposition, as the rise of a powerful, unified, disintermediated voice is for the right. But if both sides are up in arms, that still sounds like balance to me.