Rumours and PR

Social media have empowered the concept „word of mouth” so information can be spread more widely and much faster than with analogous media. More easily can be disseminated rumours what author Turner describes as unverified, that’s why unsafe information dissemination what recipient comprehends as real.

Public Relations and Corporative Communication practitioners once a week have to deal with potentially harming or profit decreasing rumours as have discovered group of authors , nevertheless rumours can gain advantage to company is confident Pāvels Rodins. As opinions differ, and question seeks answer, I tried to find out, what Public relations practitioners in Latvia think about using rumours in their work.

In my little research (seven respondents participated) I got different opinions. One party said that rumours can help to reach audiences very fast, as a result can strengthen company’s place in market, but on the other hand reputation can be damaged, therefore rumours are almost impossible to control. Successfully managed rumours about competitors can bring positive effect on your own company, and possibility to see society’s behaviour on certain things that have not been tested yet, but what is planned for future. Sometimes rumours can be seen as a signal about some problems.

The other party clearly stated they don’t support such practice, because of ethical issues, besides in long term successful relationships with media can be reached only with correct and right information. Nevertheless both sides confessed rumours will always be by side of public relations, that’s the reason why information always must be tested. Despite all respondents asserted they hadn’t used rumours in their work, some public relations specialists do they indicated.

Although from answers of seven respondents there can’t be generalized some strong arguments, little survey shows some trends and may point to problems in public relations field in Latvia – public relations professionals and companies to much think about short term solutions, that is why rumours are current.

Brand identity in „Wikipedia’s strong hands”

„Wikipedia is the ninth most popular Web site in the world with more than 111,000 sites linking to the online encyclopedia. Wikipedia has surged to become the No. 1 reference site, making the appeal for marketers to get their companies listed irresistible”, was said in Marketing Sherpa special report. As Wikipedia rating is so high it really matters what information can be found there, it will shape brand identity definitely.

As various goods, companies and individuals have their brands, states also has. The value of brand in some degree lie on concept of reputation, what in general terms can be understood as society’s opinion. Very recently someone discovered that if typing in Google Latvian word „cūka” (in English „pig”) the search results show that No. 1 reference site is Wikipedia, where actually is information about The Prime Minister of the Republic of Latvia Aigars Kalvītis, whose ratings at the moment are as low as newer. Although article’s administrator has partly banned access, so anonymous users couldn't’t improve the content of the paper the search results will always be the same.

On the one hand society has rights to express its opinion, but on the other hand it is very important to think in broader categories, like reputation of state. I don’t judge the author of the „pig” idea, but every coin has two sides.

Multimedia is not just a passion of bizarre people

In Consumers become prosumers! I wrote about brand management trends on Internet. Although popularity of this media is very high we can’t forget that one isn’t as powerful as many – old media combining with new media creates multifunctional and multisuitable media – multimedia.

Advertisers thinking about their brand also should be aware about multimedia possibilities, because “Sometimes there is too much money spent on useless traditional commercials while less money and bigger impact might be made from using multimedia tools”, explained multimedia artist Jānis Garančs in an interview. He expanded, that “There must be a mutual level of education. Some businesses structures maybe are not aware of such possibilities. First of all artists should teach and tell more and secondly business people should take deeper interest”.

Social activism and multimedia

In the age of „who cares” J.Garaņčs sees a solution: „New artists should be aware of (also in Latvia) that there are many possibilities of how to affect people. The first art tools – posters and video – can have a huge influence. In London or in smaller cities more common are illegal radio stations. Society must be prepared for some kind of boisterousness that is not antigovernment or harmful. Such things broaden the horizon or might show that things are not always right. Art can be used to address the masses. Art isn’t a megaphone of government; it is more like a tool for how society can reply to government or big corporations – possibility for “small human beings” to be heard. Fame for 15 minutes can also change something. Previously we just had a radio that transmitted a message from one point and audiences could only listen. In recent years there have been launched interactive television when people can partly participate in programme making. On the one hand new technologies give opportunities and on the other hand if people are not ready, they do not use them. The society’s education and common awareness about these possibilities are very current issues so life could be more interesting”.

Living in the rapidly changing world I suppose multimedia, what used to be just a passion of bizarre people, tomorrow will be as usual as newspaper or radio are. Who doesn’t want life to be more interesting?

Consumers become prosumers!

There have been a lot of discussions about Internet’s deep impact on communication and use of media, what directly affects marketing and advertising industry. We can speak about new consumers. Thinking Viral local research has shown that the 12 – 24 year old almost don’t use traditional media and have rich Internet experience. As a result of social media advertisers no longer have a control of their brands. Consumers want to be drew in the branding, they have become ‘prosumers'.

Louise Marsland states, that consumers know more about company’s brand than company do, therefore they “are sharing that knowledge with millions of other people around the world”. Word of mouth due to Internet invasion has become more powerful way of information dissemination. Thinking Viral local research revelled that Internet generation trust unknown peers more than the experts and in general they have little interest in the information source as a result if message is very positive made by consumers, brand can become popular in moment, but the same if opinions are negative – consumers can promote and kill brand as well.

The BIG question – how advertisers can cope with the social media’s character? For sure traditional brand management techniques aren’t appropriate more. Firstly, it’s about reputation, so Online reputation management is the key. Therefore brand communication strategy’s success depends a lot on advertisers’ willingness to understand consumers and new media literacy. Stopforth and Kent give some guidelines on this.

Ability to stand people

Today I rediscovered for myself a term ability to stand people. First thing came in my mind – ability to stand people can be used to describe person who is able to communicate with a lot of people all day long and not feel exhausted (this is very essential in service sector occupation, for instance, in shop assistant’s, teacher’s and in flight attendant’s work). The other meaning if about someone is said he/she are able to stand people actually describes person’s ability to deal with various people in terms of their social status, state of health and age and overcome inside barrier. Flight attendant must have answers to questions of every passenger (they must feel to be taken care, the best care). That’s exactly what a good brand should have – ability to stand people!

Does Brand flexibility go beyond the brand?

Don’t have to be a sport lover to have heard about Zinedine Zidane’s head-butt in the World Cup final against Marco Materazzi- richly covered story by media in 2006. For those who have missed it – a brief description before moving on.

Zizou’s head-butt became an inspiration to Internet gamers, musicians and comedians. More creative Zhao Xiaokai, general manager of a sport-related company in China, paid around 200 dollars to register a trade mark (for clothing, shoes, hats and beer products) representing two shadows that look precisely like the two footballers when Zidane head-butted. Due to intellectual property rights if anybody wants to use the image again, it will cost 100.000 dollars.

Is it parasite-brand age?

Zidane brand itself is worldwide known as a result recognition level of this trademark is very high. Therefore soccer star's image rights are not violated because it’s just a silhouette. Evidence for Mike Tyson’s famous bite Evander Holyfield's ear still is very expensive chocolate ear souvenirs. I wonder, why I havn’t heard about trademark reflecting Justin Timberlake’s behaviour during the Superbowl halftime performance when he popped off part of Jackson's corset, exposing her breast. Zizou’s and Tyson’s case brings food for fought – it seems in commercialised world gaps can be found everywhere! As world is rocked by several big companie’s names and to find new marketplace becomes harder and harder, as Zhao Xiaokai has understood – it’s more profitable and more easy to be a parasite on existing substructure than create new one. As Mika sings: relax, take it easy!

Catch 22 with property rights

Easy way going arises a question of property rights. „It is possible that Zidane and Materazzi will argue that Zhao has no rights to trade mark the head-butt image, even as a silhouette, given that they arguably are still recognisable” was said in Out-Law website (on the one hand the commercial value of personal endorsements by third parties should be limited by law. Property rights are protected by licences and patents, but it’s impossible to predict what on earth can every „zhaos xiaokais” come up with. But on the other hand in property rights law should be included more restrictions to avoid such absurd cases as the US Olympic Committee brand protecting activities. "Years ago the US Olympic Committee hit back against anyone who dared to use the word 'Olympics' to describe some sort of competition, In the UK, the use of the word 'Olympic' could be barred under copyright law and therefore perhaps even the digits '2012.'"