Author Archives: Jonathan

Elon Musk fuels further debate on symmetrical comms!

Posted on by
Reply

PUT down your PR text books, the validity of Grunig and Hunt’s 2-way symmetrical communication has reared its head again!

This year in preparation for assessments, we have quite spent some time discussing whether excellent PR exists or is just a good idea? In my view, it’s more of an ideal than a reality but then came along billionaire businessman Elon Musk with an intriguing example of 2-way balanced comms.

Earlier this month, the wannabe super-hero and part time rocket man polled his Twitter followers, asking them if he should sell 10% of his Tesla stock. He promised to abide by the result; by a 58-42 margin, his followers said he should sell. 

And he did, selling around £3.7billion of stock a few days after the poll. On the surface, a fairly simple example of an organisation asking stakeholders to advise on policy and abiding by that decision. Elon asked, Elon listened and then Elon acted.

But did he?

Unpack the offer a little and it seems symmetrical Elon is not all it seems. Media reports appear to suggest that Musk had been intending to sell the shares for some time as part of a pre-arranged trading plan agreed in September. However, the amount sold was much higher than had been expected.

So, is Elon’s gesture a genuine example of 2 way symmetrical communication, or merely a publicity stunt engineered to gain attention and favour from social audiences. And there’s more: it appears that the sale comes as US Democrats have proposed a so-called “billionaires tax”, which could see the richest in US society taxed on unrealised gains on stocks they own.

Therefore, is Elon Musk’s request a genuine attempt at prompting a balanced relationship, or is it more about protecting his wealth if and when the tax agencies come knocking? Many commentators have been cynical, suggesting Musk’s gesture is nothing more than a publicity stunt. One stock market expert in New York wrote: “This is not novel. It just gets more attention because it’s such a high market-cap type, attention grabbing kind of company.”

Genuine excellent PR or just a messy publicity stunt with hints of propaganda? It’s hard to tell!

Meanwhile our own PR students have been offering their views on whether 2-way symmetrical comms is ideal or reality.

We set the question on one of our discussion forums and got some great feedback.

Huize was clear that it’s a reality: “When there is a crisis in the digital age, PR can build a platform based on bidirectional symmetry to listen to the different opinions and information of the public because information can be collected on a large scale and quickly.”

But Huize also referred to Pieczka’s view that balanced comms is difficult when there is a power conflict between the ‘elite’ PR practitioner and the publics it communicates with. “In this case, the public will be at a disadvantage under the guidance of PR personnel, intentionally or not, which is a two-way asymmetric communication mode.”

Shuo feels that 2-way symmetrical comms is essential for businesses to thrive in 21st century economic models. “The company needs to make its products better for the public and there is no better way to achieve this goal than listening to its customers.”

Shiqi agreed stating that the emergence of digital and social media platforms made communication a much more level and balanced experience. “Traditional media, like TV, newspapers and radio do not have too many methods to collect feedback and ideas from audiences, the activities they do mostly use publicity and public information models. But in the era of the Internet, things can be done in a much easier way.”

This was also a view suggested by Yueqi who said: “Organizations can now collect people’s opinions through the Internet, social media and official websites and it is also more convenient and cheaper for the public to participate in these activities. People can choose whether to offer opinions and suggestions to the organization, and the organization can choose to accept people’s suggestions or not, and this is how two-way communication works.”

Yasmine took a more cynical view expressing that the name ‘excellence model’ states a lot about its achievability and should be viewed as largely idealistic. However, she posted a note of optimism adding: “I also think that the two-way symmetrical communication model is now more achievable than ever with the growth of social media and online communication between organisations and their publics. For example, Tesla CEO Elon Musk regularly responds and deals with customer complaints and inquiries on Twitter, taking on feedback and suggestions to improve their experiences as Tesla customers.”

Emir was balanced in his response stating that 2-way symmetrical comms was essential for some sectors such as tech and IT where, customer response and feedback is needed to make improvements and adaptations. However, Emir added: “On the other hand, the model is an ideal for say, the corporate sector and politics. While they will never admit it or show it, I think they are still in “publics be damned” stage, and they only deal with the wishes of the public when their profits come into question.”

Meiyu’s considered response stated that social media has improved both the timeliness and scope of organisational comms. However, Maiyu warned that feedback is not comprehensive or representative of the general population. “This may only be the advice of some customers who participated in the interaction, and there may be many customers who did not participate in the interaction, or they do not agree, or elderly people who do not know how to use social software and did not participate in the interaction.”

So, are we any further forward? Is the question of 2-way symmetrical comms still an unsolvable conundrum, or are there genuine glimpses of organisations embedding it as part of the business strategy and values? Only the future will tell is the model is viable or not.

#CreatorAwards22 Are you student blogger of 2022?

Posted on by
Reply

“PUBLIC Relations is all about reputation” has been the mantra during our first few weeks of teaching.

But it’s also about communication, content, writing and digital media – all skills that you will learn about and build during your year with us.

And what better way to develop your content writing capabilities than by becoming a PR student blogger?

Every year, PR Academy runs a student blogger competition for everyone enrolled on a PR or comms related course in the UK. This is YOUR opportunity to develop and perfect creative content that will build your personal brand and get you noticed by potential employers.

Traditionally, the #CreatorAwards22 has been dominated by some of our neighbouring universities and colleges, but last year Newcastle students took up the challenge and put themselves proudly on the map.

Among them was Sophie Smith who, while writing for this blog, started to get recognised for her excellent networking and writing skills – including an internship with Stephen Waddington – and is now starting a new role as a Digital PR and Content Executive.

The contest works via the #CreatorAwards22 and #PRStudent hashtags, which picks up any content that PR students have created over the past few days. Then, weekly winners and their universities are announced ahead of an annual ceremony to announce the student PR blogger of the year.

Richard Bailey, editor of PR Academy’s PR Place Insights, said: “We are keen to discover talented content creators from among current UK-based public relations students. We’re looking to identify examples of creative content that support a student’s personal brand and which might appeal to employers.

“This content could be a blog post; it could be a conversation on Twitter; it could be audio or video or photo content. We’ll be sharing a selection of creative content examples each week of the academic year and towards the end of the year we will name a shortlist of creators from which we’ll pick the winners.”

Our students at Newcastle have already made a fantastic start by sharing their experiences of the first week of students by writing a blog post. For example, Jaiqin who told us about becoming a course rep and her desire to volunteer during her studies; Kefan about his love of fish and chips and struggles with the different UK coins; or Sahra who wrote: “I’m in the right place and the right time, and from the deep of my heart I was sure that I made the best decision to start the new chapter of my life with Newcastle University.”

Yumeng wrote a lovely post about our induction week picnic in Leazes Park, which although a breezy day, was a wonderful chance to meet our new students.

Yumeng said: “After the academic session, the tutors organised a picnic in Leazes Park. Many impressions still vivid in my mind, like the lake in the park, the sparkling light of which is also reflected in my heart. Lush trees, waddling geese, police officers patrolled on horseback… We sat on the grass and felt the poetry of nature coming from the wind.”

We have also heard from Huiyun who has been getting to grips with shopping apps and checking out the UK supermarkets; and Qi , who is loving life in the Armstrong Building because it reminds her of Hogwart’s; while Long is learning  to rush around between classes – we feel your pain and that’s why you will soon see some changes to the timetable!

Thanks so much to all of you who submitted blog posts about your first week at Newcastle – we really enjoyed reading them.

But now, it’s over to you – get writing, get blogging and use the hashtag #PRstudent or click the link here to find out more about #CreatorAwards22

The past winners list has one distinct absence – can we change that in 2022? Yes we can!

PR lessons from Euro 2020

Posted on by
Reply

NOW that Euro 2020 has come to a disappointing end for all but the Italians, what are the public relations lessons we can learn from the four-week festival of football?

If it came down to contexts, then clear and balanced communication lifts the trophy after a tense penalty shoot-out with dignified leadership. Misplaced brand synergies and political band-wagoning were knocked out in the group stages.

Public relations is all about reputation – what you say, what you do and what others say about you. It’s a mantra that spans a multitude of disciplines and contexts from fashion brands to football, personal life to political life.

So, who were the winners and who were the losers at Euro 2020?

Winner – a leadership culture

England manager Gareth Southgate has deservedly been recognised as a great communicator and a role model for how exemplary culture at the top will filter throughout an organisation or team. As social responsibility guru Peter Drucker says: ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’.

Southgate’s England are unlike any international squad in my long footballing memory which were largely made up of talented, but often overrated individuals.

Southgate is not just a team selector. For years within his FA roles, he has been nurturing a culture and crop of likeable, positive role models whose values of self-respect, dignity often outshine their footballing talent. These players may be millionaires, but their genuine altruism is far more affecting and effective than that from the leaders we are traditionally expected to aspire to.

Southgate’s leadership can be likened to van Riel’s Elements of Corporate Identity with a clear purposeful culture developed from the top, complimented by what it says and does on and off the pitch. Ultimately, these shared values filter beyond to fans, the media and other stakeholders to create a positive image for the England camp.

Winner – England football team. Not only has the reputation of the team been enhanced on the pitch, the dignified way in which the young lions conducted themselves throughout the tournament was exemplary.

As footballers, the players are part of the production sub-system – providing the services to help achieve organisational goals. But the manner in which they responded to the despicable racist abuse following the final defeat, demonstrated that they were part of an adaptive system, too, responding and adjusting to external threats with dignity and clarity. Let’s not forget, several of these players are still very young.

There were examples of symmetrical communication within the team’s social media responses too with Tyrone Mings’ powerful tweet calling out the UK government’s hypocrisy triggering a heated Parliamentary exchange and stimulating debate over the ethics and declining values of political leadership.

Winner – a crisis managed with Danish dignity

It seems an age ago now, but the first Saturday of the tournament brought one of the most upsetting moments ever seen in sport when the Danish captain and talisman Christian Eriksen collapsed on the pitch after suffering cardiac arrest. For around 30 minutes, medics attempted to revive Eriksen while team-mates formed a dignified barrier around the player and comforted his wife who was watching at the pitch-side.

For several days, the tournament appeared in doubt as players, fans and commentators correctly opined that football is and never has been more important than life or death. Eriksen’s recovery inspired and unified the Danish team and nation to the semi-final of the tournament.

But the real winner from this traumatic event was increased public awareness and attitudes towards life-saving CPR training and skills. Eriksen’s collapse triggered international media interest in cardiac conditions, particularly when impacting seemingly young and fit people. This has spurred investment in life-saving defibrillators and new processes to ensure communities know where their nearest defibrillator is.

Loser – brand synergies shown the red card

Very early in Euro 2020, superstar Cristiano Ronaldo made his disdain for corporate sponsors Coca-Cola clear by moving aside two strategically placed Coke bottles during a press conference. A few days later, France’s Paul Pogba did likewise with bottles of Heineken during a media briefing.

Sponsorship is an essential part of corporate sport and international tournaments would disappear without it. But global audiences are not the passive consumers they once were; social media means publics have a strong voice and will actively call out mis-matching between brand and tournament leading to huge reputational risk for the mega brands. Ronaldo didn’t get to be the world’s greatest footballer by guzzling Cokes and Pogba doesn’t kick back with a beer after the match. So, don’t make that insinuation that they do – it’s disingenuous, misleading and damaging to the brand as was shown when an estimated $4billion was wiped off Coca Cola’s share value after Ronaldo’s actions.

Far better to take a subtler approach, identifying synergies between tournament and brand or to develop audiences and awareness in emerging regions. Chinese brands Hisense and AliPay were all over Euro 2020’s pitch-side advertising hoardings supporting their global strategy for recognition within sports markets – a clever move which will have brought these names to prominence in Europe and enhanced their reputation in Asia.

Wooden spoon – Own goal calamities and political gesturing

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has a long history of saying or doing the wrong thing at the wrong time – after all, it’s how he got to be the leader of the country. But his insincere band-wagoning during the Euro semi-final at Wembley demonstrated once again how out of touch political leaders can be.

The hastily arranged ‘Boris 10’ England shirt pulled snugly over an already dishevelled figure was a desperate publicity stunt which reeked of opportunism of the lowest kind. Let’s not forget this is the same Boris Johnson who has previously declared little interest in football and refused to condemn those who booed England players taking the knee.

Yet just yards away, young Prince George demonstrated his enthusiasm by belting out the national anthem and cheering on the team to victory – and he didn’t have to pull on a mini England shirt to show his genuine passion.

Elsewhere amongst the political elite were examples of ministers and MPs trashing the knee-taking as political gesturing then weeks later lining up to condemn the racists. Both literally and metaphorically, PM Johnson clearly believes he can have his cake AND eat it and needs to be relegated to the subs bench soon.

All in all, Euro 2020 was a successful tournament for football, particularly for beleaguered fans starved of the thrill of an international spectacle. But again, the tournament served as a valuable reminder that reputation is earned and public scrutiny means that what is said, what is done and what others say needs to more in balance than ever before.

Images courtesy of You Tube, UEFA, independent.co,uk, talksport.com, indy100.com

Pudsey even more in need in Covid times

Posted on by
Reply

By Piotr Boiwka

AS PUDSEY Bear has changed in time, the idea it represents is still actual. Children are in need and for the 40th time, the fundraising event has been broadcast by the BBC.

This year, it was even more important due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected young people abominably in many ways. The number of children affected by food insecurity, anxiety, and stress increased significantly.

Time for charities is extremely difficult. Analysis of more than 1,600 fundraising pages made by BBC showed that the average amount raised by the given organisation decreased from £657 a month in February to £236 in June. This is even more dangerous for small charities which are mostly affected by lack of funds.

But even huge fundraising campaigns like Children in Need observed remarkably lower income, comparing to previous years. This year’s £37 million looks phenomenal, but when we look at over £47 million gained in 2019, it seems a little bit pale.

What went wrong? Simply saying – coronavirus. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns, and economic crisis people are worried about their financial condition, what causes a lower level of donations for charities on all levels.

NGOs are struggling to gain an audience when they are unable to provide traditional forms of events. Strategies based on crowded gatherings on fresh air were mostly impossible to deliver. Fundraisers needed to adapt to create a digital equivalent, often without any previous experience in this area. Many have done that with success, but it still has not matched financial results from the past.

Hopefully, circumstances from this year will result in combining both ways of organising events in even more successful fundraisings. Digital versions are much cheaper and abilities to gain the public’s attention are endless. Innovation and creativity made a huge jump ahead and this year’s experience will surely pay off in the future.

Piotr Boiwka is a student blogger from the MA in Media and PR at Newcastle University

Children in need – Fundraising during a pandemic

Posted on by
Reply

By Lauren Phoenix

COVID-19 has forced many organisations including ‘Children In Need’ to change and adapt to new ways of working, the organisations that don’t respond and be reactive to the pandemic will fall behind.

According to Charities Aid Foundation during COVID-19, there has been an increase in demand for charity services, however, the donations have dropped over 50%, meaning that fundraising is vital during this time. However, with fundraising events being cancelled ‘Children In Need’ need to clearly communicate new, safe ways people can fundraise following the government’s guidelines. If they create positive meaningful communication with their audience and keep stakeholders engaged and aware this will allow them to meet their fundraising targets.

‘Children In Need’ has adapted to the crisis with new ways of communicating and with a stronger focus on shared and earned media. Despite ‘Children In Need’ having strong relationships with the public, they need to continue to build these relationships online to increase awareness using clear, transparent communication to encourage fundraising and highlight the importance of sponsorships.

Social media is very important for organisations during the pandemic as it allows them to easily connect with audiences and create a sense of community online which is important for relationship building. ‘Children In Need’ state on their website “Good news travels fast on social media – and not only will it keep you connected in difficult times; it might inspire others to donate as well!” (BBC Children in Need, 2020). This highlights the importance of earned media to increase exposure and engagement. COVID-19 has provided the opportunity for change with new relevant ways to communicate and reach new audiences, offering virtual and digital events and this type of communication may be where the future lies.

Lauren Phoenix is a student blogger from the MA in Media and Public Relations at Newcastle University

References:

The coronavirus outbreak and charitable giving | CAF Research (2020). Available at: https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/research/coronavirus-and-charitable-giving (Accessed: 14 November 2020).

BBC Children in Need (2020). Available at: https://www.bbcchildreninneed.co.uk (Accessed: 14 November 2020).

Be an ‘Eco Babe’ and avoid Black Friday sales, they are far from sustainable.

Posted on by
Reply

By Isobel Parker

BRITS were predicted to spend £6bn on Black Friday this year and every brand wants you to spend your money with them by offering a host of unmissable offers and discounts.

But at what point do brands go too far, meaning Black Friday becomes a PR nightmare as oppose to a financial success? [1] A clear example of a Black Friday blunder this year came from fast fashion giant Pretty Little Thing, which offered shoppers an ‘up to 99% off everything’ sale leaving Twitter and the headlines in uproar, perhaps unsurprisingly. Dresses were being sold for as little as 8p and bikini bottoms were available for 5p; these prices would make anyone assume that someone along the production line was being exploited and the sustainability of such a campaign must be questioned.

From a company running a 99% off sale you would imagine that corporate social responsibility was unheard of. However, on googling Pretty Little Thing CSR, you are met with a website page titled Sustainability. The page explains how PLT ‘babes’ can do their bit for the environment, by treating their denim right, making it last longer or by taking part in the PLT ‘ReGain’ project by sending the company their old clothes to recycle and receive a discount on their next purchase.  With fashion contributing to 10% of global Co2 emissions every year and the average person throwing away 31.75kg of clothing per year, how can PLT host this sale and then claim to be fully behind sustainability? [2]

This could be seen as an example of greenwashing, using CSR to mask social irresponsibility and covering up potential malpractice by papering over the cracks of corporate wrongdoing. However, in the days of social media a web page about sustainability is not enough to avoid a Twitter backlash.

Black Friday seemed like a dark day for Pretty Little Thing’s PR with earned and shared media being extremely negative, with mainstream newspapers such as the Guardian sharing their shortcomings. We would expect this to be a major hit in terms of the company’s reputation bank-however, on second glance it appears shoppers were still not deterred and the company managed to generate engagement with over 100, 000 people on a singular giveaway tweet. Although there is a growing movement towards sustainable fashion across the world, it seems it will take more than environmental outrage to deter Black Friday bargain hunters.

#prstudent

[1]https://www.finder.com/uk/black-friday-statistics

[2] https://www.prettylittlething.com/sustainability

The ethical concerns of fast fashion and whether you should still buy from the brands

Posted on by
Reply

By Sophie Smith

FAST fashion has shifted the way in which the fashion industry works. There are many elements that make it ‘fast’, the customer’s decision to buy a garment, the production line, next day delivery and even how often the item of clothing is worn for. This produces the thought of how ethical fast fashion can really be.

Over the Black Friday weekend, brands under the Boohoo Group PLC, such as Pretty Little Thing and Nasty Gal, offered discounts as high as 99% off, meaning you could buy items for 5p. In what circumstances can this be ethical? Who is suffering for the company to charge this little? Fast fashion companies reduce costs as much as they can during the production line by using poor quality clothing and paying workers below minimum wage.

To no surprise, customers were still jumping at the chance to pay so little for multiple items, it’s a deal like no other. At that moment you may not necessarily think about the implications the low costs create. It also gives people the opportunity to buy clothes they may not usually be able to afford, and that is completely fair. However, it is an ongoing issue in the fast fashion industry that their production is not ethical.

For the factory workers employed by fast fashion companies, the pay they receive is not usually sufficient. Boohoo Group PLC and Missguided have multiple factories in Leicester that employ mainly migrant and temporary workers. In 2018 an exposé by the Financial Times found that workers in the city were paid £3.50 an hour, which is half of the minimum wage for a 16-18-year-old. This is even worse in developing countries, in 2019 Statista reported that Ethiopian garment workers received the lowest monthly wage of $26[1].

The impact of fast fashion on the environment is also a cause for concern. The clothing industry is the second highest polluter of clean water, according to the Institute of Sustainable Communication[2], mainly from toxic chemicals being dumped by fast fashion retailers. Most clothes are made from oil-based polyester which has now overtaken cotton as the main fibre in clothing. Fast fashion also uses lead salts to colour clothing because it is cheaper but not particularly safe for you or the environment.

For such an unethical industry, fast fashion continues to thrive. High-street brands such as H&M and Topshop have to compete with the availability that fast fashion provides, they’re now classed as ‘fast’ in their own way. H&M receive new merchandise on a daily basis, so they are providing new items to you very quickly.

I also spoke to a few friends about why they find it hard to shop with more ethical, sustainable brands, with most saying it’s about the range of garments they offer. A lot of sustainable brands don’t produce plus-sized clothing, and charity shops quite often have a small range of men’s clothing. This has encouraged them to shop at these fast fashion companies that offer everything they could need. You also find the problem that sustainable brands can be expensive and for a lot of people that isn’t ideal. I know as a student I like to keep things cheap.

We have seen the ethical issues behind fast fashion, and I think we will always be aware of this. However, because of the growth of the industry, and the lack of choice elsewhere, we are being steered into the direction of fast fashion brands. I have no doubt that we will continue to shop with these brands until we can find a cheaper, more varied ethical way of shopping. Until then, I personally don’t think we should feel overly guilty or ashamed for shopping fast fashion.

If you would like to take a look at what Boohoo Group PLC have on their sustainability page, this can be found here: https://www.boohooplc.com/sustainability/supply-chain-review

[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/17903/monthly-minimum-wage-in-the-global-garment-industry/

[2] https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/why-fast-fashion-is-killing-the-planet-and-your-ethics/

WE NEED INCLUSIVE SIZING!

Posted on by
Reply

By Isobel Parker

Instagram has been in uproar this week, once again furious about an issue that’s been sweeping the sneaker industry time and again: ‘WE DON’T NEED WOMEN’S EXCLUSIVES. WE NEED INCLUSIVE SIZING’.

The streetwear and sneaker industry is renowned for being male centric, we only have to go into Newcastle city centre with shops like END. and the newly opening SIZE?, to see this inequality. Although arguably everything is ‘unisex’ in their stores and they hold a small female range, however, they are obviously male centric passing off size inclusivity by providing men’s XS in their ranges, a men’s XS is in no way the same as women’s.

But what does women’s size inclusivity have to do with PR?

EVERYTHING.

There are copious articles being written, from Vogue to Title magazine, declaring the problems with sneaker drop’s size inclusivity. Whilst Nike attracted a great amount of positive earned media in the summer when they announced the Virgil Abloh x Air Jordan would drop exclusively for women, this positivity was only damped when they announced, following male outcry, that they would instead drop the Jordan in all sizes.

Size exclusivity can be great for a companies’ profile and market image, fewer sizes meaning less availability creating a stir for their product. If something is scarce more people want it to become a part of the perceived exclusive club.

Surely, however, for any brand, whether big or small, by introducing size inclusivity they are showing themselves as brand engaging in two-way symmetrical communications with their consumers. Listening to what your consumer wants can only be a positive start.

It appears these companies are not researching the market enough; women are sneakerheads too! For example, Rebecca Hydahl, a female sneaker collector from Denmark has nearly 150, 000 thousand followers. Companies have a readymade base for influencer marketing on Instagram which they are not taking full advantage of.

I am aware I sound somewhat negative and as though there is no inclusivity for the female market; there have been some big leaps already taken however, time and time again, women’s drops are just pastel versions of the same design; it is just not enough. Give the girls what they want, increase your public outreach and listen to your consumers.

Engagement with and delivering for your consumers is the only way successful way forward. 

Eat Out to Help Out: A PR triumph or a societal disaster?

Posted on by
Reply

By Isobel Parker

In a lockdown 2.0 Britain, August almost seems hundreds of years ago; almost the golden age of this century like year, life was good but in retrospect was it just the calm before the storm?

Perhaps the most memorable aspect of August was Sunak’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme announced on 8th July: a £500 million subsidy for the UK’s hospitality industry, providing 50% off meals throughout August every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The scheme was expected to bolster the £130 billion hospitality industry by drawing back nervous Britons to the hustle and bustle of normality.[1] Although at the time, the scheme seemed like the lifeline we all needed, now it is being blamed for the recent spike we have seen in Covid-19 cases which is not surprising as two weeks after the scheme ended virus cases had more than tripled from the figure taken on 1st August.

The scheme was an example of two-way asymmetric communication: an imbalanced communication that persuaded people to change their behaviour. Through offering 50% off meals the government were able to persuade customers to change their behaviour and start going back to restaurants after lockdown. Although customers benefited from the scheme as they were saving money, the main benefactors here were, meant to be, the government and economy as people were once again putting money back into the hospitality sector.

From a PR point of view, it seemed like it would be a clear success. In terms of reputation bank this felt like an almost fail safe for the Conservatives, what could possibly go wrong? Through an atypical nudge theory, they were encouraging people to leave their houses, through the promise of discounts and money saving after a bleak economic period. They were saving jobs and businesses by increasing footfall by supposedly tenfold. This was meant to be a saving grace for the industry. But was it enough?

Like a lot of Public Relations campaigns, Eat Out to Help Out employed Dietrich’s PESO model in its marketing. Foremost, as it was a government scheme it had a lot of Paid and Owned media produced by the government, for example there was a lot of information regarding the scheme on the gov.uk website including free promotional materials for every restaurant and café taking part, as well as information about how to use the promotional content within the business. Secondly, the scheme was proposed by Rishi Sunak within the House of Commons which attracted the first swathe of earned media. Earned media was extremely important in the campaign and that’s obvious as it’s what we most remember, for example, the press were invited to events where Conservative MPs were in restaurants serving on providing us with the now recognisable image of Sunak waitressing in

 Wagamama’s. The campaign received a lot of press attention and news coverage, whether good or bad, if you now type into google ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ it delivers 4,310,000,000 hits. Furthermore, shared media provided a lot of promotion for the scheme through restaurants marketing the scheme via their own social media. Many venues still have a highlight on their Instagram for the scheme and some eateries, such as Bill’s and Yo! Sushi, chose to extend a ‘spin off’ of the offer throughout September.

Despite all this, figures now show the scheme only had a marginal impact and 66% of businesses still reported a fall in sales between July and September of this year.[2] New findings are also showing that the crowded restaurants of august are to blame for the spike of COVID-19 cases throughout the country, causing people to now feel betrayed and confused about the scheme.[3] Moreover, the hospitality industry has become the Conservatives scape goat with the 10pm curfew being imposed causing many hospitality businesses to lose half their earnings every day. Almost comically the images used to market the campaign of Sunak serving on in Wagamama’s have now be used throughout social media in response to the shambolic CyberFirst campaign. Unfortunately, the scheme obviously didn’t do enough for the Conservatives reputation bank as they have once again become a national laughing stock, leading many people to now view the scheme not as a PR triumph but instead a societal disaster.

[1] https://www.standard.co.uk/reveller/restaurants/eat-out-to-help-out-rishi-sunak-restaurant-vouchers-a4492431.html

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/01/eat-out-to-help-out-failed-boost-finances-uk-hospitality-industry

[3] https://theconversation.com/eat-out-to-help-out-crowded-restaurants-may-have-driven-uk-coronavirus-spike-new-findings-145945https://theconversation.com/eat-out-to-help-out-crowded-restaurants-may-have-driven-uk-coronavirus-spike-new-findings-145945

“Our names define us” – an insight into Mastercard’s True NameTM initiative

Posted on by
Reply

By Sophie Smith

How many of you think about how your name is written on your bank cards? Probably not many. For the LGBTQ+ community, this thought is there every time they make a purchase. Not having a name that represents your true identity can lead to judgement and questions. This is why Mastercard developed their True NameTM initiative which allows you to put your chosen name on your bank card, without going through the process of legally changing your name.

In week 2 of the MCH8065 PR module, we looked at two-way symmetrical communication and any examples we could find. Initially I didn’t know whether this campaign would come under two-way symmetrical communication, until I looked into it further and found Mastercard’s previous work with the LGBTQ+ community and NYC pride.

A quote from a spokesperson for Inter-LGBT, suggests that this initiative has been developed from requests the LGBTQ+ community themselves, “this initiative reflects the request of trans persons: the recognition of their gender and name by a simple declaration”.

The concept itself was not just an idea Mastercard came up with. The Defenseur des Droits [a concept in France] had been requesting since 2016 that banks should adapt and take into consideration first names. This stemmed from a recommendation made by the Defenseur des Droits, which is an institution in France that focuses on people’s rights.

The supporting quotes and endorsement from the LGBTQ+ community support the view that this initiative has elements of two-way symmetrical communication as it implies that Mastercard have worked with people’s suggestions to develop a mutually beneficial initiative.

Alongside True NameTM, Mastercard have worked on other campaigns such as Acceptance Street in New York, and #AcceptanceMatters. Both of these adding to their ongoing commitment to the community.

More information on the initiative can be found at:

https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/vision/who-we-are/pride.html

https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/vision/who-we-are/pride.html

https://www.contagious.com/news-and-views/mastercard-practices-trans-inclusion-with-true-name-initiative

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/06/19/mastercard-pushes-lgbtq-rights-with-new-campaign-and-activation