What Would I do?

At around 11am this morning, whilst eating my mid morning snack of Weetabix my mind went into over drive whilst watching This Morning with Phil and Holly. Usually full of good news stories and the odd fashion section presented by Jason Gardiner they ventured into the discussion of a number of websites offering a service to match married people actively seeking an affair.

One lady who used this service, for a number of years, was sat with her back to the camera as she wanted the hide her identity. Although how she was planning to convince people that it wasn’t her I have no idea! If one of my friends was on This Morning and I could hear their voice, see their hair and knew they weren’t at home I am sure even the dimmest of friends could work that out.

She explained how the service had helped her find a person to fulfil her sexual appetite as her husband couldn’t and that her relationship had in fact improved since she had joined the site.
The purpose of this blog however is not to assess this ladies relationship or condone or condemn the website itself, as it could be seen to be cashing in on something that is happening anyway, but instead to point out that this is a real life case of a moral dilemma that I have discussed in previous posts.

It got me pondering: What would I do if the PR agency I started to work for in July had this website as a client?

The feature was presented on this morning was essentially free advertising for this website and I am sure many people will have done the same as me and logged on to see what all the fuss was about. Oh and even if I wanted to join, which for the record – I don’t - I wouldn’t be able to because I’m not married!

I noted that the spokeswoman from the website was very calm and collected. Many people have said that it looked like she was wearing some sort of disguise, a blonde long haired wig and glasses. Is this because she doesn’t want to be recognised? Or create an impression? If however she wasn’t ‘in disguise’ and in fact looks like that all the time then I apologise! :-)

Just thought I would share my pondering with you all and also point out that if you are having an affair don’t go onto primetime morning television to be interviewed with Phil and Holly without disguising your voice or body, as unsurprisingly people will be able to recognise you from the back……

The 2011 Adventure

2011 is here! And with it comes plenty of exciting things:



The final instalment of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, a census and a VAT increase to 20%...



However we must not forget: Carli Ann Smith is on the job market!!



As of July 2011 I will be transforming from a PR student to a PR practitioner and I cannot wait.



For those that are interested to know more about my experience and projects I have worked on, feel free to add me on LinkedIn if you haven't already or email me on carli_smith@hotmail.com and I will send you my CV.



Here is to a fantastic new year :-) I am ready for every challenge that 2011 has to throw at me so come on let's make it a great one!

Do WHAT Boss?!

It is very easy to sit and say: “I would never do anything that would contradict my morals and ethics.” But what happens when you have responsibilities? When you have to keep earning to make sure that you don’t end up homeless or jobless?

Individuals are in limbo, according to Seib and Fitzpatrick (Peter and Olson: 2006: 296) PR practitioners have a loyalty to themselves, their client or organisation, their profession and to society as a whole. Brilliant when they are all in sync but what happens when there is a difference. What happens when you have to do something that you don’t agree with? Quit? Do it? Tell the press?

One anonymous source from within the public sector gave me this example:

“What do you do when the top dog of your organisation has been squandering taxpayers’ money on lavishing business leaders with football tickets, hotel accommodation and games of golf? Seeing public money used in this way is a hard pill to swallow; to say staff were shocked at what was going on is an understatement. So, after a sprinkle of some PR fairy dust we managed to avoid what could have been an otherwise explosive story.”

Initially you would accuse my source of being dishonest and covering immoral behaviour, from a cognitive approach there are obvious examples of absolute rights and wrongs being displayed here. But I don’t agree, I take a more non-cognitive approach. Non-cognitivism says that’s morality is subjective and bound up in the specific cultural context of individuals. There are only beliefs, attitudes and opinions. This means that individuals are able to change their opinions (or have them changed for them) in order to justify their motives and make their morals fit the situation. Handy for us…

This situation could have been a massive story, the media would have pounced and ran with it! It would have caused major public unrest especially given the current economic climate, when the public has little respect and trust in the public sector. So is this really essential knowledge right now?

If this was being carried out in a private sector company there would be no question’s raised, it would just be plain interesting, and let’s face it, Directors take customers out to wine and dine all the time. But because this is public money does this change the situation?

The source said: “As PR people we are often privileged to sensitive, suppressed or unpalatable information, and our job isn’t to judge it, but decide the best way to use it.”

But how do we decide the best way to use it? There are many ‘ethical decision making’ models in textbooks such as Potters Box but frankly when do we have time to sit and weigh up every situation and think about consequences that can’t always be accurately predicted?

The model I will be using when I enter employment is Parson’s five pillars that ‘carry the weight of ethical decision making in public relations’ (Peter and Olson: 2006: 302):

- Veracity

I agree that you must tell the truth, more of my thoughts on this can be found in my blog post: The truth, the whole truth… But what is it?!

- Non-malfeasance

I do not intend on harming anyone purposefully. However it is important to note that this statement can be applied to different stakeholders. So my behaviour should not harm either: myself, my client, my organisation or society as a whole. Not always achievable!

- Beneficence

I must ‘do good’. Entering into the job market it could be said that I hold many slightly rose-tinted views. But I would like to think that I will do good with my job, whether that is for the organisation I work for or for our clients.

- Confidentiality

I will respect privacy. Confidentiality is often protected in the way of rules and regulations anyway, but if it is not then I will try my upmost to do so.

- Fairness

I must be fair and socially responsible. Easier said than done. Is being socially responsible telling the public everything or is taking a slightly more paternalistic view and deciding to protect them from certain information?

I will be using this model because it allows the practitioner to place emphasis on differing stakeholders and it also fits in with my main morals of telling the truth and not causing harm.

I don’t think it is possible when working as a PR Practitioner to have a black and white view on what is right and wrong because you are dealing with a high number of stakeholders interests everyday so what is right for one of them might not be for another.

I must say, I think my source summed it up completely:

We hold the information, we shouldn’t judge it, just use it how we think best.

How do you decide what is right and wrong? What ethical decision making processes do you use? Or do you just use gut instinct?

Of public interest, or just plain interesting?

Our society’s fascination with other people’s lives is engrained within us from a very young age and is reflected in the high number of gossip magazines that we purchase as a nation. We have always liked to keep up with the Jones’s but the first stage of keeping up is knowing what they have in the first place. Like it or not, we are a nation of nosey parkers...

According to Peter and Olson (2006:69) UK regulations have been based on the distinction between public and private interests. However, it raises the question as to whether the general population know their real interest or whether these interests have been shaped by people such as ourselves, PR professionals. The textbooks call it paternalism, some may call it propaganda.

As PR practitioners we are paid to shape opinions and persuade people to our way of thinking, are we not?

So what’s the difference, do the public need to know everything just because they find it interesting? And do we have a duty to tell them details when they need only know facts and figures?

Before we decide what is ‘of public interest’ we have to define it. There are two main ways in which it is viewed, emergent and aggregate. Emergent concepts decide on areas of public interest by encouraging interactions between people in the form of discussions and debates (Peter and Olson:2006:70). The aggregate concept adds together desires and wishes of individuals. For example, according to the aggregate concept it could be argued that Emmerdale is of public interest because a lot of people watch it.

To fully get to grips with this I shall apply a case study: Michael Jacksons Death

Type in Michael Jacksons Death into Google and over 15 million results will come up.

What information was of public interest?

He died, his greatest hits album would be released soon and his tour was cancelled.

What information was interesting to the public?

Everything else. Did his Dr overdose him on drugs, the rumour that one of his children wasn’t his, what his mum and dad thought, how much money he had earned since he died, where his money has gone, who gets his estate.

Did the public REALLY need to know all that? If we decided that the aggregate concept is correct then yes they did, due to the fact a lot of people were interested. An emergent view would also support it, people were talking about it meaning that it was of public interest. But in my opinion people just wanted to know because they were nosey, did it affect their lives directly? No.

A study claims that 64% of people polled believed the coverage for Jackson’s death was too much. So it seems that some people agree, bet they still bought the papers though.

In this case I believe it was the fact that the papers knew that the public were interested in the story so it was a guaranteed way to sell papers. However it could be argued that it was an example of paternalism, in the sense that the papers (‘an elite few’) decided that the public would be interested in Jackson’s death to such an extent and fed the public a certain view on the situation, filled with controversy, dramatisation and ‘exclusives’.

The rise of individuals personalising their media choices and being able to choose the news that they receive could be seen as a solution to this apparent paternalism, however in my opinion it will always exist. Parents do it to their children, wives do it to their husbands and husbands do it their wives. It is a form of protection, putting their interests first.

Often the public’s interests are catered to with kiss and tell stories and countless articles on the adventures of their favourite celebrities but what happens when there are rules and regulations to prevent things from being printed? What about confidentiality? To a certain extent this could further fuel interest as it is not meant to be known, so when it is found out the media run with it and the public lap it up.

Does it make a difference however when you are talking about companies rather than celebrities? Do people still have that yearning for information and scandal? Indeed they do, ranging from directors of companies putting their foot in it like Gerald Ratner or grand openings gone wrong in the case of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. People are always interested in knowing what goes on behind closed doors.

As a PR professional we have to make this distinction: what do people need to know to ensure they make a rational decision? What isn’t essential knowledge and often more importantly, what do we need to keep quiet? Often we hold information that could make or break an organisation or that could cause major unrest society and it is up to us how to use it…

Scary thought hey?!

Coming soon...

Over the next few blog posts I will be exploring the notion of truth and how it fits into the profession of Public Relations.

To quote the CIPR:

‘Reputation has a direct and major impact on the corporate well-being of every organisation, be it a multinational, a charity, a Government Department or a small business. That is why the professionalism of those people who guard and mould reputation – public relations practitioners – is so important.’

The subject matter I will be discussing is:

“Honest and responsible regard for the public interest is not the same as telling the truth.”

If anyone has any specific thoughts and would like to contribute feel free to email me on: carli_smith@hotmail.com – if you wish to be anonymous then that can easily be arranged.


So come on, shock me with your best stories of withholding information. Or give me the low down on how your personal ethics fit in with the organisation you work for? And what would you do if you were asked to work on a campaign that was controversial?

What is Expeditionary Marketing? And is it right for you and your business?

Expeditionary Marketing is not a trek along the Great Wall of China or even a climb to the top of Mount Kilimanjaro. You don’t have to travel to the Amazon and navigate your way through the unknown forests and discover dangerous native tribes. Expeditionary Marketing can all be done from the comfort of your organisation’s HQ, your office or your home...

Society has changed due to many factors, from reductions in the amount of disposable income that your customers have to rising costs of running their homes. Consumers are becoming increasingly media savvy and have been for the past few decades, they are no longer guaranteed to seek information about certain products. No longer can marketers rely on a television advert on a popular channel, a couple of adverts in a generic magazine and a leaflet through a consumers’ front door. New innovative methods are emerging as businesses look for opportunities to approach and target new markets and gain valuable market share.

A new discipline is emerging and it is essential that companies who want to be successful at least acknowledge its existence. Entrepreneurial Marketing is based on 7 key principles:

- Pro-activeness
- Calculated Risk taking
- Innovativeness
- Opportunity focus
- Resource leveraging
- Customer intensity
- Value creation

Expeditionary marketing is one of the tools in the kit of entrepreneurial marketing. It acknowledges that failure might take place, but it is a risk worth taking. It is based on the question of:

Whether your business is there to simply serve customers and create new markets?

Do your marketing efforts follow consumer’s wants and needs or does it lead them in new directions?

If you are still not with it then let me use an example:

The Apple brand is extremely entrepreneurial in its approach to business. They are a brand that are willing to put themselves out there and take risks. Who would have ever thought that the IPod would have made such as impact? It is extremely hard to find a household without an IPod and even if an individual already had an mp3 player they would often purchase an IPod anyway. Just think to yourself, was there a market for a touch screen computer that allowed consumers to play games, view pictures, browse the internet, edit documents and download some pointless applications? No. There wasn’t. Apple didn’t identify a specific audience that needed these benefits, they launched a product and caused enough of a buzz around it through various forms of marketing and PR that consumers were convinced they needed one and it was a given that hardcore Apple Loyalists would purchase one anyway. Clever hey?!

For companies like Apple who are in the fast moving world of technology it is easier to create new products and pose them to consumers as new gadgets are being invented all the time. But could every business benefit from expeditionary market to a certain degree? By looking beyond serving consumers and venturing into the unknown your business might discover something new or tap into a new target audience you never knew you had.

It was said at the beginning of the article that your business wasn’t required to enter the unknown forest of the Amazon, but to a certain extent it is. The world is a big place with many unknowns about it, so go and explore, you never know that native tribe you find might love your product...

Shock tactics

The Charity Commission have recently updated the guidelines on fundraising and have warned charities over the risks to reputation associated with using shock tactics to encourage donations and raise awareness. After reading the article in PR Week it got me thinking:

Should shock tactics be allowed? And in such a crowded market place are they effective anymore?

We’ve all seen the adverts featuring the lonely puppy tied up by the side of the road and the children living in a shanty town surrounded by rubbish but has the time come for charities to find new methods of attracting our attention?

The majority of people know what these charities stand for so don’t need to be reminded every time they see the advert. Some people may find the content of the advert distressing and be so shocked that they disengage with the advert and the charity completely because they associate them in a negative way. There is also the argument that one of the reasons people donate money to charities is because they experience a sense of guilt, these adverts are encouraging this as individuals will look at themselves sat in their comfortable well furnished houses and feel bad. Would it not be better to try and educate donors as to how their money would benefit and show the work they have done already? This is an approach that Cancer Research UK has adopted and I feel it has been successful for them.

However is this all just further evidence of the so called ‘nanny state’ trying to shield people from what goes on in the real world? The advert represents what the charity stands for and illustrates the type of work it does. As my grandparents would say: ‘If people don’t like it then they can just turn it over.’

I do believe that when used effectively shock tactics can be a brilliant addition to a campaign as they break through advertising clutter and are likely to be remembered. In my opinion the THINK car safety campaigns use shock tactics effectively and are memorable. The main message of the advert is always remembered and sometimes I find myself quoting them saying things such as: ‘Don’t be a back seat killer!’ to my friends when they are in the back seats.

Shock tactics should be used with caution and extensive research should be done as to not offend viewers or shock anyone too much. There will always be people who prefer not to see them but that’s their choice. A balance is needed, therefore a campaign should be both informational and attention seeking.

What do you think about adverts relying on shock tactics? Is there a place for shock advertising? Would you be more likely to donate to a charity who didn’t use them or not?