Big Brother: PR Stunt or PR Disaster?

I've been a "big brother" fan since the programme was launched a couple of years ago, however due to a busy schedule, I must confess that i hadn't watched the current series of celebrity big brother until it started making the headlines this week.

My initial reaction? Well, isn't that what big brother is all about? Maximising controversy to boost their audience ratings? So like the many millions who hadn't tuned in until the alleged racism made headlines, I made a conscious decision, accepting to be manipulated by the programme producers' PR machine and decided to watch the programme on Tuesday night.

It was unpleasant viewing. The unprovoked outbursts and insults by Jade and what Jermaine Jackson referred to as "her allies" kept me glued to channel 4. I've since been following every twist and turn to the story.

Jade's eviction last night was watched by an estimated 7.8million people. Channel 4 and Endemol have succeeded in boosting their audience figures. People in India who may never have heard about the show now know about it - thanks to the controversy (the grapevine has it that Shilpa Shetty was included in the show to promote it in India). Politicians both in India and Britain many of whom claim to have never watched the programme, now have a vague idea about "big brother".

The programme has made almost every front page of every British national newspaper, including the Financial Times. It has made the lead story on almost every TV and radio outlet and my...the blogosphere? How much would the producers have paid for such enormous publicity?

So a good PR stunt perhaps, but was the negative publicity worth it? Why did the channel choose to remain adamant as the debate surrounding the programme exploded? I usually watch the edited highlights of the programme at 21.00hrs. The fact that the edited version was as provocative as it was, appeared to suggest that it was indeed a PR stunt.

It was not until the main sponsors of the show - the Carphone Warehouse decided to pull the plug that the channel or producers reconsidered their earlier stance - attempting to deny that there was anything wrong with Jade's attitude.

Carphone warehouse arguably took advantage of the furore and gained free coverage that would otherwise have cost the company millions in advertising.

Now as if to limit the damage, big brother appears to have broken his own rules by first; tipping the housemates about what's happening in the outside world. Jade's behaviour in her final hours in the house appeared to have changed dramatically. She didn't appear surprised that she was met by Presenter Davina McCall and just the production crew- without the traditional live crowd. She was apologetic and denied being racist.

And now Channel four faces accusations that the eviction itself was stage managed. Why did they deny the live audience the chance to "handle" Jade? Why did they deny the press the opportunity to speak to Jade as demanded by big brother tradition? Why did Jade say that she knew why she was leaving? Why did she apologise to Shilpa? Why did Shilpa suddenly retract her comments that she thought that the "allies" attitude towards her amounted to racism? And now it has emerged that the show was not even as "live" as we were made to believe. Could some juicy bits have been edited out?

Whatever the case, the producers have been forced to donate the proceeds from last night's telephone eviction vote to charity. Some have described the whole saga as a PR stunt. Others prefer to refer to it as a PR disaster. How would you describe it?

Climate Change Vs Public Relations

I'd decided to take a break, but I've been prompted to think aloud, after observing what appears to be an emerging trend amongst corporations and politicians - influenced by the debate surrounding climate change.

Since Economist Sir Nicholas Stern released a major report last October, warning that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%, a number of organisations and politicians including Tony Blair appear to be under pressure to be seen to care about the environment.

On his return from a recent holiday in the United States, the British Prime Minister announced that he was working on a plan to offset carbon emissions from his long haul holiday flights. Conservative politician Tim Yeo recently announced that he too is making his contribution to tackling climate change and its effects, by replacing his flights to Glasgow with longer Train journeys.

Now am beginning to notice that a number of organisations including the Coop and HSBC are now offering so-called "green" mortages and loans that they claim are aimed at offsetting their carbon emissions by planting trees that will absorb that equivalent in developing countries.

Now high street chain Marks and Spencer has announced a 200 million pound "green" programme. Check out the details in this press release.

http://www2.marksandspencer.com/thecompany/mediacentre/pressreleases/2007/com2007-01-15-00.shtml

So are these organisations and individuals really concerned about the effects of their behaviour on the climate or is it just becoming a PR Fad?

Are we going to see more organsations adopt green policies like they adopted corporate social responsibility programmes years ago that have arguably been used to deflect public scrutiny? Over to you!

Does the growth of new media signal the "death" of the Press Release?

One of the traditional tools used in PR to draw media attention is the Press Release.

Whilst the format of the Press release has remained standard, the way it is delivered to media houses has evolved with the advancement of technology.

Gone are the days when embargoed Press releases were sent by post. Also disappearing, at least in developed countries, are faxed press releases. Organisations have resorted to emailing their press releases to media houses or posting copies on their websites.

So with the growth of new media. How is one of the major tools of the PR trade - the press release likely to be affected? Social networking groups, RSS, podcasts, 24 hour news networks etc

Well, some PR observers have started identifying ways of adopting new media technologies for press releases, and already a new format that takes into account new technology has been developed.

The format of the so-called "new social media news release" is more interactive than the traditional text based press release.

According to www.entrepreneur.com, the social media template is designed to contain the following:

• "A brief description of the news announcement


• Quotes from the CEO or other execs, customers and analysts, if applicable


• Photo/video attachments, or links to web pages that host these items


• Links inside the release copy to background information, and relevant links to other news stories or reference sources


• Digital tags (used to link to web tools such as Del.icio.us and Digg)


• RSS Feed links


• Links to podcasts and MP3 files, graphics and video"

The new format is said to be more user friendly as it takes into account new media technology, promotes greater online accessibility and provides users with the opportunity to feedback to the authors.

Rather good news for PR. But does this mark the end or the death of the traditional press release? It's name alone - press release or media release suggests the press release was specifically designed for the media. The social media release arguably suggests otherwise.

So PR has the ability to adapt to the changing technological environment. However, will journalists have the time to go through all the information provided? There's also a danger of concentrating on new technology and forgetting the substance or content of the press release. Is it still making a newsworthy announcement? And what about PR in developing countries where the majority of people do not yet have access to new media technology?

Here's an interesting discussion on the death of the press release!

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:94iBDlSZjq0J:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2006/02/die_press_relea.php+death+of+press+release&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2