How Important is Social Media as a PR Tool?

Social media is a term given to a constantly evolving number of networks that have steadily built platforms to exist on the Internet, mobile technology and widgets. These platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and MySpace, to name but a few, have built an online community or a ‘global village,’ as McLuhan believed. They bring people from all over the world together with the click of a mouse or button on a phone, allowing them to ‘self publish’ and giving them a voice and a presence on the internet. These social online connections have opened doors for public relations in terms of global and local networking. By building online relationships, a PRO is able to link up with thousands of people in the media industry and learn from them. If influential journalists, bloggers or public relations specialists are writing articles or blogs, giving their opinions or presenting breaking news, interacting with these people allows a public relations practitioner to view what they are writing, what influences them and gain inside knowledge from a number of different perspectives. Sky News has even recently appointed a Twitter correspondent for news sourcing and up to the minute news in our society. Additionally, social media allows people in the public relations industry to interact with the public, which is incredibly important when it comes to branding.

Social media has been proven to attract new customers…and create a solid base of loyal clients and can be useful in terms of building and sustaining their reputations and finding out and changing perceptions of brands. Twitter is especially good at this; customers and fans can follow their favourite brands, see what they are up to, often receive special offers or discount coupons and engage in conversation with the company. This allows the brands to demonstrate two-way communication and transparency, which is important to ensure trust, an integral part of PR. Social media has developed to the point that it is no longer a number of narrow, singular channels but instead a wider construct of communications and interlinking networks. This seismic shift from broadcast models to engaged networks leads me on to Jan van Dijk and his idea of Network Society, translated into English in 1999. This is the concept that our society is shaped a mix of media and online interaction in three main categories; individual, societal and organizational, gradually replacing face-to-face communication and changing how we interact. To put more eloquently,

‘a network structure connects all levels of society, usually called the micro, meso and macro level or the private and the public (spheres and levels). It was noticed that the dividing lines between these abstractions are blurring in reality. On the Internet interpersonal, organizational and mass communication come together. Using this medium we bring the ‘whole world’ into our homes and working places,’ (van Dijk, 1999)

This further supports the idea of McLuhan’s ‘global village,’ and Facebook and Twitter pages allow public relations officers to manage reputations, forge customer relations and link up with people all over the world in what has clearly been demonstrated as relative normality. Fifteen years ago this would not have been possible, and these opportunities have lead to greater understanding between public relations practitioners and the public. As the second most popular website in the world after Google and with over three hundred and fifty million users, it is rare to find someone who doesn’t have Facebook in today’s western society. Given that more than three and a half billion pieces of content are shared on this website per week, it is easy to see how useful this website is as a public relations tool. Only a few months ago, easyJet announced their move to launch a ‘holiday planner’ application that allows consumers to purchase tickets and invite friends on their planned trips. This has shown easyJet’s understanding of today’s network society, where people spent up to five and a half hours on social networking sites in December 2009, up 82% from last year. Today’s younger generation especially have grown up on Hi5, Bebo, MySpace, Facebook and more recently Twitter, so it is important to connect with the consumers of the future and connect with them in the relevant and appropriate way that they have learned to communicate.

In light of this, it has been interesting to see how quickly social networking sites such as Twitter have overtaken traditional types of pr tactics such as press releases. Recently the CEO of Fortune 200 company Sun Microsystems resigned via Twitter in haiku form, declaring:

‘Today’s my last day at Sun. I’ll miss it. Seems only fitting to end on a #haiku. Financial crisis/Stalled too many customers/CEO no more.’

Twitter allows people from all over the globe to have online and tweet conferences, and Google have just updated their search engine to show trends, tweets and Facebook statuses, allowing practitioners to actually monitor public perceptions using Search Engine Optimization. This allowed Dell to discover that:

‘…Twitter has produced $1 million in revenue over the past year and a half through sale alerts. People who sign up to follow Dell on Twitter receive messages when discounted products are available at the company’s Home Outlet Store. They can click over to purchase the product or forward the information to others.’

However, it is possible for social media to be a negative thing for the public relations industry. One issue is that it is becoming nigh on impossible to be anything other than transparent; any indiscretions, mistakes or crises can be broadcast within minutes to the world by anyone. Just one example is the recent Southwest Airlines misdemeanor regarding director Kevin Smith. Not realizing who he was, an airline worker ejected him from a flight for being too overweight for his seat. Within minutes, he wrote a tweet complaining about the issue which was seen by his following of over one and a half million. This provoked an outcry and prompted many other dissatisfied customers to share their stories and complain, the internet shortly afterwards seeing a surge in bad feeling towards the company with the press rapidly following suite and reporting widely on the issue. Their delayed apology seemed to have little effect on either Smith or the public. Nestle have also had a very recent social media disaster when they hit back at criticism and were rude to fans on their Facebook page, as well as threatening to censor and remove pictures and members. This, unsurprisingly, provoked widespread bad press and generated much bad PR for the company. The problem with social networking sites is that it gives power to celebrities and brands to do their own public relations, which can be problematic if they are not trained properly and gives the industry a bad name.

Social media is increasingly being used in a viral manner, which can be a useful public relations tool. Triumphs such as Rage of the Machine achieving Christmas Number 1 over the X-Factor winner was born out of a Facebook group, and awareness was raised for Breast Cancer Awareness through women changing their Facebook statuses to the colour of the bra that they were wearing. This was a simple idea which generated much talk and mystery for people who didn’t understand, sparking more internet talk about the cause. The rise of viral videos being shared as well means that public relations officials can take advantage of channels such as YouTube, such as during the public relations disaster for Dominos. A video was released on YouTube of two of their American employees doing a number of disgusting things to their food before appearing to serve it which provoked, understandably, huge amounts of negative press, loss of faith in the brand and a significant loss of customers. Dominos later utilized the same website by uploading their own apology onto this channel in order to reach the same audience that had viewed the original video.

Overall, it is easy to see both the pros and cons of social media for public relations in today’s Information Age. On one hand, these networks ensure transparency, which can only help the public relations reputation in terms of trust, but on the other hand it means that the side of PR that is hiding indiscretions and preventing bad press is over. Similarly, PR is beginning to get worse press from these company spokespeople who are now trying to deal with online crises who are not PR trained and are operating the social media sites for their brands. One of the most important things social media offers the world is the sense of immediacy; anyone can now access any information at any time, so it is vital that companies have an online crisis management response outline which they can put to use immediately if need be. A three-day wait for Dominos to upload their own video resulted in three days of speculation and anger and given today’s fast-paced society, something could have been done sooner.

It is no secret that both Facebook and Twitter played an important role in Barack Obama’s victory, and the sense of belonging to a network and being part of a community is an important one that his campaign team recognized. Any public relations companies, practitioners or brands that fail to take this on board and work with it are limiting their future success tenfold. The immediacy and intimacy of being able to talk to any consumer, business specialist or journalist at any place and time in the world at any point is hugely beneficial, especially during the recession. Companies have had to make cuts in spending, in particular when it comes to overseas business meetings and conferences, but social media still allows the interaction necessary for public relations to be effective. The ever-increasing popularity of social networking may well have contributed to the rise of the online social media release, too. These are slowly beginning to overtake traditional, paper press releases and not only save time, paper and money (and thus the environment) but also allow more information to be transmitted. Sites such as www.pitchengine.com allow a PRO to write a press release and link to Twitter, Facebook, RSS Feeds and other websites, as well as integrating other interactive media and videos.

From this blog, I hope it has been clear that with the correct precautions and understanding, social media can be a most useful public relations tool and helps build, sustain and enhance relationships with the public, industry insiders and stakeholders that would not have been possible fifteen years ago.

What is Public Relations?

It's been a busy few months with endless deadlines, Christmas and numerous Grad Assessment Days and interviews, and one of the questions that I've been asked in a number of times in them has been what exactly I think public relations is. In my opinion is a notoriously difficult term to define; throughout its academic and practical history it has experienced several name changes and involves practices from a wide variety of disciplines. Drawing on expertise from politics, sociology, business, reputation management, marketing, economics, public affairs and advertising, a public relations executive can be seen as a jack-of-all-trades or a chameleon; adaptable and flexible depending on the particular task in hand and integrating a number of fields.

Having read a book on issues management, I enjoyed the authors' view that PR is 'the art of adjusting organizations to environments and environments to organizations.’ (Crable and Vibbert) Every environment differs depending on the time in history, the country and the culture of the specific society. Culture in particular is of utmost importance in PR; what publics buy, read, listen to and watch are integral to consider when thinking of how they interact with an organization and how successful that organization consequently is. It has been suggested that publics are reactive entities that arise in response to organizational actions,' and in many ways it is easy to see how this conclusion been reached. When a new product such as the iPad, SatNav or Windows 7 becomes available, consumers rush to buy it, regardless of whether they know how to use it of if they will even in fact like the product. I can't help feeling that this is because of our societies “keep up with the Jones’” mentality, where our very identities are shaped by what we wear, buy and own. 

This attitude is something that has rapidly developed in today’s contemporary society. Consumer brands in particular are of utmost importance in our neoliberal, postmodern and capitalist culture, and before I address the significance of public relations in building these brands I shall briefly look at how this has come about. Jameson proposed that postmodernism is a ‘specific reaction against the established forms of high modernism’ and possibly even high culture. One can infer, then, that as a rebellion against academic literature, opera, classical music and art appreciation, today’s culture is focused on low culture or postmodern stimuli such as reality television, trashy magazines and rebellious rock or sexualized R&B types of music. Of course this is an overtly generalized and in many cases inaccurate view, however it cannot be denied that these indeed seem to dominate and influence our current consumer society.

Thompson et al (1990) proposed the notion of culture theory, which suggested that culture is an ‘ecosystem…[in which a] preferred pattern of social relations and cultural bias or set of shared values and beliefs about human society and the natural world…[are] reciprocal, interacting and reinforcing.’ This idea of interacting is also important in terms of two-way communication in public relations. An organization, and more specifically, a brand, is more successful if there is interaction and communication between both them and the publics. In order, then, to determine which products and brands will be successful in a particular society and how to build them, it is integral to discover how those publics will or already do react to certain products. Public relations is needed in order to build the brand a good reputation, convince publics to hold it in high regard and be loyal to it.

PR is also often discussed as a cultural intermediary in today’s promotional and pop culture, and people form their identity through their consumer purchases, with the role of public relations to helping determine, drive and respond to these trends. My belief is that brands flourish through the use of effective communications via conversational and textual mediums, rather than the use of visual aids. The general consensus today is that brands are built and sustained by effective advertising, marketing and PR as a combined sector, however it is important to differentiate between the three, especially given that PR actually plays an arguably more vital role in the success of brands than both advertising and marketing. Without the initial building of the brand and reputation, there would not be enough, if any, public interest for a product to even exist, let alone need to be advertised. Therefore, the main task for public relations in terms of building brands is to use words to convince the media and the publics that it is the company, organization or product is worth taking notice of and writing about. Language is the most fundamental tool in communications, yet advertising and marketing uses pictures that can be very effective, but not necessarily successful in portraying the exact message needed. The role of public relations in this culture to help build brands has been described as marketing public relations, i.e. promoting the products with clever use of PR by creating awareness of a product and establishing relationships between the brand and the media, as well as with the consumers. 

It can be argued that our culture is centred around the non-stop barrage of visual stimuli that saturates our very existence and is effective in influencing our consumer decisions. With pictures and adverts jumping out from pages in our morning paper, flashing across our screens in commercial breaks as we watch the news, catching our eye as we drive past massive billboards on our way to work and blinking onto our computer screens as we surf the internet, we have no choice but to acknowledge and subconsciously process the images of brands and advertisements for them that flood our day-to-day lives. I believing though that that we, as consumers, make decisions based on recommendations, reviews, comparisons and word of mouth. We go to see plays or films based on good reviews as opposed to a billboard picture that we have seen on the underground, and are employed on the basis of personal and professional references rather than facebook profile pictures. If a paper or trade magazine offers good reviews or recommends a particular product, be it a Topshop dress or the new quadcore 27-inch Apple Mac, we are likely to trust this source over an advert. In fact, we as consumers are trusting advertising less and less when it comes to consumer brands, with adverts such as mascara brands digitally enhancing or adding fake eyelashes for almost every brand and models in hair adverts wearing hair extensions. Good public relations therefore works hard to create credibility and trust; consumers are bombarded with emails, spam and adverts on a daily basis that they have no time to sort through and take risks with. They will inevitably reject an unknown or distrusted brand for one that they can rely on and which delivers its promised quality.

This trust is related to the idea of transparency in public relations. Additionally, the development of the internet there has eliminated the chance of hiding from any brand faults or advertisement exaggerations; products are discussed on forums, discussion boards, blogs and social networking sites such as twitter and facebook, meaning that brands must be completely honest. The internet also increases the opportunity for the two-way communication which is useful in terms of feedback from stakeholders.

An example of a brand that makes use of this is two-way interaction (especially two-way symmetrical communication) and utilizes public relations as ‘communication and exchange of ideas to facilitate change’ (L’Etang, 2008) is Spotify. This brand offers free music and playlists with some advertising in between, and provides options for feedback to improving the service. These improvements are then made, advertised about and publics are then given further chances to suggest other enhancements and developments. This transmission of ideas helps forge relationships with the consumers, creating a symmetrical communication that is mutually beneficial. This public relations tactic has also recently been employed by Windows 7, and makes the customer truly believe that they are doing something to improve their favourite brand. The monitoring of stakeholder opinion to enhance a brand, integrating the knowledge received and informing the consumers of the success and implementation of these improvements is a successful way to conduct public relations.

Whilst advertising and marketing are palpable and based around selling a tangible product or service, public relations works in a much subtler way. Truly successful PR is predominantly unnoticeable and works behind the scenes, leaving no trace of its work and creates no physical manifesto of its efforts. Public relations influences the ‘middle man,’ i.e. the media through truthful persuasion to do something invaluable to any consumer brand; advertise for free. By writing about them or one of their products (in a favourable light), the consumer is convinced in a much more effective way to buy and trust the brand. Public Relations works with the media to portray messages to a number of different audiences and target consumers; globally, nationally, locally and in specialist mediums such as trade magazines or certain radio stations or television channels. As opposed to blindly spamming and attacking us in the way that much advertising does, public relations is successful in that it ensures the review of brands and articles are being written – publicity is more important than forgettable billboards and commercials we ignore while willing the second part of our favourite programme to return. A brand is a perception which PR shapes and shrewdly feeds us without our acknowledgement of their gentle persuasion. 

So far in this somewhat long blog post I have mainly focussed on the importance of public relations in terms of media relations and liaisons, however it is important to note that whilst these are of utmost importance in terms of building consumer brands, PR also takes into account a number of other factors unlike advertising and marketing, which are consumer centred. External issues such as media rights, copyright, business relations and stakeholder management are of the utmost importance; without addressing them, consumer brands risk losing existing customers and alienating potential future ones too. When, as stated before, consumer brands such as L’Oreal use fake eyelash extensions in their adverts and try to pass them off as the merely as the effect of the mascara, the consumer feels betrayed when they find out they have been lied to and it breaks rules over misleading advertising. Public relations is different in that it views stakeholders as equals and practices ethically, rather than a body to make profit from. Indeed, PR uses concepts such as stakeholder theory and take into account not only marketing factors and resources, but also political and social factors too in terms of how stakeholders are affected by something. Advertising falls short in that it views stakeholders as merely customers, investors, suppliers and employees, whereas the stakeholder theory encourages public relations to consider additional shareholders such as future customers, the community or society the company (in this case, the consumer brand) is operating in and the government’s laws. In doing this, public relations helps build brands by considering everyone who may be affected by the organization and products and ensuring that the company is being ethical.

Although public relations considers all possible stakeholders and customers when building brands, the beauty of a consumer brand’s success often lies in public relations targeting its market audience, as opposed to everyone, which is often the case and downfall with advertising. Clever PR acknowledges that not every consumer brand appeals to everyone, so it focuses on a specific range of people that would be interested. Getting journalists to write about or review the product or brand in a specific publication that specializes in similar products is more effective than getting articles in many publications where the product is not relevant. An example would be Harley Davidson motorbikes: getting the Daily Mail or Cosmopolitan to review the newest model or write about the latest Hells Angels convention would be much less effective than Motorcycle Industry Magazine or featured on Top Gear for example. This way, the right consumers are targeted and the wrong ones are not forced to acknowledge the brand and consequently be irritated by constant reminders in print, on television and on the radio of brands and products that they would dislike.

Public relations is also concerned with building personal relationships; after all, people, not products create publicity. A spokesperson is important for any company, and a charismatic CEO is certainly indispensable in terms of a company’s reputation. People know, like and respect Bill Gates, founder and ex-CEO of Microsoft for many reasons, his extensive charity work being just one. Communication is fundamental and can be anything from simple interviews (interviewing an inanimate object is quite obviously impossible) to television appearances, public statements, blogging/tweeting or even column inches. This is the reason why many companies have celebrity models or spokespeople if their CEO is out of the media; personal branding is just as important as the consumer brand itself, and celebrity endorsement is an effective tool that is engineered by public relations to build a brand. Well known endorsements such as Kate Moss for Topshop or David Beckham for Emporio Armani and Gillette help a brand become more popular, as consumers attempt emulate their idol’s fashion or lifestyle. Public relations is about forging connections for brands (brand equity), and people make connections with people; it is almost impossible to ignore the global hysteria following Michael Jackson’s death or broken hearted teens when their favourite boy band split up. This reliance on another being for reputation can, however, have negative effects if the celebrity in question is involved in a scandal. Examples such as Kerry Katona’s drink and drugs battle and Grievous Body Harm arrest saw her dropped by Iceland, and Tiger Woods’ sponsors dropped like flies following his recent extra-marital deviations. Their public relations teams and spokespeople will in turn be working frantically on crisis and reputation management in order to prevent any further damaging stories leaking to the press and eventually try to rebuild their personal brand. This shows the importance of impression management not only on a personal level but on a consumer one too, as any tarnishing of the reputation can equally affect a company.

Thus far it has become apparent that, in agreement with authors of The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR, ‘the essence of PR is to verbalize the brand in a way that encourages the media to run stories about the product or service.’ Stakeholders willingly ingest information in the press by choice. Words are of the utmost importance when it comes to the building of a consumer brand, as they are the most fundamental form of solid communication. Whilst advertising focuses on visual stimuli, as previously suggested by Jameson, PR is more powerful in that it leaves no doubt, no room for misunderstanding, misleading and inference, as well as being more accessible, easy to understand and emotive. Generally, public relations sells to sellers and so focuses not just on business to consumer communication, but business to business communication too. These sellers are generally the media, which people inherently trust, despite it’s frequent bias (publication and channel dependent, of course). Specialist publications such as lifestyle and beauty magazines are about 70% adverts and 30% print, but the consumer does not purchase them for these advisements which are thrown at us, whether we want to see them or not. Consumers chose to learn about the brands that they use or may potentially use through its public relations. William Daddi, senior Vice President at New York PR consultancy Magnet Communications sums this up: ‘If a consumer chooses to access editorial, it is by definition relevant to them. Therefore, the brand message contained within that content will be relevant to them as well. It will also be viewed as having integrity because of the independent nature of the brand platform or promise.’ This consumer choice is vital, especially in a time when publics are finally becoming able to vet advertising though blocking internet pop-ups, becoming ex-directory to avoid telemarketing, using playlists on Spotify and Itunes instead of commercial radio and streaming live television or recording programs of Sky+ to avoid commercials.

Public relations builds brands, which is rapidly followed by the building of good reputation if done successfully. The difference between them is that a brand is an image or idea people hold, whereas reputation is the reality of the organization. Public relations must strive to be originial, exciting, innovative and linear to be reported on and continue to stay in the media for good reasons, and also keep any negative stories out of it too. Advertising can then work to reinforce pre-existing ideas and remind the public of the brand, but can be static. 

As I draw to a close it is important now to consider the future of public relations in building brands, especially in this global recession. Richard Edelman, CEO of Edelman Worldwide, could not have been more right when he said: 'It’s the end of the era of advertising domination. Today, great brands are built with PR.’  If companies have any sense, they will cut advertising budgets and spend their money more wisely on PR, as it is not only cheaper but in my opinion central to the building and maintaining of brands; there appears to be little correlation between value and price. This commodification is impossible to map and rationalize, as the capitalism and consumerism is demand and time dependent. Just because an object or service is cheaper, it can still be invaluable; example of this can be seen with Dell. In 2001, it spent $430m on advertising and only $2m on public relations, yet it was built by PR after practitioners sent free computers to computer analysts working for trade magazines who raved about it in PC week. Whilst it can be argued that advertising and marketing are certainly important in terms of branding, all adverts have to be approved by public relations due to its link to reputation. Some of the most successful companies in the world have no advertising whatsoever such as Marlborough cigarettes, and in the words of afore-mentioned Bill Gates, ‘If I was down to my last dollar, I would spend it on PR.’

You Know You've Hit The Big-Time When...

You know you’ve hit the big-time when the media come up with a combo-name for you: Brangelina, Bennifer, TomKat, Jedward. That’s right; X-Factor ‘stars’ John and Edward have unbelievably but impressively made it to Portmanteau Status mere months after bounding onto our screens with fake American accents and a distinct lack of talent.

How, one wonders, have a pair of mediocre/poor singers with such irritating personalities even been given the time of day, yet alone become almost national treasures, drawing in crowds of over 14 million viewers?! At the tender age of 17, these cocky boys seem to have the world at their feet, with talks of record deals, television deals and modelling contracts being carelessly thrown around, regardless of where they ended up in the show.

Tone deaf with dancing skills comparable to constipated orang-utans on crack, it may well be hard to believe how Jedward have gone from irritating, arrogant, 17 year olds with inadvisable gravity-defying quiffs who we loved to hate prancing around in red PVC to Britney, to celebrities in their own right with their own (c-list) star following. With Peaches Geldof calling herself their number one groupie, Heat’s ‘Jedmania’ campaign with ‘Jed We Can!’ T-shirts and countless Facebook groups pledging love for the blonde leprechauns, support has slowly but surely risen until they became the sole reason why so many people tuned in weekly.

The unfolding drama surrounding Lucie Jones’ shock eviction after Simon Cowell’s surprising choice to leave it up to the public vote (which resulted in the continued presence of Jedward in this so-called ‘singing competition’) provoked a public outcry. But in-keeping with the old-age phrase ‘all publicity is good publicity,’ it appears that the surrounding controversy only led to a steady increase in both viewing and popularity. Suddenly, it became ‘cool’ to love them. Facebook statuses and tweets of love spread like wildfire, but are we really surprised?

Haven’t the nation always loved a good novelty act, which is always surprisingly popular throughout the competition? Who can forget the cringe-worthy Cheeky Girls who are still desperately trying to cling onto their fame years later (via engagement to politician Lembik Opik to their upcoming stripping TV reality program ‘Pants Off Dance Off’) or sickly sweet sibling duo Same Difference? I’m sure everyone can remember Chico of ‘It’s Chico Time!’ so-called fame, and even Rhydian and G4 made it through to the final in their respective years. The public love an act which offers something different – an act to get everyone talking, a performance to argue about over lunch or bitch about by the office water cooler.

The lack of talent, though, is slightly concerning. The boys can’t even harmonize or stay in tune for longer than 4 consecutive notes, and their terrible dance moves are rarely even in time with one another. On one hand, the majority of the mediocre X-Factor contestants take themselves way too seriously, meaning that Jedward’s comedy performances offered some light relief, with their ridiculous outfits and even more ridiculous song and dance combinations.Finally, though, the dream is over. The viewers and judge's couldn't pull through for these underdogs following their weak last performance and they were sent home by Dannii Minogue. Interestingly, she tried to create more controversy by playing to what the audience wanted; asking them before she made her decision whether she was judging a singing competition or not. Unfortunately for Jedward, the audience screamed 'yes' in their thousands, despite the twins' dedicated following, meaning that they've finally been released back into the real world.

But how did they survive this far? The media are throwing around 'conspiracy theories' aplenty, wondering whether that the public are rebelling against music mogul Cowell and his control over today's talent, others claiming that they are aliens. The Times has suggested that Jedward are a postmodern artworld joke, whilst hints have been made towards hair-gel companies paying for them to stay as long as possible. Either way, now they're gone, it's all over. All that's left are a bunch of boring singers. The Guardian TV and Radio Blog put it perfectly:

'Who does that leave in the running to win X Factor? Nobody, that's who. Nobody interesting, anyway. Danyl's too objectionable, Lloyd's too dull. Stacey's too self-consciously zany. Joe's got too many teeth. Olly clearly wants to be Shane Richie when he grows up.'

The X-Factor publicity generators have gone, and it will be interesting to see how the viewing figures will be affected following their departure. Dannii's question was controversial but apt – whilst the competition should be about pure raw talent (such as Leona Lewis), there is more interest surrounding the judges arguments, what Cheryl and Dannii are wearing and whether Cheryl is wearing her ring this week. Scarily though, if half as many people were as passionate about the elections as they were about this talent program, it is more than likely that our country would be a hell of a lot better run.

Much though I'd like to think that rather like Big Brother 'stars,' there will be a media frenzy for a week or too before they fade into relative Z-list obscurity, it looks like Jedward will be sticking around for the foreseeable future. Their relentless energy, good natured-ness, ability to laugh at themselves and their wholesome good looks seems to be a winning combination. If their PR continues to work as hard as they have been doing, there is no stopping this terrible twosome.

The Death of British Comedy?

Following on from my blog on British identity last week, I couldn’t help but notice the increasing trend of ‘political correctness gone mad’ not only in general society but recently in comedy as well. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year or so, it will have been difficult to escape the mass-hysteria surrounding the Brand/Ross prank phone calls to ‘national treasure’ Andrew Sachs about his granddaughter, and more recently the Jimmy Carr backlash following his amputee joke.

Given that we, the British, have always seemed to pride ourselves on our readiness for laughter, it is more than a little concerning that so many seem to have had a sense of humour bypass somewhere along the way to 2010. Aside from electing Boris Johnson as Mayor of London and the continued presence of Jedward in X-Factor, the only intentional humour that seems to be socially acceptable now is the toe-curlingly embarrassing array of catch-phrases peppering Strictly Come Dancing from Bruce Forsyth’s ancient, puckered mouth.

Whilst, then, we drown in crippling mediocrity and resign ourselves to ‘comedy’ that is more Russell Bland than Brand, it is important to consider whether us Brits are really losing our sense of humour or if too many are just jumping onto the apparent socially acceptable bandwagon of complaining. The British excel at complaining about anything and anyone, and social persuasion is rife in our culture.

Looking objectively at the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand row over the apparent degradation of Georgina Baillie, Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter, it wouldn’t be unfair to deem Brand and Ross’ voicemail discussing the former’s sexual relations with her as inappropriate, especially live on air. 




However, given that this Georgina Baillie is part of a strip group called the Satanic Sluts and further to this she was initially proud of the mention, posting the clip on her MySpace page, their comments were hardly unfair. This is a girl who has made hardcore porn for public viewing and uses her sexuality as a way to pay the bills.

Whilst yes, Brand and Ross were a little out of order and pushed their prank too far, it was their bosses who decided to air it and deemed it socially acceptable with a warning. Comedy always holds the risk of offending people; that is half of its attraction. Risqué one-liners, taboo subjects and controversial topics are what drive humour, and the BBC’s recent decision to take no more creative risks is a saddening one. Given that only 2 people actually complained about the Radio show that it was broadcast on until the good old Daily Mail’s Sunday supplement stirred the shit, I had hoped that the further thousands of complainers were just angry that their tax money is funding these so-called comedians who, it was being reported, were offending the public.

However following the recent media frenzy surrounding THAT Jimmy Carr joke (the suggestion that we will have an amazing Paralympic team for 2012 due to the large number of amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan), I am not so sure. Carr is a comedian whose entire humour is centered around offending just about everything and everyone. Usual topics of jokes include rape, murder, obesity, paedophilia and beastiality to name but a few. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JHnMyiWNk4  for an example of sexism in his humour). One wonders about the moronic nature of people who pay to go and see such a man on tour knowing his sense of humour, then complain when they don’t like a particular joke.

Researching this further unearths a rather irritating statistic, though. Carr is currently in the middle of a 10-month tour. Each date plays to about 9,000 people. Only 2 people complained. Once again with this number that changes it from being a single anomaly to a multiple; enough for the media to pick up on it and create an unnecessary amount of fuss. Perhaps it is due to Poppy week (this also relates to my last blog) that there is so much sensitivity around this particular joke at this particular time. This has led me to once again question this industry that I am trying to break into. The media, and more specifically, Public Relations, seems to have the power to completely manipulate the masses. Society is told who to love and hate; who is good and who is bad. It was Andrew Sachs’ PR agent who was called by the Mail on Sunday and provoked into complaining, despite Sachs’ original permission to broadcast the telephone calls and it was the media who have blown Jimmy Carr’s joke out of proportion (in comparison to many of his other jokes) when so few of the actual public complained.

There’s nothing quite like a little bit of ‘political correctness gone mad’ to bring about a premature death of someone’s career, and it seems like the media are doing all they can to vilify the few genuinely amusing people to grace our screens and stages today. Is it because they are struggling for news? Or is it more of a keep up with the Jones’ in the world of print, where if one paper reports a story which generates some interest, the others scramble for similar readership and, having failed to generate any ‘shock’ stories of their own, are quick for a share in the glory? I find it more than a little worrying that stories such as these beat others such as earthquakes and murders to the headlines, yet these seem to be the stories that are favoured and shifting copies. Will Britain's love for a scandal lead to the eventual death of comedy?

Carnage by Name, Carnage by Nature?

Following the uproar and public outrage surrounding photos of student Philip Laing urinating on a war memorial during student bar crawl Carnage over the past few weeks, I am admittedly quite surprised that this could possibly lead to a jail sentence, as reported by BBC News today. Whilst I don’t deny that this is a despicable act with a complete lack of respect for the millions who died fighting for our country, as well as an act of public indecency, I can’t help but think that Laing is being used to make an example of.

How many people, especially men, can put their hand on their heart and honestly say that they have never urinated in a public place? Desperate times call for desperate measures especially once alcohol, a diuretic, is consumed, and whilst it perhaps is not a pleasant activity, I have seen men leaning against walls or in doorways urinating on almost every night out that I’ve been on. In saying this I am not defending this student’s case. The literal pissing on someone’s grave is disgusting and shows a complete lack of regard for people who were husbands, fathers, brothers and friends of many people who are still alive today. This brings me to another thought though – morbid though it is, graveyards are (for some completely inexplicable reason) often the place to hang out for youths both of today and in days gone by. It’s not unusual to hear of them being used the backdrop to losses of virginity, drugs deals and vodka sharing activities whilst teens go through their rebellious years. This, however, is rarely documented upon and they never get arrested for disrespecting the dead.

Scanning this week’s news across a number of national websites, my eye was caught by a flashing advert for CARNAGE UNCOVERED ; an ‘undercover’ article written by Nick Francis for the ever-classy Sun – ready as always to jump on the bandwagon of any news story with their own less-relevant twist. As bar crawl I enjoyed a number of times over my three year stint at Southampton University and did some promotional work for, Carnage is a termly night of fun which many students look forward to for a chance of thousands of like-minded piers to have a massive night out with large groups of friends.

                                    

Portrayed at a sleazy, irresponsible and grope-tastic money-drainer, the reporter (as ever with The Sun) casts a completely over-dramatic and exaggerated shadow of pervertedness as he presents the event to the readers as something that is, quite frankly, every parents’ nightmare. Given the assumed age and stage of life of Mr Francis, however, it is difficult to see how he might enjoy such an event anyway. Carnage is a student event; a bar crawl enjoyed as a blow-out to relieve mounting assignment and exam pressure and a sure-fire way to bump into the majority of the friends that you have made so far. It is also an opportunity to meet current friends’ house/flat/coursemates and widen your friendship circle. Why on Earth would Nick Francis enjoy a night like this, given that he is not entering the spirit of the event by drinking, does not know anyone else and presumedly isn’t studying for any upcoming exams?

Sure, there are hundreds of people who dress inappropriately. Sure, I’ve been one of them (to a certain degree – nowhere near the extent that is reported), but I regularly see even less clothing being worn on any night out in any town. Women these days have a habit of flashing too much flesh than may be entirely appropriate, which can quite often have the opposite of the desired effect. Regardless of this, the male readers of The Sun very rarely fall into the category of ‘men who value women for their intelligence and would rather more was left to the imagination,’ and by the numerous skimpy photos, it doesn’t look like the reporter was complaining. Given that the ‘uniform’ the partakers willingly pay for (before they sell out like hot-cakes) is a T-shirt, which is more often than not an XL unflattering fit, how it is worn is personal discretion.

Of course there were some women who go over the top and jump at the opportunity to wear little other than some French knickers, a heavily customized top which now bears more resemblance to a bra-strap than its original T-shirt form and a pair of ‘prostitute heels,’ but there will always be women who will make Jodie Marsh look under-stated, whether there is a dresscode involved or not. The number of bars visited is a good way for new students to find their way around their new hometown in the first semester, and the ‘horrifying tasks’ on the back of the shirts are rarely completed. Nick Francis writes in horror of challenges such as "Meet with a bad devil", "Get spanked by a naughty angel" and "Same-sex snog time" as if they are integral to the night out or even that bad, yet most of the T-shirts are so customized that the boxes are rarely visible to even get ticked.

The press have been quick to blame Philip Laing’s misdemeanor on Carnage itself, and even District Judge Andrew Browne stated that "Carnage is the name of the organisation who promote this type of activity and some might say that somebody should be standing alongside you this morning." This comment particularly angered me. Laing claimed to have drunk an entire bottle of whiskey before going out to this event – a feat that would probably have me in hospital having my stomach pumped before I’d got a quarter of the way through. Of course he doesn’t remember the night out – he would have been absolutely annihilated before even attending the event. Whilst Carnage does indeed go round many bars, this doesn’t necessarily promote people getting absolutely inebriated – when I’ve gone, half the time it’s too busy to get a drink in many of the places. There are no pressures to drink certain volumes like there are on crawls such as pub golf, so it makes me irritated that Carnage are being held partially responsible.

In today’s blame culture, very few people are taking responsibility for their own actions. How one dresses, drinks and behaves on Carnage is down to personal choice, just as with any other night out. At this age, we should be old enough to make the right choice and exercise some sort of self-control in terms of our behaviour. At any rate, Carnage employs a large number of stewards to almost police the event, ensure student safety, organize road crossings and be on the look-out for anyone in trouble, and also works in conjunction with the police to ensure extra safety. The same can’t be said for many other nights out at university or in general society. We are old enough to look after ourselves and whilst Philip Laing has made a stupid mistake, very few people are faultless. Part of growing up is experiencing getting too drunk, making mistakes and learning from them. Unfortunately this is a pretty hard and national mistake to learn from, but is it one which truly deserves a prison sentence rather than a fine and some community service?

Has Britain Lost its Sense of Identity?

In light of the media furore surrounding Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time last week, I couldn’t help but question his extreme Nationalistic views on our society; has Britain lost its sense of identity due to our questionably disproportionate multi-cultural tolerance, and, if so, what exactly was this sense of identity in the first place?

Certainly the Christianity, manners, wealth and stiff upper lip of times gone by so often associated with Britishness have shifted somewhat/become essentially extinct. These days, the respectable English Gent has been replaced by a beer-swilling, chanting football hooligan who’ll incessantly try to get his leg over anything with a skirt and a pulse. This yobbish desperation is all too often coupled with an unfathomable arrogance and disbelief upon rejection.


Indeed just this week I walked past a traffic jam in which three leering, perverted pikeys (read: Burberry cap-donning dole-scum) shouted 'shake ya booty!' from their chavmobile (read: pimped out but nevertheless undisguisedly shabby 1993 Ford Fiesta with absolutely zero need for a spoiler and a presumed illegal sound system blaring out some sketchy drum and bass loud enough to wake my grandmother up in Newcastle). Upon my returned disgusted look and lack of compliance, they chanted 'F*CKING LESBIAN!' until I was out of earshot, impressively somehow managing to even drown out their ear-drum bursting ‘beatz.’ Of course I was greatly amused by the concept that because I didn’t eagerly leap forward with an animalistic display of frenzied lust and offer up my best bootylicious Beyonce moves (I really don’t think they were ready for this jelly) then I must of course be a raving, butch dyke. Who indeed could resist such visionary delights, with their gelled curtains (oh so 90s!), gold studs, top of the range JJB sportswear and generic tattooed arms?

The most worrying factor in this scenario was just how utterly unfazed I was; unfortunately, I think I speak for the majority of women in this country in saying that getting groped at the bar, shouted obscenities at in the street or being literally humped on the dance floor are all things we learn to tolerate in today’s society. But on the other hand, long gone is the genteel lady associated with British identity a century ago who never speaks out of turn and serves her man. Waving the stereotypical British women’s flag now is a foul-mouthed Essex chav with canary yellow hair extensions, tangerine skin, fake Juicy Couture tracksuits and 3 children by different fathers; a cigarette hanging from her lips as a permanent fixture and clutching a bottle of wine at all times.

If this week’s The Sun headline is anything to go by, it is the women of today that pose the biggest threat to society; the cat-fighting, screeching, no-knicker wearing alcoholics, vomiting Britain’s pride down the drain (pastimes glamorized by society’s WAGs).

Bearing all this in mind, are we sure that this ostensible devotion to multiculturalism and bending over backwards to accommodate different races and religions in Britain is such a bad thing? Given that the moral codes of Christianity have long died out in our society, surely we may profit from other religious guidelines? Apparently this is not so. If we were to believe the views held by nationalists such as the delightful Mr Griffin, we are creating a chasm just perfect for millions of illegal immigrants to litter with their religions, ways of life and cultures which are steadily pushing out our own.

Whilst of course I disagree with this, it isn’t completely unfair of me to say that there aren’t some nuggets of truth buried in there. ‘Political correctness gone mad’ is a pandemic currently sweeping the nation where we pander to the needs of pretty much every other religion and race apart from our own. It is currently perfectly acceptable to have a Black Police Society but not a white one, for different religions to have extra days off from work including Christian holidays, to have entire areas of London that are non-white and to run segregated Muslim schools. Whilst ethical diversity is one of London’s selling points in my opinion, it is certainly extreme that only 12% of Southall’s residents are indigenous whites, for example.

Whilst in Nick Griffin's eyes the ‘black’ areas of Britain and especially London are gang heaven and the Indian and Pakistani areas are unquestionably terrorist havens, the majority of England (thankfully) disagree. It has been other races, colours and religions that have helped England win the wars and shaped the country into what it is today. They are an integral part of our history, and just as legitimate a citizen as I am. This leads me to question quite what Nationalism is. Do we have any place for it in this society, where its ambassadors use it as a tool for racism?

If the football hooligans and their WAG’s now define British identity then perhaps we should be grateful for the diversity around us. Britain was always going to change, and past ways were always going to die out. Thus is the nature of evolution.

Still, English people accounts for 83 percent of the British population and 85 percent of the economy. Still, 650 million people speak our language. Still, we remain a superpower. Still, we’re globally recognizable. 


We’re still British. We’ve just changed a bit.

Is Fashion Fascism?

Fashion: formerly a luxury that only the very wealthy could afford, this high culture indulgence has become accessible to all budgets over the last half a century with the development of low-cost stores such Primark, making it an affordable pastime and way of life for anyone. Evidently there is quite some difference between the Couture gracing last month’s London Fashion Week runway and Asda’s new Autumn/Winter line, however the bridging of the high and low culture gap in society is resulting in ever-growing opportunities for the fashion industry to influence women across the market with dictatorial vigour.

Today’s society is undeniably driven by neoliberal capitalism; we are seduced into buying clothes that we have little or no need for through advertising, countless magazines decreeing this week’s ‘must have items,’ paper features and celebrity endorsements and become a slave to consumerism where, as Tyler Durden from Fight Club claims, ‘the things you own end up owning you.’ Whilst, as previously stated, anyone can follow fashion in today’s consumerist culture, this materialistic society in which we live is dictated by the fashion designers, steered by the wealthy, and emulated by the remaining population.

Fashion can be seen as an aspiration; an escape through which consumers hope to present a grander and more hopeful version of themselves by imitating celebrities and people who have a higher social status and a more desirable life. How you dress and present yourself affects how people to think of you, and is important both in terms of employment and in attracting a future partner. However, this consumerist culture has put such an emphasis upon one’s presentation that dressing well can be considered almost as a career (think Victoria Beckham), and judging fashion has become almost a sport, with best and worst dressed lists gracing the first few pages of most weekly magazines, often with public slating for bad dress sense.

Anyone who remembers Bjork’s public execution for her crimes against fashion when she wore a swan dress to the Oscars a few years back must be able to understand just how fashion is like fascism. Rather than be open minded and perceive her creative and quirky fashion sense as a personal expression, she was ostracized; the media calling the ‘fashion police’ on her from publications aplenty.

While it appears that fashion is predominantly led by and intended for women who stereotypically worship it and follow it religiously, it could be suggested that perhaps fashion is actually our enemy. Indeed, the term ‘fashion victim’ is more correct than we first thought in regards to how influential and powerful it is at brainwashing much of the general public and especially the target demographic. We seem to willingly purchase magazines in which we are mostly greeted with a series of images of stick thin women wearing unaffordable clothes, with recycled yet inviting diets and tips to lose weight in order to replicate these very women.

Stepping back and regarding this objectively, it seems near impossible that the fashion industry are able to manipulate us in such a manner. This main controversy surrounding fashion is, of course, regarding size. With the infamous size zero debate still rife, it has been nice to see the increasing media awareness of their influence over the rise in anorexia in today’s western society. However for every magazine, advert (such as for Dove) and catwalk show that is all for celebrating women’s natural sizes, there are hundreds of media pressures persuading women to starve themselves to fit into an agreed conformity.

But what is the reason for this development in fashion that has only been around for the past few decades? Long gone seem the days when curves were seen as sexy in the industry, and yet ask around any group of males and the general consensus seems to suggest that they still much prefer curves than a woman whose form is pre-pubescent and undernourished. So why is it that the industry seems to be dominated by boy-like figures with no breasts or hips to speak of? The only solution that readily pops into my head is an idea I examined in some detail whilst writing my undergraduate dissertation: that of the importance of androgyny in today’s pop culture.

There are many theories and ideas that serve to pinpoint the factors that differentiate men and women. Some theorists believe it is related to the phallus or lack of, whilst others suggest that gender is actually just a performance. Either way, one wonders whether perhaps designers are forcing women to be androgynous in order to fit into the stereotypical of ‘human;’ the first form we recognize from a young age in this male dominated, patriarchal society. By stripping female models of their sexuality, it presents them as a blank canvas; a sexless object which nevertheless has more male than female characteristics. This allows the art that is fashion to be presented and appreciated purely for its form, with less distraction of sexuality. This blank canvas is ideal for the projecting of fashion propaganda; a new trouser line, a different waist than was in last season or this year’s new skirt length that is enforced by these fascist designers and publicized by the media and PRs.

This brings me to start questioning my future career move. I have read many comparisons between propaganda and public relations – so are we faciliting and further compounding this fascism of forced skinniness and ‘agreed’ conformity? Will my integrity be somewhat tried and tested if future campaigns or jobs could be the promoting of something that is ultimately damaging society and the image of my own sex? Or am I over analyzing an industry that, much though I would like to blame the strangling constraints of aforementioned male-dominated society, is mainly driven by women who dress for other women, as opposed to for men. If this were not the case, then the fewer clothes the better, but we are all aware of how baffled men seem to be by shoulder pads, Ugg boots and wet-look leggings!

Ultimately, designers dictate the uniforms that we adopt, and it is fashion victims who blindly follow in the hope to become more desirable/accepted/higher up in the social hierarchy. It is rare to find someone who possesses true style, be it rebelling from the decreed ‘this season’s look’ or merely just knowing what suits their body shape and sticking to it. Whilst it takes a confident woman to try to pull off the more daring looks of each new season of fashion, it takes a much braver one to defy the often repressive nature of the industry and have to withstand the barrage of attacks from all angles from the formidable and unforgiving media and society – their sheep - of today.