Press release:

GEOFFREY SHINDLER’S long-time commitment to the arts has been recognised with a nomination for The Midland Hotel Arts & Business North’s Board Member of the Year.

The founding partner of specialist trusts, wills and probate Manchester legal practice Lane-Smith & Shindler has been a keen supporter for the past 18 years of The Royal Exchange Theatre and Manchester Camerata.  Manchester born Geoffrey is serving as a director at the Royal Exchange and chairman of the board at the Camerata.

The awards, which have successfully been running for over 30 years, includes The Co-Operative Group, Brother Ltd and Manchester Airport competing across the categories.

Geoffrey’s family has long been involved in the arts with daughter Nicola Shindler, a TV executive, producing Our Friends In The North and Queer as Folk.  Brother Colin, a writer, is well known to football fans with his popular book Manchester United Ruined My Life.

http://artsandbusiness.org.uk/Events/Awards.aspx

Press release:

HOWARDS Solicitors is continuing its expansion with two senior appointments in light of increased criminal and family law work.

Neil Grunfeld, who joins from Nicholas & Partners, will head up the family law department at the firm’s new offices in Macclesfield.

Grunfeld will also lend his criminal legal expertise to a growing workload, particularly more complex Crown Court cases.

Peter Malone will head Howards’ Crown Court Advocacy Department based in the main Trafford Bar offices.  Peter, a Higher Court Advocate, joins from Robert Lizars.

Oliver Gardner managing partner at Howards comments: “The recent renewal for a coveted Criminal Legal Aid Contract and our handling of recent high profile cases has pushed demand even higher.  The new additions of Peter and Neil will enable the practice to grow at a considered pace that makes allowances for continuing demand.”

Howards Solicitors, which expanded its high street presence with three new North West offices in summer, also specialises in motoring law, fraud, personal injury and conveyancing.

Image: Peter Eatherall, founding partner, with Peter Malone (left) and Neil Grunfeld (right)

I was reading the Daily Mail – I was in a cafe and it was freely available, alright?!! – when I came across the story of Sacha Hall.

Sacha had, without permission, taken £215.16 of food, including 100 packs of ham, from Tesco according to the substantial write-up.

She was spotted by the store manager in her activities.  This is what happened next according to Sacha:

“They knocked on the door (at home) and said if I didn’t open up they would use a battering ram. They handcuffed me and treated me like I was a hardened criminal and when we left they raided my house.”

She later entered no plea in court and now faces a maximum 7 year prison term if convicted when the case comes before a Crown Court.

It seems like a criminal waste of police time, CPS resources and Legal Aid, and not only because it seems Dickensian in reaction.

But because – and this is the twist I have been over-egging – Sacha took the products from the bins of her local Tesco after they had been ruined after a power cut had interrupted refrigeration.

(Whether ruined means not fit for sale or consumption is a point that is not satisfactorily clarified although I tend to think it was the former).

I am in no position to argue the legal intricacies on whether Sacha was allowed to take the food- When does the food leave the possession of Tesco?  Who does it belong to if the bins are the council’s?

And I am not going to talk about the moral issues although I cannot see much wrong with freeganism.

What I can say is that surely taking such action only provides fodder for attacks on the Tesco brand.  One issue is the power of big brands and their treatment of those that do not have the resources to hold their own, financially and legally.  One only has to think of  the McLibel case.

Surely the Tesco PR department should have convinced senior managers and legal represntatives of the harm this case will do.  Sometimes you wonder how a basic PR blunder like this could happen.

I will leave the Tesco reaction to shake your heads at: ‘It’s not for us to comment on.  That’s a matter for the courts.’

Rachel Padden and Matthew Steeples and are feeling a bit agrieved, and who can blame them?

Having booked many months in advance to spend their honeymoon in Didsbury at their favourite hotel, they find they have been gazumped at the last moment.

Didsbury House Hotel has decided that it makes more “buisness sense” to take a wedding party that wanted exclusive use of the hotel for the weekend of the booking.

Yet, it doesn’t take a lot of business or indeed common sense to see how this backfired in the way it was handled:

• The couple discovered their room had been given to someone else only when they called to make an amendment.
• In an apology – by e-mail, how personal – they were offered a room at another of the group’s hotels with free spa treatment and half a bottle of Champagne – surely a bottle was too much to offer.
• And when contacted by the press, a spokeman (another mistake – how personal and caring) says, “We don’t make any comments on internal matters.”

This is not earth shattering news I grant you.  But even if the “business sense ” move prevailed and you wanted to make amends to a couple that has used your hotel on five occassions, surely this situation can be handled better:

• Profusely apologise, acknowledge the error and promise to make amends.
• State a solution (as such as it can be remedied) that is generous and shows that this situation is of real concern.  Give the couple the best room in another hotel at no extra charge or even no charge.  Perhaps I am not generous, but a little more than half a bottle of bubbly.
• The manager or someone senior should be handling this, from dealing with the couple to the media – show that the situation is important.
• When it goes to the press it is rarely “an internal matter,” it is an external one.  Do not dodge the issue, face it and answer it frankly: state the problem and how you are setting about solving it.

I am not saying that the above situation can be resolved with complete satisfaction for Matthew and Rachel.  However, the way it has been approached has generated some very negative PR that could cost the hotel many more thousands than it made with this move.

Who can operate in business with a poor reputation?  This is why PR is important.

I think I am at a meeting at the hotel on Thursday morning – and I will not be shifted.

Comments for Bez (Mark Berry) appeal:

Peter Eatherall, criminal partner, Howards Solicitors: “Bez fully understands and accepts that his persona and actions can generate interest, sometimes substantial, in the media.  This has been a part of his life for a long-time and is nothing new or exceptional.

However, Bez would like to ensure that coverage of this particularly sensitive situation is as accurate and even-handed as possible.  And so he feels obliged to issue this statement to give his side of what is and has been an understandably difficult and emotional time.

Recent stories circulating in the press concerning his “disappearance” and a “manhunt” for him do not reflect the real picture.

Firstly, there were no proceedings pending at this time and so Bez was able to move about as he wanted – there was no “disappearance” or “manhunt.”

Howards Solicitors, acting on its client’s instructions, contacted the Police.  Bez had thought the Police might have wanted to speak to him and asked to arrange to hand himself in and resolve any issues as quickly as possible for all those concerned.  In retrospect we do not believe the Police were desperate to speak to Bez, but Bez wanted to be sure and the case officer was contacted through Howards and an appointment arranged.

Bez has co-operated fully with the police and has in no way deliberately evaded police attempts to talk to him.

The matter is naturally sensitive to Bez as he received the restraining order in relation to the allegations of assault, which he still vehemently denies.  He has never remotely been accused of being a violent man before this case.

It would be inappropriate to comment further on the allegations, at present, as enquiries are ongoing.

Bez’s priority remains his son, his well being and the continuance of their relationship – he is currently being denied access, which he feels is unfair and hinders a normal, strong fatherly relationship that he wants to build further.

Bez is still investigating avenues of appeal, as he fully believes that the evidence supports his viewpoint.  He is currently on police bail until 17^th November 2010.”

For further comment contact: Rob Baker

07957611834

rob@artisanmc.co.uk

i newspaper launches with a whisper

This week has seen the launch of a new daily newspaper: i.

You would think that the launch, by the Independent newspaper, would be big news – especially as the newspaper industry has been subject to recession and the challenge of social media.

Yet Britain’s first paid for daily in a quarter century was a secret until last week.

Even the doomed NW Enquirer (a regional version of The Times) that was launched for Manchester was given some fanfare.  (I only learnt of “i” when I happened to catch a piece on it on Newsnight).

Still the issue is whether the paper will be a success.  Priced at just 20p and being 56 pages long with good content – I assume – you would think so.

The Newsnight guest was cautious (I sum up): everyone is used to free papers and the convenience of having it placed in their hands.

So “i” might find it a struggle to get established simply as we have been conditioned to the point that going into a newsagent with 20p is too much.

Other criticms centred on selling a quality daily at such a low price would lower the value and status of newspapers in the public’s eyes, an unwelcome message.

I would try it, but I haven’t seen it.  I really do need someone to put it into my hands to have a peek.

Update: I find myself buying “i” quite regularly – hands up, a good idea from my experience.  I only have time to flcik through and as its 20p it is not a question of sizing up the options.  I am actually surprised others have not followed.

How quickly we forget a name, a contact, a business, when they are not visible to us.

Marketing and PR is about visibility and there is no more important time than now to be visible. If you are not visible there is always the thought in some that you might not be trading.

I worked with a very successful digital marketing agency called CTI in Manchester – it is very much growing in staff, clients and reputation today. But the first piece of PR I worked with it on was the Dale Street Fire story (April 2007).

The fire affected two buildings, which housed many marketing and web agencies; some businesses I am sure did not survive.

The PR aimed to make sure that CTI’s clients and the market in general knew that not only had the agency survived, it was still doing well and able to offer its services to the level required. Indeed, the message was that it did not lose a single client even though such calamities usually lead to a curtailment of trading – a testament to CTI and one that I am sure enhanced its reputation.

Well, in these hard economic days a lack of visibility can be seen much the same way as a disaster affecting an enterprise.

Rumours abound in these days of cuts. So not having a clear message that is conveyed to the market effectively could be incredibly harmful to a business, if there is any doubt about the strength of your company.

Two North West organisations that are affected by the government cuts have done just that recently, setting out their positions and how they aim to go forward in key local business press – it is a wise move and one that I am sure will be helpful.

PR is not all about leads. Crisis PR is not all about natural and man-made tribulations such as fires. It can be as much about quashing doubt and fear and hearsay.

If you leave a void in communications, it can be filled with uncontrolled word of mouth messages very quickly. There is something you can do about it though.

I think this recession is getting tedious, very tedious indeed.

We have had two years of battening down the hatches and the “sunlit uplands” should be beckoning us forward.

The news of cuts – the media battle over this issue is a subject “entire of itself” and can be covered later – keeps our breadths held.

So what do you do?

Do you not spend anything other than on the business basics? Do you spend marketing budget and compete for the business that is out there?

I know that some companies are networking and marketing like crazy to get through and indeed prosper, others are withdrawing.

There are undoubtedly businesses that are succeeding. I know an independent traditional printer that is very busy and that is a sector where you might expect a company to fail in pressured times – not a bit of it.

It is succeeding through having a clear, targeted marketing strategy and through offering good service – nothing fancy you might say.

(I am making no value judgement on these that feel economic pain and those that don’t at all).

So back to my question and answer.

I think there is no choice as to whether you do marketing; there is a choice to how you do it.

This is a time for added awareness of your business, services or products, of building reputation. And more so about building trust than ever before – if companies are going to spend precious budgets, they will want to know that it is going to pay off and that means they will want to know you as well as what you offer.

“You would say that anyway” in terms of marketing and PR. Well yes, but if getting new business is as important as those other business essentials it would be hard to disagree.

The sharper amongst you will notice the quotes from Winston Churchill, John Donne and Mandy Rice-Davies (although the oft and misquoted version on this last one).

Matt Hackett, a stalwart at the north’s largest digital, marketing and creative recruitment Orchard gives an insight into the state of the recruitment market.

Is it time to jump back in?

If you want to know, listen to Matt’s view – click here

The issue of who owns social media and how it is best applied is still being grappled with by larger enterprises.  So the SAScon debate on social media on this issues was particularly interesting.

The panel was:

Will McInnes of Nixon McInnes

Phil Jones of Brother UK

Neil Hardy of Co-Operative Travel

Ivan Croxford of BT

And Malcom Coles

I will start with a Phil Jones quote: “Social media is B2me.”

Will McInnes followed with “sustained conversation is expected with social media.”

Quite simple pronouncements, yet many big enterprises get it wrong, perhaps it is years of pushing through messages through mass media channels and not having to interact as much on a one to one basis in their marketing:  Sainsbury’s being one possible example of how difficult larger businesses fail to grasp this.

Maybe smaller concerns are more geared at establishing a one-to-one relationship.

On the question of who owns social media and how it should be applied, well, there was a multitude of answers.

I was surprised, not that I should have I suppose, that customer services was a strong candidate for ownership (as Ivan Croxford pointed out at BT customer services had embrassed social media).

My vested interests said PR.  It could be marketing as well.   But it really depends on the application.

Neil Hardy looks on Twitter as a helpline for instance.  The conclusion surely is that it it is a versatile instrument and will be used as best fits purpose?

Phil Jones again: “Social media should be integrated, should engage and lead to “marriage.”  I agree.

Malcolm Coles: “Social media helps engagement with customers that do not use current channels.”   In this alone is must be seen as essential.

What came out of the debate was a recognition – as you would expect – that social media has to be applied and that its exact role is still developing.

I will leave the last word to Malcolm Coles about the need to experiment to find out social media can be best applied: “Getting it wrong is not a disaster.”