Max Clifford was in The Guardian recently for an in depth interview.

You get the feeling that there is quite a lot of depth to Max, but in three pages and it must be 5,000 words, very little impression seems to be made.

(By the way only 10% of his business is the celebrity stories).

It might be worth getting his autobiography as this just initiates the interest.  AIDA: Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action - my post grad study is paying off!

So Sven might be staying and no decision has been made!  Confusing messaging at the very least.

You have to say Thaksin Shinawatra (Frank) is getting the hang of City by following the established tradition of Man City cock-ups: snatching defeat, and humiliating defeat from a glimmer of achieving the average.

Still, it seems that either Frank has come to his senses.  Perhaps the pressure of the protests and strength of feeling including the MEN campaign that was featured on this blog has worked.

I don’t know, he might keep Sven if he cannot get Big Phil Scolari.  Unless he gets Slaven Bilic who has just signed  a contract with Croatia.  He might keep Sven anyway.

Frank has hired a big PR outfit with offices up here.  It’s a challenging brief, even if the team are City fans.

Can they now repair the damage?  It will make an interesting case study in PR Week a few managers down from Sven.

The CIPR has got its conference coming up in London.

From looking at the website it is of interest, but not so much.

However, the price rules it out for me: £750 for both days, £950 for non-members. Put into the equation time off work travel, hotel (I have a few friends so I can stay over) and sundries. I reckon the best part of £2000.

I am not really enticed by the program, but how can it be justified even if you have a better view than me?

Answers telling me why I am wrong in the comments box please.

I have been given the opportunity to talk about PR on Salford City Radio 94.4 FM today at 2-3pm. Most of the hour is a selection of my tunes based on my superlative taste - no irony intended.

But what are the benefits and how do you measure them?

Well there is RAJAR, which stands for Radio Joint Audience Research Limited. This produces research that shows reach, share of possible reach, average listening time etc.

But being surveyed is not cheap, it can run into the thousands. So many local stations will be a mystery concerning their success.

I was told that previous guests had gained new business as a result of their appearance, including a toast master that secured two new bookings. Perhaps the best measure.

Anyway whatever the result, it is worth going through the process to see what clients go through as I dismissively tell them not to be nervous.

Thanks to Jon Monks of Chapel Street Business Group for settling my nerves and setting up the opportunity.

One PR agency has been making great waves about their payment by results, but if you look closer it is not all it seems. It has been featured in Crain’s and How-Do. As far as I am concerned and many other PRs it is just a publicity stunt.

On the face of it payment by results for PR seems like a good idea, why should clients not pay on results? But delve a little deeper and not all is at seems.

Firstly it is a guarantee, not payment on results. It is not a smaller fee with a target driven bonus. There is still the retainer or project fee, the same as anywhere else. If targets are not met you get your money back.

I believe this will store up trouble for any agency that uses this strategy. It will not do too much for the clients because:

• Agencies should be delivering anyway. If they do not they will lose the clients.
• Unlike advertising you cannot guarantee coverage. If a publication (s) is / are not interested in your story you cannot make them have it. We could get a lot of pushy PRs and some irritated journalists as a result.
• There are going to be arguments or disagreements between clients and agencies about what is a “result” unless very specifically defined.
• Will agencies simply hit certain targets (even if they prove less effective than first anticipated) and ignore opportunities not initially discussed because the target must be met? Agencies should be working out what is effective as the campaign progresses and adapt accordingly.

As Tom Cheesewright, a former PR account director in London, says in his letter to Crain’s on their article simply totting up coverage is a one dimensional way to measure achievement. Tom argues if you are working with key influencers to support or champion your campaign how does that tie in with payment by results?

I have got clients in broadcast media and this contact can be developed and coverage achieved long after I have stopped working with the client. How do you measure that and within what time frame? One of my clients is a physical training instructor and he trains a journalist, a contact that I initiated. It has resulted in some good coverage and an on-going relationship. A payment by results model would have to be very flexible to incorporate such a scenario.

There is a need for agencies to be accountable. There are agencies that do not deliver. This is an issue as in any other profession.

If a client is choosing an agency it is more important to (and this is not exhaustive):

• Use recommendations and use testimonials to find out if they are the right agency
• See if you can work with the personnel you will be working with if that agency is selected. Ensure the people pitching are the people delivering.
• Have a reporting structure and regular meeting to discuss how a campaign is progressing
• Open two way communication to discuss expectations, goals and issues
• Look at the enthusiasm of your agency, do they really want to work with you?
• Are the agency’s clients similar to your profile? Go to an agency that handles BP and Mark’s and they are not likely to be interested in your business if you are a small company, but they might like your money.

For an agency to use such a model ads another layer of admin. Time and effort that could be re-invested in getting on with the job. It might be that this time is included in the time allocated to the client.

One agency has been making much mileage of this, they say: “We are very excited to be innovating the regional market, by becoming the only local PR agency to be putting our money where our mouth is and take away the risk associated with PR.”

Well the standard of English does not fill you with hope. Like a couple of other agencies that have been telling everyone else in the sector how rubbish they are or how they are so much better, it does make you vulnerable if it does not come off. If you say that you had better deliver.

I expect some clients will go for it. It might be a really successful tactic but it will have a cost.

The Manchester Evening News is using its online muscle to try and persuade Frank (the City owner) to keep Sven.

The MEN is using Twitter, Flickr, a linking strategy to blogs (such as this) that are supporting the campaign and the makings of a viral campaign combined with the newspaper and the accompanying image to stick in your window.  There is no irony here this image is in my window!

A reflection of how things have changed.

Tom Cheesewright, of I O Communications, all round Internet industry follower, has found The Good Agency’s website.  Those responsible for the Olivia Newton John incident.
A modest quote about themselves from The Good Agency on the site: “How great we are at writing and communicating with our journalists friends,  how fantastic we are at selling in stories and how good we are at coming up with new and sometimes challenging ideas….”

Really?

And they offer digital services and had to rely on Tom to find them online.

Still let’s get back to something important: the PR campaign to keep Sven.

Which? has got so much coverage with what is some ways a non-story.

It swabbed 33 keyboards and found that they harboured a lot of germs, in some cases posing a health risk.

In some cases the keyboard was dirtier than the toilet.  It could be that the lav had just been washed and the keyboard tested had been used by someone using another toilet and did not wash their hands before typing at their keyboard.

However you look at it, it is  a good hook and persepctive about something many of us can should be able to relate to or consider.

But the story is not new, it has been there since people start using typewriters and keyboards.  It has just been picked up and well presented.

Whoever came up with it deserves their retainer this month.

If you are afraid and want to tackle the bio hazard that would have justified a war with Saddam Hussein try Lifehackers blog for advice and links.

Thanks to Lifehackers for the image of their health hazard.

One inappropriately named PR agency (in this case) called The Good Agency annoyed the editorial team at How-Do with their epic release on Olivia Newton John saving a one day old cat in China.

As you might know How-Do is the North West portal for the creative industries.  So you might wonder what the relevance of Olivia Newton John and a cat on the Great Wall of China is to How-Do: none.

How-Do decided to name and shame the London agency for poor targeting.   The press release is fully of hyperbole including Olivia’s sleepless nights tending for said kitten called Magic.  This dross was accompanied by an e-mail clogging mega pixel image.

It is worth anybody’s time who needs a laugh (link above).

I could not find the Good Agency’s website because of a search of PR agencies there are a few that have good in their text, so they do not have a clue on online PR / marketing either.

Canberra, Australia’s capital had fewer protests than London, San Francisco or any of the other cities that has hosted the torch. (The image is of protesters outside the Chinese embassy).

But it was not China’s victory.

The protests, even though combated by Chinese students and citizens in Australia, brought the issue of Tibet and human rights and the environment to centre stage again.

Up until China being awarded the Olympics and especially the idea to parade it through so many cities the issue of Tibet was not high on many politicians’ agendas nor I suspect was it widely appreciated by the general population.  The last time I saw a big article on Tibet was in the early 90s in The Guardian.

The Chinese government has effectively supplied the oxygen of publicity to an extent unthinkable before.

It was foreseeable except to the Chinese government.

This has been a huge miscalculation by a government that does not understand the media because it suppresses its own.