Copyright Tribunal Rules in Favour of PRCA

No need to make any further comment on this PR Week story.

Other than to say that we are obviously delighted. And that it vindicates our decision to stand up for the best interests of our members and the industry.

Max ‘Marmite’ Clifford, by Trevor Morris Visiting Professor of Public Relations, University of Westminster

Fireworks on Monday night at a panel debate entitled ‘Celebrity Brands – Desire, Dollars and Danger?’ held at the Regent Street Campus of the University of Westminster and with a bustling drinks reception hosted by the PRCA.

A sell out audience of 350 people saw Max Clifford prove he is Mr Marmite.
Clifford polarised the audience by taking several phone calls whilst on stage –he claimed one was from Simon Cowell, though some think it was a classic Clifford set up. When criticised from the floor for his ‘rudeness’ Clifford replied along the lines of ‘I’m not being paid for this, but my clients pay me a lot of money.’

Also on the panel, and not being paid but not on the phone, were ad guru Trevor Beattie, Julian Linley, former editor of Heat, me as chair, and PR guru Mark Borkowski. Max Marmite seemed determined to try and wind up Mark. He claimed that celebrities ‘get me - or if they can’t afford me, then they’ll get someone like Mark.’ Mark’s response was to say that he would refuse Clifford’s clients, preferring to represent people with real talent.

When the audience weren’t being told by Max Marmite what big egos celebrities have, they were treated to a discussion of whether celebrities have actually made us more socially tolerant or simply given the false impression that anyone can become rich - this at a time when the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider.

The rather exotic Shelley von Strunckel asked if our obsession with celebrity was filling in the gap left by the decline in religion. The panel thought not, saying celebrity had always been with us and always would be.

Perhaps the most worrying point raised was about the increasing celebrification of politics, with the most recent fashion being for public emoting.

And perhaps the most astute observation was that Max Marmite is now a bigger celebrity than some of his clients.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Well, we put our money where our mouth was. We intervened against the NLA.

For a good eighteen months now, their plans to start taxing the receipt and forwarding of URLs have caused a row, with words being traded, meetings held, 'consultations' undertaken. The end result? They ploughed ahead pretty much regardless.

Last week in PR Week, NLA MD David Pugh had a little go at us. He said we'd not taken part in his 'consultation'. And he said we'd 'gestured from the touchlines'.

Let's put aside the fact that on the nine occasions when he and I met formally, we were clear and consistent in our opposition to his plans. And the fact that we facilitated him meeting direct with our members to learn their views. Both of which in my view make it pretty clear that we took part in his consultation. If 'consultation' is the right word.

Well, if were were ever on it, we are certainly now OFF the touchline. We're on the field, intervening in defence of the right to link to content freely made available already by the publishers. On the field, and ready -to continue David's theme- to scrum down.

And the reason why is simple. The NLA's plans have no basis in law in our view; are unreasonable; are restrictive. Actually, are self-defeating for a newspaper model built on the work of PR professionals, and centred on advertising.

All of these points were made clear to the NLA when they asked their questions. They just happened not to like the answers they received. So now we end up in the Tribunal.... Engage!

The NLA Blinks....

Just before Christmas, I blogged that the NLA ‘s decision to try and tax weblinks was going to backfire. In their face-off with the PR industry, the media monitors and ourselves, they were throwing into question their very existence.

Well, today the NLA blinked in that face-off.

In response to our pressure, and Meltwater’s decision to refer the NLA to the Copyright Tribunal, the NLA today announced they are suspending their billing process while the Tribunal considers the case.

Do bear in mind the NLA say they’ll retrospectively bill users if the Tribunal happens to rule in their favour. I think they’ll lose the case, but even if they were to win, I am extremely doubtful they would find it easy to back-date bills –I know they’d like to be a wing of the Revenue, but they’re not.

The fundamental point is this though. If they were confident of their position, they wouldn’t have blinked. But they have. And in our view, it’s because their bluff’s been called.

Now their plans are in limbo. And they’ll remain there for between nine and twelve months while the Tribunal completes its work. We’re considering what our next step is, and we’ll keep the industry up-to-date about how we’re fighting for their interests.

But be in no doubt –this is a terrible day for the NLA; a good day for the PR industry. And we intend making the NLA’s life harder still.

Happy New Year!

Why PR People Get A Bad Press

Guest post by: Adrian Wheeler

My first boss escaped from the Rank Organisation in 1968. He had spent ten years mediating between the press, Sir John Davis and Rank’s stable of celebrities. The experience left him with psychological scars and … well, experience. When he set up his own consulting firm he wanted nothing to do with ‘public relations’, so he coined the term ‘Corporate Relations Consultants’. It didn’t catch on.

Brian was an eccentric individual, but his aversion to ‘public relations’ typified the attitude of many first-class practitioners then and now. Whenever PR people get together they will, sooner or later, discuss how inappropriate ‘public relations’ is as a moniker and what we should call it instead. Anyone who can get away with describing themselves as something else – for instance, in lobbying or The City – does.

What’s wrong with ‘public relations’? I’ve always enjoyed the response when I tell people what I do for a living. In the early days it meant a furrowed brow: ‘What exactly is that?’ Later on the questions were more acute: ‘Ah – and what kind of clients do you work for?’ Nowadays the reaction can be more equivocal, and I think I see what Brian meant.

There are 2,400 public relations companies in the UK. Only 200 belong to the Public Relations Consultants Association. The CIPR says there are 40,000 public relations practitioners in the UK, of which only 10,000 belong to the Institute. This suggests that most people practising ‘public relations’ do not see it as a profession and do not want to get involved with standards, training and regulation. It probably also means they are not much good.

Statistically, most clients and journalists will meet three of those for every serious practitioner. No wonder clients are slow to trust their public relations advisors. No wonder journalists have a go at ‘PRs’ whenever they get the chance. It’s like an iceberg floating upside-down: general perceptions of public relations are created by the people who care about it least.

I don’t think there is any point in trying to invent a new word for ‘public relations’. Let’s tackle the quality problem from the other end: clients and journalists should begin any conversation with a ‘PR’ by asking: ‘Do you belong to the CIPR or the PRCA?’ If the answer’s ‘no’ they can continue the discussion at their own risk or put the phone down.

It would be naïve to think that every CIPR or PRCA member is free of fault. But at least they are trying to do their work well. They should be encouraged, supported and preferred; then we might see public relations recognised as a professional business service and we might all feel a lot happier calling ourselves public relations people.

NLA Wolf in the Pot?

I'm sure we all remember the story of The Three Little Pigs. I read it quite a lot these days (not for my own pleasure you understand, but for the edification of somebody rather smaller...). It strikes me that the greedy wolf rather overstretched himself. If he'd been content to eat just two of the three pigs and then move on,he might have gone on to lead a happy, carnivorous life -rather than ending up in the pot.

The same may be true of the NLA.

They've had an easy ride over the past ten or so years. They produce nothing, but manage nonetheless to be rewarded handsomely on the back of other people's labour. There've been occasional mutterings about taking them on, but those mutterings never quite make it to the top of anyone's agenda. In effect, they keep on eating the easy-to-reach little pigs.

Until now.

In their greed to assert copyright over something that (in our view) isn't copyrightable -and to demand payment for something that is available for free- they're like the greedy wolf. They've overstretched themselves, and in doing so, they have thrown into question the whole legitimacy of their existing structures. Like the wolf, maybe they'll end up in the pot.

Meltwater's reference to the Copyright Tribunal changes everything. It shows that people are no longer prepared just to roll over when the NLA tells them to. It will inevitably make people think again about the unfairness of their existing licences. We applaud Meltwater. We'll be giving serious thought to how the PRCA ought to respond to their bold move.

And in the meantime, I imagine the NLA and will keep on huffing and puffing....

How NOT to treat customers

The Daily Mail, Telegraph etc etc today run a story about a mother asking a South Eastern train employee to help her cross a footbridge with her buggy, and being refused 'because they were not insured to lift things like prams'. Now, I must confess an interest. I have a two-month old son, and I use South Eastern trains.

SE's response was reasonable enough I thought: "Our staff will help passengers when possible. However we also need to strike a balance where the number one priority for our staff is the safe running of trains. If it is going to interfere with the safe running of the trains then that must take priority."

Reasonable enough on the face of it.

Yesterday evening rather contradicted that image of reasonableness though. I was on my train home from Charing Cross, with the train about to leave in three minutes. Someone ran to the ticket barrier; his ticket didn't work. This happens quite often, because the barriers often malfunction.He showed the ticket to one of the SE staff to let him through. The SE bloke flicked him a finger, pointed him to the other platform. ie the wrong, further away platform.... The guy looked bemused but ran there instead and was let through the barrier there instead. He then doubled back. The guy who'd turned him away obviously couldn't care less.

I have some difficulty seeing how this meets the SE line 'our staff will help passengers where possible'. I'd rather presumed letting people through malfunctioning barriers was entirely what barrier staff were there for....

I rang SE today to ask them for a view. It took a good few minutes to get through their automated system before someone eventually picked up. They had no response. They also have no email address apparently...

Never mind the 21st century, perhaps they should enter the 20th century and get one? Not exactly the best example of customer service or communications excellence now is it?