Comment for content – It was Naked’s job to ask; and the media’s job to say no

In a way, I agree Naked was just doing its job (btw, a company is an ”it”, not a ”they”). But ..it just sounded so tacky. And it’s the PM…not a freaking pop star or whatever. A little dignity doesn’t go astray..so touting for free ads is not cool.

Sorry, you’re wrong. You just don’t ask ‘that’ question – you just don’t. It’s unethical. No PR person in their right mind would do it. As an agency (if you knew what you were doing) you would surely be relaying that back to whomever was asking – in this case the PM’s office. Are you implying that they knew all of this and went for it anyway? Perhaps they did. If that’s the case they should have walked away and had nothing to do with it – or their version of ‘brave’ is to take the fall and the bashing of their reputation for something like this…

I’ve worked with magazines where it was kind of ‘unspoken’ that there may be some editorial support in return for advertising (of a household product mind you). But it’s never a given and you certainly don’t ask, nor put it in writing. And it’s a whole different kettle of fish when you are talking about something as blantant as this in regards to such a high profile politician.

Having read the actual brief on AdNews it’s really no different than any other ‘media’ brief, apart from the exchange was not money, but an interview with the PM.

For a site like Vice or Pedestrian it would have been a major coup. They would have reaped the rewards.

But The Vine have told-the-tale to make them look good, but really no one likes a tell-tales. Especially young people.

So everyone has ended up looking stupid.

A lipstick mention in New Idea is a lot different to spruiking an incompetent government for mine….

Tim I would like to put forward that the premise of your argument here is flawed.

You’re correct it is the agency’s role to get the most it can from the media outlet, but any agency’s first priority must be fulfilling the client’s objectives.

‘Pushing’ the media outlet as you term it with the offer that has been outlined was always going to be a risky proposition ripe for a backlash like we have seen. There are few more newsworthy news items than a controversy about the PM. Especially the new PM.

Pushing the media outlet to get the most you can is easy. Knowing how far you can push a proposition before it is likely to back-fire is more challenging.

It would seem the act of pushing was prioritised over the potential backlash in this case.

Naked has many smart people within it, and smart PR operators that I doubt would have approached it like this. Guess it highlights the importance of ensuring you play the right people at the right times.

The ALP and the PM’s staffers luckily for them have come out of this very clean. Did they agree ten minute interviews with the PM could be horse traded like this? Worth investigating Tim?

Lets take a brutal reality check of what has happened here.

A political party has asked a media outlet to run their spin agenda unquestioned and offered the Prime Minister as a bargaining chip? What halfwit believes the media should be able to be horse-traded and totally manipulated like this?

We are not talking blatant product plugs (now called branded content) of a hardware chain or car brand that make us all squirm with embarrassment here. It’s a given that the industry actually believes that consumers fall for such awkward overt bumblings disguised as marketing and applauds itself whilst doing so.

This a political party’s point of view meant to be accepted blindly because a media outlet cops an interview from the PM?! Why did the PM stop at sacking Naked when there are obviously propeller heads within the party who approved such nonsense?

Or should we perhaps accept that the media are more than open to be compromised and sell every fragment of credibility to get their hands grubby
on an interview that is very unlikely to happen?

Yep. Your ethical compass is pointing North on this one, Tim. Trying it on is gauche. But not unethical.

The PR industry again highlighting why it is a force for sh*t in society

I’ve worked on political campaign advertising in the past, where it was clearly stated by client and political advertising regulations that we had to pay rack rate for everything – and that no favours, group discounts, contra or the like could be negotiated. As I understood it, this was developed in the interest of keeping everything above board and fair.

Have these regulations changed? If not, then Naked and the ALP were seeking to break what has previously been a very strict code of conduct.

Anyone see the Vine’s ‘outrage’ over the story? The VINE.

Dude, just wrong. How on earth is this course of action prudent for the client? Net result: embarrassing coverage knocking them off message for two days. If you are in Naked’s position and you ask someone to enter into an unethical relationship with you it is (1) wrong (2) likely to result in embarrassment for your client when it comes out. Stupid and unethical. ‘Taking the wrap’ afterwards is hardly a good overall result for the client. Stunned that this is being defended.

Once after pitching a story to a popular men’s mag, I had the editor reply that he would do the story if I got their facebook page 50 likes within the week.Naturally I let it go, but I have had industry colleagues tell me of similar offerings by this editor. In one case, a full page editorial was given once the company had garnered 100 fb likes for the magazine within a week.

Naked’s error was they didn’t offer money … if there was money offered then the interview and spin would have been termed ‘native advertising’ and it would have been ushered through.

Seriously people, get over it.

It’s called PR.

As the client was a political party and not a detergent or lipstick, I think your argument misses the mark.

The stakes are much higher for the consumer (or in this case, citizen) to understand the source of a media outlet’s commentary in a transaprent way if it relates to politics or policy, no matter what we think of the level of political discourse is in this country.

They weren’t selling a product, they were selling an ideology, and trying to hide the fact from young consumers. I think that’s not ok.

I think you’re wrong Tim.

Naked was trying to use media space (not PR) but without paying for it. They tried to do an end run around the sales teams by offering interviews to the editorial department. In doing so they displayed an extraordinary ignorance of the media and contempt for journalists.

The offered interviews weren’t even genuine. Ten minute video shoots would have been Rudd PR pieces to camera, especially since Naked planned to vet the questions.

The deal also turned the journalists into unpaid cameramen and talent in Naked’s own campaign.

This was wrong ethically and in a business sense.

portu and bob is a rabbit – This is not called PR – the issue is that Naked Communications is not really a PR agency. If you read the comments on all related articles you’ll see that any PR person worth their salt would never do this. This stinks of ad/media agencies believing you can buy anything and the ‘story’ is irrelevant.
It’s so frustrating when a client tells you their media agency can get coverage in X,Y and Z because they bought so much media space, with no consideration of the story. Or when you sit in a meeting with an Ad agency and they are selling an idea to the client that would get loads of PR…
In PR we are used to the fact nothing is guaranteed and you can’t buy coverage (or advertising) – with money (or the PM). You have to work hard and you have to sell a story!
It’s the rest of the media industry that fails to understand this and that’s why they need to get out of the PR industry and leave it to the people who know what they are doing.

You’re not doing your job correctly if you damage the reputation of the political party you’re representing.

When working on high profile areas and where ethics area involved a corporate governance director gave me this of thumb. “If your actions make the front page of the news and it is not a positive story, then it is the wrong thing to do”. There is No Way anyone could have thought if anyone found out, it would be anything but bad news for the client.

It was dumb, it was wrong, and to defend the indefensible makes a joke out of PR and communications industry in general.

The clincher for me is that the client (Rudd’s office) was totally unaware this was taking place, and it wasn’t in the agreed package between them and Naked. Pushing a media outlet to get the best deal for your client is all well and good when it’s your client’s expectation of you, but in this case the embarrassment Naked has drummed up for itself hasn’t even been to serve the interests of the client.

pay·o·la
[pey-oh-luh]

noun Informal.
a secret or private payment in return for the promotion of a product, service, etc., through the abuse of one’s position, influence, or facilities.

“And second, when they got thrown under the bus by the client, they took the fall.”

Or, fired the poor sod who had the misfortune to have his name on the emails sent (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.a.....2q4oo.html – “the person responsible has today left the business,” Mr Wilson said”)

I’m very surprised at your stance Tim. This ethically crosses the line.
You are much easier on ‘ad people’ than ‘PR people’.
Then again, a PR person would never have done this.

@You say potato – you hit the nail square on the head. The only person to take the fall was the author of the email, who was simply doing the job as he has always been trained to do by Naked.

Granted it is different from a lipstick, or detergent, or whatever product because he was dealing with a political party around election time (probably), and maybe he should have been less trusting.

But Naked “taking the fall”? Tosh and nonsense. They did what all other large multinationals do – they found a scapegoat and used him.

It’s okay to ask, but if the media outlet said yes it would be disgraceful. Are you for real? Taken to the extreme – it’s okay to ask a woman to have sex with you as a married man – it’s disgraceful if she says yes!. Okay stretching I know, but how on earth can it be okay to ask but not okay to agree. Sounds like a double standard to me. But for me the real point is not even the request for free advertising (after all media provided “added value” all the time), it’s the request for favourable content – or worse still content that disfavours the opposition. Sure brands might ask for “added value” editorial support for something they are doing – but asking to ‘bag the competition’ – how is that in any way ethical. Naked should be ashamed.

PR and Calc – you nailed it on the head.

Ad people might call favourable editorial PR, but PR people never would

it’s stupid, as well as unethical

but then again, Tim has proven that he is far softer on advertising people than on PRs

if a PR had suggested this, he would crucify them

ps…can someone who advertises on Mumbrella please call Tim and ask for favourable editorial..then let readers know…