The Telegraph’s sustained attack on Pacific Brands is madness
There is an extraordinary editorial in today’s Telegraph. It attacks Pacific Brands’ use of a PR company in handling its current crisis. Taking a guess that the fee is $50,000 a month, it says:
“The same company that claims it has to move operations off shore to continue making a profit is evidently making such a profit already that it can afford truly gigantic PR bills. A PR company at this point might advise Pacific Brands to stop employing the services of a PR company.”
No. You idiots. It wouldn’t.
But the last couple of weeks have seen Sydney’s Daily and Sunday Telegraph wage a populist, attention-grabbing campaign, which may turn out to be one of the most ill-advised stunts in Australian media history.
The newspaper’s coverage of Pacific Brands has plunged the company into a deep PR crisis which it will struggle to bounce back from.
Now some of it is the company’s fault. Although it had limited options, it clearly hadn’t covered all of its bases with its announcement that it was ending its Australian manufacturing. So the shock of that was always going to create damaging headlines. There’s only one way that mass Australian job losses is going to be written.
But things got particularly bad for the company when the Telegraph seized upon the issue of CEO Sue Morphet’s salary. A promotion from boss of the underwear and hosiery division to CEO saw her income rise dramatically – although not exactly into Sol Trujillo territory.
But it was enough to create headlines about her being given a giant pay rise while chopping jobs.
The backlash then shifted onto individual celebrities who act as spokesmen for specific brands within the portfolio. Among those being put under pressure were Pat Rafter and (daughter-in-law of the Tele’s owner) Sarah Murdoch.
And at the weekend, the Telegraph got another scalp when Pacific Brands was forced to scale back its Bonds sponsorship of the Melbourne Fashion Carnival.
It’s hard to think of another example when a brand has found its reputation being shredded in such a way. Possibly James Hardie, although in this case nobody has died of asbestosis.
It would be naive to attack the Telegraph merely because it is making an idiotic case – although it is, by the way. (It appears to be offended that the company is continuing to market its products, equating PR fees, sponsorship and advertising as spin, rather than the engine that drives sales. There’s either a deliberate or a childish failure to understand that if you don’t market your product, it doesn’t sell.)
But depressing as some may find it, the Telegraph is not in the business of being right. It is more in the business of entertaining than it is in educating and informing. That’s tabloid life. The most successful tabloid editor of all time, Kelvin McKenzie of The Sun in the UK (a stablemate of The Telegraph as it happens) was never accused of a slavish commitment to accuracy.
And if you had any doubts on the Telegraph’s approach, then last night’s Media Watch offered an excellent example of the Tele’s commitment to whipping up a yarn.
But let’s skip the journalistic hand-wringing. This fight is bad business for the paper. This is why I think the Telegraph is on a disastrous course. Whether it has declared it or not, its end game seems to be to destroy the reputation of Pacific Brands. In a free press, fair comment goes a long way, so it’s perfectly at liberty to run ill informed stuff like today’s editorial. Particularly when politicians are pandering to it.
But what happens if it gets its way? Pacific Brands is still a company that will employ 5000 Australians. As well as Bonds, it owns great brands like Holeproof, Berlei, King Gee and Stubbies, to name but a few. Readers are fickle. Will they really thank the Tele for leading the witch hunt which will ultimately do a great deal of damage to the company?
And let’s be blunt. It’s bad business for another reason. Pacific Brands spends $35m a year on marketing. A fair chunk on that will have gone to News Ltd in the past. If it survives (and I think it will), the company is not going to take a view that its job is to subsidise press freedom.
The only question will be whether it withdraws its support just from the Tele, or from News Ltd as a whole. However, it is interesting to note that sister title The Australian has taken a much more temperate approach.
From where I sit, The Tele has gone mad.
Excellent post Tim, what a great read!
I am actually disgusted by the Media Watch article you linked to. I can’t begin to imagine what it’s like to be one of these low-lifes who call themselves editors/journalists.
Karma is a bitch though so I am sure they will all pay for it, one way or another.
User ID not verified.
Top post!
User ID not verified.
Well said.
User ID not verified.
Bad for business? I don’t think so.
Since when has a newspaper like the Daily Tele worried about potential ad reveue when going for the jugular in a hot community topic like this?
Everyone knows 90% of what’s in the Telegraph is bullshit, but heaven help us all if the newspapers start towing the corporate line. There’s enough PR pap dressed up as news INCLUDED in my media already thanks.
God help us if we get to a situation whereby newspapers will OMIT a story for the same reason.
I always find it a bit “pot-kettle-black” when people working in PR are critical of journalists for being unethical or for beating up a story that isn’t a story – when most of what a publicist does is either attempting to push out a story that ISN’T a story by whatever means possible, or to prevent one that IS a story, from getting out.
User ID not verified.
Maxie, everyone knows 90% of the Tele is bullsh*t? Lay off the substances son…the tele and all papers have more fact checkers than all these websites combined…..you need to look at things with both eyes Maxie, the home of journalism is in print still, not on line …
User ID not verified.
PS TO WHOEVER IT WAS THAT WROTE THIS ARTICLE, MATE ARE YOU SAYING THAT A NEWSPAPER SHOULD IN FACT WRITE STORIES BASED ON KEEPING ADVERTISING SUPPORT…IN OTHER WORDS IF IT’S A NEGATIVE STORY THAT MAY IMPACT AN ADVERTISER, THEN THEY SHOUDLN’T WRITE IT? ARE YOU FAIR DINKUM, THAT’S NOT SERIOUS JOURNALISM…AND SAY WHAT YOU WILL ABOUT THE TELE OR OTHER PAPERS THEY DO TAKE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR SERIUOSLY..UNLIKE THE WEB OBVIOSULY
BY THE WAY, DIDN’T 1850 WORKERS LOSE THERE JOBS?
User ID not verified.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the campaign is both bad journalism AND bad business. That’s why it makes such little sense.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
I reckon The Tele is doing what The Tele does. It’s immoral, but when isn’t it?
Perhaps the bigger point is this: the delusion in government and elsewhere about the future of manufacturing in this country. Politicians like to talk about rebuilding manufacturing bases. Rudd has talked about returning to “a country that makes stuff”; Obama talks about America becoming an automotive leader again.
It’s rubbish. It will never happen. Let’s face facts: traditional manufacturing in the West cannot compete with low-cost labour markets elsewhere. It just can’t. We need to shift our workforce to reflect this.
Maybe if Rudd and others were honest enough to admit that the Tele wouldn’t think it can run such a slanderous campaign against a company that has faced the facts.
User ID not verified.
Jason, perhaps if there were some parity in both wages and conditions between the west and the rest then the difference in manufacturing costs would not be so great. You just celebrated labour day..remember 8 hours work 8 hours rest and 8 hours recreation? No kids working in factories ring a bell? Trying paying a decent price for a decent product for a change..you probably pay that for your artisan bread and your latte, why not your jocks and socks?
User ID not verified.
Tim…excuse me…but you’re still saying the same thing are you not? Have a look at some of the papers in this country and the fact the certain big Aussie companies do NOT advertise with them, the big boys do not like criticism of any sort Sunshine, and they take punitive action if newspapers dare cross the line. Good on the brave journos and owners for staning firm.
Your approach smacks of immorality and cash for comment…or maybe ‘cash for no comment’ perhaps Tim?
User ID not verified.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments.
The mention of the likely loss of advertising revenue is a recognition of the facts – I’m sure that the paper will lose out commercially as a result of this campaign.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but I am saying it’s a likely consequence. You’re not seriously arguing that Pacific Brands will go on advertising with them like nothing happened are you?
Marketers look to place their advertising in environments where the audience is receptive to the message, otherwise it’s a waste of money. It’s going to be a while before Tele readers are that receptive audience.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Tim, agreed, it is not only a likely consequence it’s happening. Marketers hopefully should look to place their advertising in reputable places as well…so placing films ad where the movies are makes sense, even if their film gets canned by the reviewer for instance. Pacific Brands as a case in point, don’t know what they’ll do, for a company with a good PR track record, they certainly couldn’t have screwed this up any worse.we shoul;dn’t forget the 1850 workers on the scrap heap, with the boss getting a bonus and share price at an all time low
User ID not verified.