It’s not often we shout about advertising. After all, in our industry, there’s no contest between editorial and ‘paid for content’. However, every so often, an advert comes along which gets people talking and captures the mood of an entire
nation.

John Lewis’ Christmas advert, which aired during X Factor on Friday evening, did just that. Already, it has been dubbed ‘the best promotion of all time’ and clocked up over 620,000 YouTube hits. Its theme tune, a cover of The Smiths song Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want, is also on course for Christmas number one.

If you haven’t seen it (and I very much doubt that’s true), the advert follows a cute young boy who waits impatiently for Christmas. His eagerness, it transpires, is not because he wants to open his stash of presents, but simply
because he can’t wait to give a gift to his parents – cue the tears.

The ad had people on Twitter weeping into their iPhones on Friday night and was trending in the UK for nearly two days.

Maybe it’s the recession, but the ad taps in perfectly to the current zeitgeist of the nation – one that yearns for simple wholesome values, vintage nostalgia and a winsome family Christmas. Compared to the efforts of the other big retailers, it knocks the competition out of the water.

The ad is not without its detractors. Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker has said: “Anyone who wells up at that John Lewis ad is a monster” – and a mash-up the soundtrack of Stephen King’s The Shining has also been created. Still, it looks like John Lewis’ masterpiece is destined to be the advert, if not the soundtrack, of the season.

News that an LA-based PR agency was unceremoniously dumped this week after it sent a thoughtless tweet comes as no surprise. The company in question – Redner Group – got sacked by its biggest client, a video game publisher, after its MD tweeted it would punish bad reviews of its latest release by withholding future copies from reviewers.

The story comes just days after the MOD launched its ‘Careless Tweets Cost Lives’ campaign, which begs the question: why are so many PR professionals, the ‘reputation experts’, continuing to tweet before they think?

In recent months, Twitter has brought the English justice system to its knees thanks to Giggs-gate; we’ve had hash-tag spam from Habitat, while Kenneth Cole felt the wrath of the web following his now-infamous Egypt Twitter gaffe.

When users, and particularly PR practitioners, cock up via social media, it never fails to cause a storm. That social media is embedded in traditional PR is a given, but it’s still a relatively new tool with no steadfast rules of engagement.

That said, threatening to blacklist reviewers, à la Redner Group, is not big or clever. It showed not just a lack of foresight, but a complete lack of respect and understanding of the medium at hand. Although an apology was offered, it was too late. The tweet was out there, the agency sacked. End of!

Twitter breaks boundaries like never before. It gives PR consultants the opportunity to engage with journalists, react to breaking news and spot trends before they go viral. However, while it extends the conversation, careless tweets really do cost.

The message is simple: every tweet puts the reputation of you and your business on the line. If you wouldn’t want it on the front page of the Daily Mail, keep it under-wraps. Simple advice? Yes. Adhered to? Worryingly not!

Sometimes in PR it’s important to play the long game. This was a mantra shared by all at Peppermint this week when the team broke findings by Dr Michelle Harvie, a dietician funded by the Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Appeal, which have been over two years in development.

The research, published yesterday, suggested that women can cut their risk of breast cancer by following a two-day a week diet.

Since the findings were released to the national media, Peppermint HQ has been a hive of activity and non-stop media liaison – in which time our infectious consultants have done their best to turn ‘phone juggling’ into the next Olympic sport!

After two years of discussions with Genesis, the results received widespread coverage on broadcast media, with specialist features appearing on North West Tonight. Blanket coverage also hit the newsstands today, with articles appearing in the Daily Mail, the Sun, Daily Express, Times.co.uk, Telegraph.co.uk, Mirror.co.uk and the Manchester Evening News.

At Peppermint, we‘re certainly no strangers to securing reams of coverage in the nationals – but this coverage is extra special to us. As the UK’s only charity entirely dedicated to the prevention of breast cancer, Genesis has the goal of making one in ten (the current number of women suffering from the disease) none in ten. The buzz of generating coverage that could potentially prevent certain cases of breast cancer is one of the best rewards we could ever have.

Facebook announced that it now has 500 million users which means (according to The Guardian) that a whopping 43 per cent of Brits are regularly logging on. You can’t argue with that!

We all remember Rage Against the Machine beating X-Factor’s latest hopeful (it was that Joe guy, right?) to the Christmas number one, all thanks to the power of Facebook. More recently, BBC 6 Music was saved from the chop after a dedicated Facebook and Twitter campaign to save the station.

Based on these facts, is it any wonder then that PM David Cameron is now trying to get Facebook users on his side? Recently, Number 10 released a conference call between Cameron and Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, where Cameron asks for Facebook users to suggest ways in which the government can cut the deficit. Like many of the government’s social media attempts, this latest stunt has received backlash with the video being labelled as ‘insincere’ and scoring zero cool points for the PM.

Is jumping on the Facebook bandwagon really going to make people more interested in politics? The problem the government faces is engaging people and getting them to buy-in. If people wanted to spend their time on Facebook telling the Prime Minister how to run the country, surely they would have stood for Parliament themselves? I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea of the government making decisions based on suggestions from the same people who joined the Facebook group “For those who have ever pushed a “pull” door.”

Old Spice − a good Christmas present for granddad and a logo resembling the Blue Peter ship. These were the first thoughts that sprung to mind which is hardly surprising considering it’s a 71-year-old brand.  How very wrong I was…

Something rather exciting was going on in the Twittersphere last night. Wearing just a towel (and cheesy grin), the @OldSpice Man was responding to online mentions of the brand in a personalised YouTube video directly to you from a bathroom. He was also answering questions from Yahoo Answers, comments on posts and it seemed anything else posted about Old Spice on the Internet. At first I thought it was a very obvious use of a promoted tweet and scantily clad male model to make the blokes jealous and the ladies ‘ooo’ and ‘ahhh.’ But, the videos were genuinely funny and struck the perfect tone for the brand.

Well that was me set for the evening. I was gripped, highly amused and in awe of a campaign that seemed to have got it so very right! How measurable this is going to be, I’m not sure, but the Old Spice man was keeping up well and successfully interacting with his bemused audience. I was keeping a close eye on the ever-increasing number of Twitter followers which doubled to nearly 12,000 in just a couple of hours. Oh and when I looked this morning it was nearing the 30,000 followers mark.

It must be the fresh man smell because there ain’t no flies on the Old Spice man (or perhaps his PR team) as a few of the video responses were very shrewdly targeted at prolific tweeters (with over a million followers) and journalists. Hello exposure.

The only disappointment of the evening is that I’m still waiting for my response…

Aside from the buff Old Spice man, another brand hoping to gain exposure by exposing in its latest viral campaign is Perrier and its partnership with Dita Von Teese. I’m yet to come across any real online buzz but the story had great coverage in the red tops so watch this space.

Yesterday, in my first glimpse of daytime TV since my student days, I caught a lively debate about the proposed guidelines for broadcast product placement. 

The focus of the discussion was the ‘P’ symbol that will appear before and after programmes to warn viewers that they contain product placement. The gist was that viewers don’t want to be patronised by this symbol and feel that they can easily spot product placement without it.

We’ve all seen product placement done very badly. The Coca Cola cups on American Idol to name just one example. The bottom line is that this initiative won’t work for the viewer or brand and therefore nor will it for the broadcaster. The real beauty of product placement and PR in general is that it should be seamless and so well placed that it’s invisible (at least to the masses). 

Whilst my gut instinct is to think that seeing Heinz on Heartbeat or Kellogg’s on Corrie could be a bit naff, done well, it is highly strategic and effective. How many girls can say that they don’t fancy a pair of Louboutins when they watch Carrie swishing down Fifth Avenue in hers? And what man would turn down a drive in Jack Bauer’s Ford Exhibition? 

Going back to whether viewers need to be warned, I’m inclined to say – probably not. Product placement could benefit TV quality as long as broadcasters don’t insist on crowbarring irrelevant products into the scripts. After all, this much-needed revenue should help to improve the quality of programming, and an actual product is a far more realistic addition than anything a prop department could offer. The door of opportunity is wide open and we’re intrigued to see which brands capitalise on it.

According to a piece in today’s Sun, nearly half of teenage girls want cosmetic surgery to boost their confidence, stop being bullied or look like a celebrity.

The initial reaction in the office was that of shock and horror – the girls surveyed were between the ages of 13 and 16 and the most popular ops were weight-loss surgery, breast implants and better teeth. However, after discussing the topic for a while, we cast our minds back to how we felt at that horrid, awkward age and thinking about it, ‘nearly half’ seems fairly low. What 13-year-old hasn’t felt like an ugly duckling at the stage between girl and woman?

Thinking back to when I was 13, I remember feeling chubby, flat-chested and in desperate need of orthodontistry – I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one. The difference between a 13-year-old in 2001 and a 13-year-old in 2010 is that now, teens have to deal with stick-thin, perma-tanned, bouncy haired celebrities with perfect smiles in every magazine, advert, film, TV programme and music video they see.

Back then, my feelings of inadequacy were in comparison to my skinny classmates – not to skinny celebrities. According to the study, 11 per cent of the teenagers who wanted surgery were spurred on by celebs. It’s sad that 13-year-old girls look to the likes of the size-zero surgery-obsessed Katie Price, Heidi Montag and Victoria Beckham for inspiration.

At the age of 21 I still have insecurities, but like most women I feel a lot happier in my own skin. In most circumstances I don’t think cosmetic surgery is necessary, especially not for young people. There are many much cheaper, less painful ways to feel better about oneself. I’m sure that even though it feels like we live in a celebrity-obsessed world, the teenagers of today will, in years to come, realise that too.

This week will mark the fifth anniversary of a crucial piece of Labour legislation – one which has single-handedly provided some of the decade’s most shocking and widely read news stories.

On New Year’s Day 2005, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act was introduced across all levels of the public sector, with the aim of radically increasing the transparency of local and national government. But has it worked?

The bill has fuelled stories such as the MPs’ expenses scandal and Prince Charles’ infamous “black spider memos”. It has also resulted in the less deliberate divulgence of information such as BBC presenters’ salaries, which are currently exempt from the Act’s provisions. But in a fascinating article marking the legislation’s anniversary, The Guardian‘s Ben Dowell raises some interesting points about its use and purpose.

Journalists frequently complain that ministers deliberately manipulate and weaken the Act so as to tie up requested information for months, or even years, at a time. Dowell, however, asserts that in many instances, journalists are equally to blame for improper use of the legislation’s provisions, by intentionally focusing on stories of failure, scandal and dishonesty.

So has the FOI Act been successful? And if not, who is to blame? Are the media exploiting its intended use by deliberately digging for the juiciest scandal and most damning report, or is the increasingly bureaucratic and long-winded system of getting that information proof in itself that it needs exposing?

Perhaps the wider point is that freedom of information promotes a culture of openness. When agencies no longer feel the need to hide salient details from each other, they are more likely to liaise, share and help one another. Administration problems and interpretation of use aside, surely this is a principle to aspire to.

This month, the gong must surely go to Be Brand who is responsible for creating an ad for the Costa Brava featuring a photo of – wait for it – an Australian beach, crudely photoshopped to look ‘more Spanish’.

Yes, some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to buy in a nice Perth seascape photo from Getty Images – complete with Aussie husband and son looking out to sea – and then superimpose a bit of Catalan on their t-shirts.

Why? Why? And again, why? There’s no denying that the marketing industry revolves around showing our clients in the best possible light – but on what planet does that translate into passing off a location at the other end of the globe as the Northeastern coast of Spain?

What a spectacular PR own goal for the Costa Brava tourist authority who now look to all the world as if the region has not a single decent view to recommend itself. If its tourism industry was flagging before this little debacle, it surely will be on its knees after it.

Looking at our own projects for the coming month, I wonder what would happen if we employed the same approach? Might we dispense with images of an office development we’re promoting and use pics of the Rockerfella building instead? We might well decide that clothes from our fashion clients aren’t hip enough and just borrow some shots from Marc Jacobs. Or, if we decree that the heads of our client companies aren’t sufficiently photogenic, we could perhaps lift a photo of Brad Pitt and photoshop a corporate logo onto his shirt. The possibilities are endless.