Ofcom report highlights evolving use of online

OFCOM has published its seventh annual Communications Market report (http://tinyurl.com/3ahr6w7) and it makes interesting reading, not least in that it highlights how the UK’s media consumption habits are changing, and conversely how little they have changed.

What struck me when reading this report, was how quickly the internet has grown as a communications channel (broadband take-up has now reached 71% in the UK). But note the ‘a’ here.  Online is a key channel, but not at the exclusion of any others and be suspicious of any communicator that claims otherwise. Looking at the over 55’s 37% use email daily and 47% weekly. That’s still a way short of the majority of us; there is more growth to come. 

I recently read an article where the interviewee exclaimed how frustrated they were by the lack of comprehension that the internet was a visual channel. I agree. Too often online is treated as print; a very limited way of viewing a medium with a screen that can stream multi-media content. Certainly this year we’ve seen more publishers begin to utilise the potential that online offers more broadly and start to think in less limiting terms. In-house studio’s, multi-media content, online debates, streaming video clips as well as text stories. This is a trend that won’t go away and that companies would do well to also embrace.  

Ofcom’s report highlighted the growing numbers of Briton’s going online to watch ‘catch-up’ TV and stream video content, 31% of us in 2010 which represents an 8% increase. The numbers are growing year-on-year and with new services on offer in 2011, like YouView and Google TV, which aim to blur the boundaries between online (the computer) and TV even further we should expect those figures to continue to grow.  If take-up for services like Google TV take-off then opportunities to find an audience increase and the way that companies and publishers connect with their audience should change. At work text may be more appropriate, but if viewing a site at home on your TV screen visual content wins through and of course, with different dimensions more thought should be given to visuals.   Financial Services is a “serious” industry, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a sense of humour or indeed that we can’t think of other ways to communicate complex messages and engage with our audience.  Anyone who doubts the validity of this statement would do well to view some of the cartoons produced in the last year, I think in particular of the QE explaining Bernake bunnies (http://tinyurl.com/38rd6jy) – this clip alone has had more than three million viewings and there are multiple postings and links to this cartoon.  Producing a visual like this may cost a little more than writing an article for your website, but if the will to view and engage also increases that should be a price worth paying.

Social networking is a trend that is also unlikely to go away, accounting for nearly a quarter of all time spent on the internet says Ofcom. Although it is worth noting that several reports produced in the last 18 months state that our habits are changing, seeking quality not quantity and with online becoming a less ‘immediate’ medium than in the past; suggesting that the way we use online is maturing. Social media is for instant gratification with email taking the place of a more thought through, less timely medium. Or to reference two other key communication channels – the letter compared to the phone. Audiences are also seeking information hubs, becoming overwhelmed by the sheer volume of content online. Comparison sites, indexing sites and portals like the pensions trustee hub Mallowstreet, which really came to prominence in 2010, are a trend that’s likely to step up in pace in 2011.  As publishers seek to engage with a dedicated and therefore more powerful and commercially viable user- base portals or communities are favoured. The Times was not the first to implement a paywall, the FT has had one for many years, but it is the first generalist UK national to implement one.  It seems that the Times is seeking to find its own dedicated and commercially viable community and it would be surprising if more don’t follow suit, although at present all eyes are tracking the commercial success of this venture.

However, lest we forget the Ofcom report reminds us that Briton’s still love their TV.  It continues to dominate and remains our “favoured” channel, the one we are most likely to save if asked to choose between the channels, the one we’d most miss if it was taken from us and the one we spend the most time with.  Reminding us all of the power and emotional attachment we have with the box in the family living room, kitchen, bedrooms and elsewhere.

Is it time to play the long game?

About 5 years ago I sat in a meeting where one of the points under discussion was how viable it was to change client reporting from a monthly basis to a quarterly or half yearly basis. At a period where competitors were moving to weekly or real time reporting on the face of it this seemed like a step back rather than a step forward, however the reasoning behind the suggestion was sound – these were pension investors and they were taking a long-term view, so reporting should fit that view. 

Five years on and I’m sitting in quite a different place, I’m also hearing the call of the long-term a lot more. In 2005 the suggestion to report less often rather than more regularly was considered radical and uncompetitive, today it seems to be an idea that is gaining traction. To sum up countless magazine articles, TV programmes, movies, books, tweets, blog posts and conversations over the last couple of years – our ability to filter information to something meaningful is limited, we’ve never lived in a world where we had so much information at our finger tips.  We’ve moved from being thirsty for more info, to being a little tipsy on it and now we’re all drowning in information.  We’ve started to realise that in some ways less really is more.

Of course when I say ‘less is more’ what I really mean is quality over quantity. If we’ve gone from lying in the rain (when it rains) with our mouths open, to lying beneath a tap that’s never turned off, what we’re looking for now is a cup. There is plenty of information available if we want it.  What we need is for that information to be packaged up in a meaningful and useful way. Any investor who had a stock market chart on their desk top over the last two years should know what I mean, I’d be surprised if they don’t have grey hairs by now.  On a day by day basis the markets have zigged up and down relentlessly.  If you invested in them, and were viewing it all blow by blow it’s been dramatic, stomach churning, edge of your seat stuff.  For those who tuned in perhaps once or twice a year, rather less so.  Over a longer period those peaks and troughs are less steep, the rides been smoother, less dramatic, more comfortable. If you’re a long-term investor and not a day trader is the day-to-day ride really offering you a ‘true picture’ of events, or like a magic eye, do you need to step back to be able to see what’s really going on?

If quality over quantity is a trend that is going to become more pronounced what does that mean for the industry and for communications? 

Behavioural finance suggests that investors who take a long term view, who buy and hold rather than move around are the real winners.  A view that Andrew Haldane, the Bank of England's executive director for financial stability strongly expressed this summer (http://tinyurl.com/2w9yt26) and one that Warren Buffet has long, and famously, preached.  In investor terms quality over quantity appears to translate as a focus on a slow but steady creep of growth, where volatility is low and surprises are kept to a minimum.  This may help to explain the spotlight on traditional wealth managers that have attracted a lot more attention since Lehman's collapsed, a renaissance of interest could in part be attributed to investors return to “traditional values” and traditionally valued firms.

In the commentator and media space “risk” and “value” are topics you would need to be deaf to miss, with clear, loud questions regarding the value delivered by managers relative to the fees charged.  Meanwhile investor money has flowed in to the traditional ‘risk diversifying’ sectors of corporate bonds and cautious managed – highlighting that risk has taken prominence over returns in the unmistakable shape £££. 

If there is a shift in attitude this offers the industry opportunities. If investors want quality over quantity the industry can respond to that need. This response can cover everything from clear, informative if less frequent reporting on the performance of investors funds, to the development and sale of products designed to respond to that need for low risk cash plus growth products. Delivering not only what investors are highlighting they want, but also what they need. 

Unfortunately what is needed can get lost in translation.  Whilst the absolute return sector can offer investors access to funds designed to deliver growth at lower risk (unfortunately the sector offers access to a grand smorgasbord of funds, see Dan Kemp from Saltus’ thoughts on the sector here http://tinyurl.com/38csm53) what is happening is that investors are piling in to bonds, which both Soros and Buffet amidst others have warned against recently, and cautious managed funds (cautious by name and not necessarily nature http://tinyurl.com/2u7gad3).  Many are concerned that best intentions are translating to the wrong, rather than right choices because there’s confusion as to what is the right thing to do.  There’s more than one voice in the industry questioning whether the right products are being sold at the wrong time, yet again, and wondering why.

I read a blog recently which suggested investors have control of just three variables:

-        What they buy

-        What they pay

-        Their emotions

Unfortunately the list of variables over which investors have no control was significantly larger and included:

-        The direction of interest rates

-        The direction of currencies

-        The direction of markets

-        The direction of political situations

-        The direction of socio-economic change

The blogger in question suggested that investors who appreciated they alone could control their emotions and that seeking out advice to ensure what was bought and how much was paid was correct were more likely, if taking a long-term view, to reach their goals.   To my mind this list plays in to the story that wealth managers have long been telling clients and that investors like Buffet have demonstrated (albeit on a quite staggering scale).  My concern is that if the broader investment industry fails to see its role in this story then it will move from being a primary to supporting character and that would be both a tremendous shame and a lost opportunity.

Why I'm getting giddy about Google TV

It's not often that I get excited about a gadget ahead of it's release, I'm far too cautious, pragmatic and 'a girl' for that, but Google TV has got me positively giddy with excitement. To the point that I am quite likely to splash out and be an 'early adopter' when it does launch, which should be later this year in the USA and early 2011 for us Brits.   Quite why Google TV has caught my imagination I couldn't say, after all there are already web enabled televisions out there and I can already watch TV and interact via my lap-top, but the pre-launch buzz around Google TV has managed to convince me that it will be that magical bridge product, the one that gets everyone excited, involved and changing habits.   (So Father Christmas, if you are reading this, all I want for Christmas is...!!!)

If you haven’t heard about Google TV yet here’s a quick summary of what it will be based on the pre-launch buzz.  Simply put, Google TV will be a TV that will also offer Internet. Now I can understand why  this might not sounding very exciting, particularly as there are already ways and means of accessing the Internet through your TV or whilst watching TV, so let me explain why I'm feeling giddy about Google TV.

Unlike present TVs with Internet, Google TV will have open architecture  i.e. you'll be able to access the full online universe (as much as you can on your PC and laptop) and it will have apps, just like you have on your smart phone (eg iPhone).  At present you need a streamer to do this, or you can access in part (for example, some TVs now offer YouTube and iPlayer access).

It was about a decade ago that I first heard the idea of Internet through your TV.  At the time this was mooted in terms of Internet access for all, family interaction and opportunities for retailers. But whilst this is interesting, it seems more interesting to retailers than it does to viewers. Since then the world has changed. We have smart phones, we have YouTube, we have TV on demand services like iPlayer, SeeSaw, and 4 on Demand, we have iTunes and we have firms like LoveFilm offering rental downloads. Bandwidth has increased, media streaming usage has increased dramatically, UK households now have multiple online access points, new generations are web-literate and unaware of that old world where you had to leave the comfort of your sofa or office to research something.  All in all, we've mostly become web-familiar and increasingly reliant, we like instant, immediate access and at our fingertips information. And yet, online entertainment is still in its infancy, for example, in August 2009 the BBC announced demand from 70million viewers for iPlayer, in August 2010 that had increased to 119million.

At present most of us watch TV on our television.  Will access YouTube and online on demand services via our laptop or computer and digest news etc while we're at work - be that via computer or a smart phone.  You can access everything, there are ways and means, but it's fragmented and the majority of us don't connect our home based devices to talk to each other and share as well as stream content (apologies technical people who are horrified at my use of terminology here).  It's also fair to say that the television is a focal point for households, even in households where there is more than one television (which is the majority these days) it has a starring role. So the holy grail of content would be connecting that television to limitless content.  And this is where Google TV steps in and where I start getting giddy.

Imagine you can watch whatever you like on your TV when you want to. That's TV shows past & present, movies past & present, content by independents whether professionals or not via the likes of YouTube; some paid for, perhaps micro payments for streaming as you have with LoveFilm and SeeSaw at the moment, some not.  All sounds quite pedestrian so far I know, but think a little harder...

...your TV menu could switch from being channel focused to topic focused. So, if you are interested in money/investing, you can search for money/investing content and access strong business and personal finance programming from around the world as well as relevant online content. You could download an application that allowed you to invest whilst watching a programme that looked at the fundamentals of a company (iBall TV does this rather well at the moment), or allowed you to check out the present share price, or perhaps to look up what the FT had to say about it all – all whilst watching the show.

Show’s which presently rely heavily on a combination of marketing, audience interest and the channel to show it at a prime slot could find a new audience, an audience that presently finds the show on DVD rather than when shown, which could change the way that executives look at commissioning and continuing shows. 

You could (e)chat whilst viewing a show, perhaps with friends and family, perhaps with other viewers around the world watching it whilst you do, difference being you could do this in a small box on screen rather than via your phone or lap-top.  An interesting new dimension for debate shows, and for drama - imagine a murder mystery where the audience helps develop the story in some way, an interactive drama - it's an established stage technique, could it now translate to TV too?

Programmers could create global events, streaming at the same time around the globe - in a way that we rarely see outside of international sporting events and as first seen 25 years ago with Live Aid. Audiences, already global, could become truly global. For independents the possibilities of finding an audience and creating your own distribution increase. The cable revolution didn't hit the UK in the same way as it did in the USA with garage shows (Wayne's World was a parody of this, amongst other things) but this could offer a new garage show revolution.  It could also open up opportunities for interesting regional programming, after all the Internet helps "community" rather well.  

It could also impact web development.  Imagine your companies website is appearing not on a small computer screen but on a HD 44" TV screen in someones living room.  going It's a game changer. Colour, graphics, movement, interactivity, use of full screen - all more TV friendly than computer screen friendly. 

Interactivity needs encouragement, which suggests developing gadgets, applications, games and talk boards for TV viewers - think smart phone apps but on a TV and of course a TVs apps would probably be different to a smart phone's, you can do so much more with them on a bigger screen and a home based but in no way captive audience is quite a different animal, plus, they’ll be using their remote control to navigate, so nothing too complicated navigation wise or you’ll lose them. Back to the old 3 clicks and you’re out navigation rules perhaps?  Plus, just imagine how cool the remote control will look!

I’m not the most tech literate person on the planet. I do not buy a new gadget, read the 240 page mini manual and gain all I can gain from it, I’m more of a learn as I go and discover that simple short cut a year later kind-of-a-girl. But to my mind Google TV could be about more than just gadgetry, it could be a game changer.

Internet usage has increased dramatically in the UK in the last ten years. BBC iPlayer helped to increase the adoption of media streaming in the UK, which continues to grow at dizzying speeds. YouTube allows people to share not just stories, but images, music, film.  Google TV, if it’s priced right, does what it says it will do and is sold in all the right places should – in combining TV and Internet – open up a glorious universe of content, ideas, creativity, interactivity and most importantly simplicity to audiences (all in the one box, ta da!).

Personally I find the idea of reading about a movie, clicking directly to a renter who allows me to stream it for £1.99, accessing my IMDB app to find out “what that actress is called because it’s bugging me, ohh just on the tip of my tongue – ah ha!”, and then linking to other viewers who are discussing what they think of it as they go really exciting, whilst writing a rebuffal to the reviewer who was unnecessarily disparaging about it (of course) in the comments section below their review.    

Perhaps it will all turn out to be a huge disappointment, all hype and no delivery. But then again, perhaps not. I will leave you with the words of a Google executive at a conference earlier this year:

“Once you have Google Television you’re not going to be passive, you’re going to be very, very busy. It’s going to ruin your evening. That’s our strategy.”

Welcome back Public Relations

Another week, another PR musing.  Two blog’s attracted my attention last week, both written by interesting, knowledgeable marketing communications people. The first was from the Econsultancy http://tinyurl.com/2wpuk7a and the second from PR’squared http://tinyurl.com/35ll3dc.

Econsultancy looked at the social media backlash and signed-off with the thought that social media is here to stay and soon we’ll stop calling it social media and I agree. It’s time everyone stopped seeing online, or rather social media, as separate to a firm’s broader communication strategy and messaging.  The right messaging, knowing your audience and finding the right channels to connect with your audience is what counts. It may be that companies identify online, inclusive of own content, commenting on relevant press articles, twitter and facebook are key, it may not. Perhaps networking events and direct mail are more appropriate.  What it should never be is isolated, or treated as being isolated from the whole and no company can afford to ignore a communication channel. Choosing not to engage via a particular communication channel is not at all the same thing as ignoring it.

For example, as Eurostar and BP found to their respective corporate head holding earlier this year, not utilising social media is not the same as not having a strategy for social media. Most companies have strategies in place for picking up on negative media coverage and then choosing whether or not to respond to that coverage. That’s why firms monitor the press, either via an agency service or something like Google alerts. Certainly Eurostar and BP would have had media monitoring in place. So why didn’t they have that in place for social media?  I would be very surprised if they don’t now, but certainly if they had at the time BP wouldn’t have been embarrassed by and then dealt so poorly with the parody BPpressoffice twitter account and Eurostar would have responded faster to customer complaints – effectively chopping off the cobra’s head.

In the same way, embracing online too fully without strategy can be equally ill advised. A few years ago there was the empty blog syndrome, where blogs had been set up by senior corporate spokespeople and then left to whistle lonely in the wind.  Well now its twitter accounts. Worse still, many companies have no presence but their employees do, creating a disconnect between corporate communications and the communication of staff – or rather, the individual is greater than the collective. Not a good look. (http://tinyurl.com/289fab9 interesting look at FTSE 100’s representation on twitter by blogger Lance Concannon).

PR’squared upped the ante on Econsultancy by examining the future of PR.  A learned fellow’s view is that to separate PR from marketing is an approach that is fast dying out and should do so. The two are interlinked and are most effective when harmoniously managed.

“Traditional PR agencies have five to 10 years left in the cycle before they get phased out. Everything is blurring together and traditional PR agencies need to think how they are going to add to their social and digital abilities and how to expand into other areas,” PR industry veteran Aaron Kwittken.

Again, I couldn’t agree more, although 10 years seems rather generous to me. For PR and marketing to exist in isolation of each other can quickly lead to discordant messaging and a lack of harmony does not help maximise the potential of campaigns. How many times have you seen a brilliant concept, even brilliant marketing that lacked visibility because the talkability was left out of the mix?  In the same way, I’m sure you can think of countless examples where chatability was high, but the firm’s delivery on its spoken promise failed to materialise elsewhere.

It’s good to see that the “public” in public relations is back.

How you get from a sharp increase in correlation across asset classes to reputational risk

Research produced by Saltus, (http://www.saltus.co.uk/) the absolute return investment managers, looks at long term correlation across asset classes. Over the last 10 years, a 12 month period from 9 years ago, the last 6 months and the last 3 months, data clearly shows that there has been a sharp increase in correlation across asset classes this year (do drop me a line if you are interested in seeing this data). High correlation makes it difficult to add value through stock picking or tactical asset allocation, and from a communications point of view this is tough timing for the industry on two counts:

Firstly, the active fund management industry continues to come under fire for high charges and low results. This isn’t a new discussion as anyone who was working in the industry in 2000 will tell you, but it does have a new context. In the last decade investors have suffered not one, but two catastrophic market events and their faith in markets and managers has taken a severe bashing. At the same time, the industry is facing a change of regime with RDR and control of the end investor has clearly shifted in the past decade from fund manager to intermediary (adviser or platform). Do not be surprised to see more fire directed at the industry on the matter of management charges in coming months and it’s worth taking a look at media attention regarding pension charges or indeed Banking CEOs and the clear casting of ‘villain’ if you are wondering just how bad attention could get. Now seems like a sound time for the industry, either as a collective body, or as individual firms, to think through and prepare a response in these terms. It may never happen of course, but if it does do you really want to be caught humming Dixie, particularly if that means investor confidence is further undermined?

Secondly, high correlation reduces the benefits of portfolio diversification and therefore increases volatility within the portfolio which means many investors are likely to be exposed to unintended risks and at a point where investors are incredibly risk sensitive. Think eating a toffee shortly before going to the dentist for that root canal work you needed. If investors aren’t aware of what’s happening and feel blindsided, again, the impact seems likely to be a further erosion of trust in the fund management sector, again bad news for the fund management sector. You can be ship shape, but in rough waters a number of small leaks can quickly become a soaking or worse still sink the ship.

You may think I am being overly pessimistic, and indeed perhaps I am. However, reflecting back on the July Peregrine Perspectives event, Shiv Taneja of Cerulli Associates quoted some sobering figures. A sharp drop in global AUM (assets under management) in 2008 was swiftly followed by sharp growth in 2009, but what was obscured from view is that the increase came predominantly from market growth and not new money coming in. Investors, as any good wealth manager will tell you, remain wary.

There may not be much that the industry can do to erase recent market memories, but what it could be doing is rebuilding trust in its services. There are many fires being fought here, European political pressures, home ground political pressures, regulatory changes, substantial socio-economic shifts, distribution evolution and of course delivering returns from the markets – but the importance of communicating the benefits of the service it offers to the people it’s offering that service to (in the right language, at the right time, on the right ground) should not be overlooked.

Perhaps you disagree with my assessment and feel that actually the industry does a brilliant job of communicating. I shall leave you then with two recent examples of just how the best of intentions can go horribly wrong; the recent response to criticism levied against the cautious managed sector by the IMA (see Matthew Vincent’s FT article on this ‘A conundrum to chew over: http://tinyurl.com/2vyhgvc) and the menagerie of funds that sit within the absolute return sector – be that the IMAs, Citywire’s or an advisers own classifications of that sector.

Challenges welcomed...

Why illustrators have more power than leaders

The Economist published a pithy little blog today looking at over-used words in press releases.  http://tinyurl.com/2cocc6m The blog may have been relatively nonjudgmental, but the comments below it are not. It may surprise you, I am after-all an "offender" myself being both a PR and working in the financial services sector, but I really can't blame those commentating for being thusly irked. I may find the level of vitriol a little over the top, after all, there are worse crimes in the world folks, but I confess the list includes many words that are heinously over-used in the financial and corporate world. 

For ease of use these are the top 10 over-used words according to the Economist and source. 

1. Leader (161,000)
2. Leading (44,900)
3. Best (43,000)
4. Top (32,500)
5. Unique (30,400)
6. Great (28,600)
7. Solution (22,600)
8. Largest (21,900)
9. Innovative (21,800)
10. Innovator (21,400)

As you can see, 'Leader' leads the pack (excuse the pun), three times over. If one were literal, this highlights that the industry is chock-a-block with leaders. OR, if one were a little more cynical, that the industry is crammed full of firms and people keen to be seen as leaders, when by very definition and to quote Highlander the movie, "there can be only one".

If you met someone who told you they were a great singer you'd probably nod and you may or may not believe them.  If that same person just opened their mouth and sang (and did indeed have a beautiful voice), you might applaud, you might be dumbstruck (the SuBo phenomena), you would certainly tell them that they had an incredible voice and it's quite likely you'd tell everyone else too.  Telling may be easier, but it's nowhere near as compelling, effective, memorable or indeed powerful ,as showing.

Firms use a great deal of their resources looking at what they offer customers, their values - what differentiates them. The savviest and more successful firms spend as much time thinking about how they communicate and illustrate those differentiators.  They may employ just as much 'spin' as everyone else, but it will be a good deal more compelling and a lot more effective.

PRs need to watch out or advertisers will monopolise word-of-mouth marketing business

The recent move by many big name advertising agencies in to the PR space should highlight that communicating with your customers is BIG again, and by BIG I mean it has an impact on your bottom line, not just that it's the "hip" new fad on the marketing scene.

Reading a report by McKinsey today "A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing" I saw some real figures attached to what, as a marketer, I have always known is important. Namely that if you can communicate with your customers effectively it has a positive effect on your bottom line.

If the traditional role of a salesman is to persuade people to enter a room, then I think it's fair to say that the experience people have once they're in isn't a primary concern - they've done their job, the experience element is someone elses concern. Word-of-mouth sales changes that role. It becomes about encouraging those in the room to tell everyone about what a great time they're having and so encourage more people to come in and join in with the fun. Traditionally I would suggest that advertisers had the 'get you through the door' role and PRs the 'talk about what a great time people are having' role.

Here's a quote from the McKinsey report.

"McKinsey research shows that marketing-induced consumer to consumer word of mouth generates more than twice the sales of paid advertising in categories as diverse as skincare and mobile phones."

The three magic words, in case you missed them, are "more than twice" and they explain why advertisers are dipping their toes into PR. If word-of-mouth is having a demonstrably more positive effect on sales than advertising, and ad agencies are the present top-dog sales medium, they want, arguably need, a piece of the word-of-mouth pie to remain on-top.

Yet, whilst advertisers are aware of this positive impact are PRs and are companies? Perhaps in some sectors this message has hit home, but in many I would suggest not and I would certainly question if this has registered as yet in the financial services sector.

The stock-in-trade of a good PR is to understand how word-of-mouth works and to help companies utilise this really very powerful, if tough to utilise, marketing tool positively. Obviously a key term for a word-of-mouther is "communication" and as any good PR will tell you, there is more than one communications channel open to companies. Good PRs will help companies to utilise all the communication channels available to them, of which the media is just one and the internet and social media is another. If you know who you wish to talk to, your PR agency can help you to identify the right channel and the right strategy to reach your audience. If you're seeking to encourage positive word-of-mouth, your PR agency should be an obvious first port of call to help you to do so.


Another quote from the McKinsey report: "Two things supercharge the creation of positive consequential word of mouth: interactivity and creativity. They are interrelated, and particularly important for brands in relatively low-innovation categories that often struggle to gain consumer attention."


I have always thought of advertisers as the party goer who tries hardest to get noticed - the good ones quickly becoming the life & soul of the party. PRs, on the otherhand, don't tend to do flashy. They're the person everyone talks to and if they're good, they're also the influencer, the person who's opinion everyone wants to hear.

PRs understand the art of communication and conversation. Advertisers understand creativity. Combine the two and you have a powerful force. PRs should be pleased to see the McKinsey report reinforce what they have always known - that talk is good. They should be helping clients to engage with their customers and encourage more positive 'chat' about their services, products or brand and utilising the relevant channels, of the many channels and tools that they now have to hand, to do so. Most of all, PRs should be asserting their expertise in this area and working alongside creatives and advertisers to help clients meet their business objectives. If they don't, advertisers will and it looks like many of them have no intention of admitting that PRs can do anything better.