Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

urvey tactic in PR and kitchens dirtier than toilets study

The survey tactic in PR and kitchens dirtier than toilets study


Published by Karthik S on February 18, 2013 | 2 Responses

Update February 20, 2013: This is from the front-page of Times of India, today.

Original post: On 13th February, I picked on a front-page news from The Times of India and posed a question. This. It elicited mostly negative reactions of paid news. But, as someone in the PR business, I need to add context to my tweet without which my query becomes really unfair and one-sided. Most PR agencies counsel on the best mode to get their clients news out. Paid or unpaid is part of the equation and the only thing agencies can ensure is that wherever there is money involved, in gaining visibility for the clients message,

it is done above-board and treats the reader as an intelligent person by telling him/her the arrangement by which such news made it to the papers and let them then decide its veracity based on sheer value of the content. Timess city supplements news do not fall under this, in my personal opinion. Getting an actor to say good things about a phone or a watch, while there is only a generic Advertorial, Entertainment Promotional Feature tag line under the masthead is not adequate disclosure, again, in my opnion the brand pays for the space, as simple as that. But I do know that many people, brands, advertising and PR agencies dont subscribe to that point of view and it is perfectly alright; its what works for each person/brand. Take the example of the faux-front page of The Times of India yesterday. It had 11 news pieces of fire accidents and was designed in such a way that it looked like an advertisement the color scheme, the ADVT tag on the top right corner. Behind this ad. was a full page ad. for Eureka Forbes new brand of personal fire extinguisher Fireguard.

The faux-front page may be an eyesore to purists, but thats just evolution of the newspaper medium as pioneered by The Times of India. We could continue cribbing about it, or we could be happy that at least there is clear disclosure that it is a paid spot and move on to the actual front page.

Now, about that Kitchens dirtier than toilets in urban homes news article and that tweet of mine. A quick check on Google got me 2 articles on that topic from The Times of India one,the print story I tweeted, and another, an online only story. The news was also featured in The New Indian Express and The Hindu. Highlights of the story, to make a point: experts say the fact that unfriendly bugs may thrive on kitchen counters, knives and chopping boards is yet to hit home. Another study published in the Food and Environmental Virology journal last year found out how viruses can spread by cross-contamination from utensils such as knives and graters. Experts say more attention needs to be given to understanding that organisms use utensils and knives as a medium to manifest into a disease. Now, read this news from The Economic Times, published on February 13th. Reckitt Benckiser takes war with HUL to kitchens, enters dishwashing space with Dettol Reckitt Benckiser is taking its battle over germ-protection with Hindustan Unilever to the kitchen by extending its Dettol brand to the dishwashing space dominated by the latters Vim brand. The product is positioned as a multi-purpose cleaner and germ killer. It can be used to clean and disinfect multiple kitchen surfaces apart from dishes and utensils, including sinks, kitchen slabs and cooking tops, a Reckitt Benckiser spokeswoman said. Before you jump to any conclusions, let me add that these are mere conjectures.

You should be aware that the Dettol brand (from Reckitt Benckiser) is endorsed by a different IMA Indian Medical Association (http://www.imaindia.org). The report mentioned above is by another IMA Indian Medical Academy (http://indianmedicalacademy.org). Dr. Preetaish Kaul, quoted in the Time of India story is listed as a medical advisor in the website of Indian Medical Academy. But, a larger point of this blog post is to draw you to the legitimacy of this tactic in PR, when done right. They are, 1. If the study by Indian Medical Academy is legitimate that is, it did perform the study with the number of households/people cited and found those results as part of the study, then it is valid news indeed. 2. Was a brand behind the study? That is, did a related/relevant brand (that could/may gain from this news) pay Indian Medical Academy to perform the study? As long as the results are legitimate, gained from actual responses, that is a legitimate act too and I dont think the brand need to explicitly disclose its association behind the study. It would be great if it does disclose, but Id not think that it is absolutely mandatory as long as the study itself is independent (it seems to be there is no brand mentioned in the study cited as news) and seems generic enough to apply to any brand of kitchen cleaner/disinfectant, not just Dettol. For instance, Levers Vim could take out an ad. tomorrow citing this report as a need! Also, the study is more of an industry/category research than for a specific brand. 3. It is also perfectly justified for Dettol, or any brand to use the study result as a precursor to its launch, whether or not it funded the study in the first place. Im not saying that it is indeed Dettols larger PR strategy (given the 2 different IMAs involved, that doesnt seem to be the case), but it could be, is my point. That is a fantastic, orchestrated PR tactic create the need through a neutral and generic piece of study that sets context to a new product. Then, in a few days, announce your product within that need-space with or without

explicitly mentioning the study in your advertisement or launch announcement. If the study is cited explicitly, that may reduce the amount of trust people placed on the study that they read just a few days ago. 4. A more commonly used PR tactic is to release the said study on the day of the launch of the related product, as third-party validation for the need for the product. That would mean getting someone from IMA during the launch, to talk not about the brand and how it helps in this need, but to talk more about the study itself, with only tacit connection with the brand. This pre-cursor announcement of the study is more powerful since it does not connect the study and product, even if the brand was indeed behind (if at all) the study. So there. Remember Gillettes Shave India Movement and Women Against the Lazy Stubble campaigns? They won PR awards whereas what they used to gain media coverage was paid placements actresses quoted as saying that they prefer men without the stubble and polls run on TV channels about stubble being uncool. Im not entirely sure why this campaign should win PR awards. But, if indeed Dettol had orchestrated this IMA study and then launched their new range of kitchen disinfectants (after Korea, the 2nd market for them to launch this product), then this campaign does deserve a PR award. The study, if done right and legitimately, points to a genuine trend and the resultant (open for any brand, in fact) launch of Dettols new product to place it within a real need is a brilliant combination. I have no information on the connection and merely assuming one to inspire PR folks reading this blog, but I do wish it was conjured up by a PR professional and if yes, made into a case study. We sure need intelligent and smart success stories in PR. Two caveats worth mentioning, to close this post. One, what is your take on a brand funding a research (neutral and thirdpartyish, but one that could help one of its product/service lines) and not disclosing the connection? My take is that the concerned research

organizations brand name/reputation is at stake too, so as long as the study itself is genuine and something that the agency can stand by, it is justified. But I understand this could be a contentious point, so Id love to hear your views on this. Two, Indian Medical Association (IMA) has been under a cloud with regard to its endorsements. It was recently in news when it asked Aamir Khan to apologize for his statements against doctors in his TV show. A side-effect of this was that peoplequestioned IMA for its stand on endorsements, particularly its endorsement for brands under Pepsi Tropicana and Quaker Oats, and Eureka Forbes water purifiers. But while the IMA mentioned in the kitchens dirtier than toilets study is different, let me just point to the fact that such endorsements from industry bodies/associations are not completely unquestionable or clean either.

S-ar putea să vă placă și