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.
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.
Top post!
Well said.
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.
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 …
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?
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.
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?
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?
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