Public relations business needs a little PR itself, as Dirty Politics raises questions about industry practices.
Dirty Politics and the "Rawshark" releases of hacked emails have cast a cloud over practices in the public relations business. Industry body Prinz accepts the scandal has hurt its collective image.
Spin merchants are not rushing to judge Carrick Graham and his company, Facilitate Communications, whose role in allegedly promoting its clients' interests in secret, via the Whale Oil website, is at the centre of many of the claims.
Prinz president Bruce Fraser is confident the vast majority of consultants act ethically but he accepted that as a discipline, PR hasn't come out of this looking good. Many PR people were debating the implications of the controversy, he said.
Much of the attention has focused on the political angles, through links between the National Government and Whale Oil owner Cameron Slater. There is deep concern in the business world about alleged PR campaigns against the Financial Markets Authority, the Serious Fraud Office and individuals. But the allegations of commercial ties are also a major issue.
And the depiction in the hacked emails of an unspoken "cash for comment" relationship using the Whale Oil site suggests it has a role as a paid attack blog. Public relations people appear to have written posts that were published as editorial, and the latest dump of purported messages also suggests a cost structure for people wanting to appear on the blog. Slater, however, has said he did not receive money for comment.
All this is particularly relevant considering the apparent crossover between public relations and editorial comment, in my opinion. Prinz seems to be the only organisation that has looked at the issue, though the industry body doesn't represent all the heavy hitters of the corporate world. Graham was a member but has resigned.
But Prinz has no plans to launch a PR campaign for the PR business. Prinz member Claudia Macdonald, head of the Mango agency, said not all agencies were involved in the lobbying end of the sector and instead focused on brand marketing.
ATTACK BLOGS
Nobody will be surprised that PR agencies sometimes run attack campaigns against their clients' competitors. That, as they say, is business. But the hacked emails appear to show a high level of invective against individuals.
Understandably, perhaps, Graham's PR clients, including the Food & Grocery Council, appear to have kept their distance from the website and will not comment.
Blogs are unregulated in New Zealand, and Slater has sought a court ruling that he should be treated as a journalist under the Evidence Act, and thus be able to withhold his sources under some circumstances. If Whale Oil won that case, it would raise questions about whether such websites, purporting to offer journalism, would have a commercial advantage over other sites.
Video Ezy wants to ensure that its on-demand service doesn't poach business from its DVD rental stores. Photo / File
Two new internet TV services have launched in the past two weeks - Lightbox and Video Ezy - adding to the growing number offering video on demand (VOD).
Some services, such as Lightbox, focus on TV series while others, like Video Ezy and EzyFlix, offer only movies. And some, like Quickflix, offer both. Meanwhile, Sky TV - the dominant pay TV provider - plans to launch a subscription video on demand (SVOD) service before the end of the year.
Video Ezy's move has been mooted for some time, yet the announcement on Tuesday was still a surprise. There have long been question marks about how video rental stores would adapt to the VOD revolution. Video Ezy International is a franchise firm and managing director Russell Clark said the operation of the website - offering new-release movies - would be kept distinct from the bricks and mortar stores. It would not use franchisees' databases to market the new VOD service.
Video Ezy did not want to cannibalise franchisees' businesses, he said. Any profits would be distributed among the 90 franchises, the money from each online rental going to the nearest store based on the postcodes for VOD purchases. But even Clark acknowledges that, initially at least, profits will not be huge. Typically, Hollywood studios take about two-thirds of the charge - $6.99 for standard definition movies and $7.99 for HD - and there will also be a cut for partner EzyFlix, the Australian company that launched its own VOD service for movies and is already active in the market. Despite the ties, Clark insists the Video Ezy service is not just a rebranding of EzyFlix.
Video Ezy is talking to the Film Commission about uniquely New Zealand content that will not be available on EzyFlix.
In my opinion, Spark CEO Simon Moutter is being optimistic in predicting that Lightbox will have 70,000 subscribers at the end of its first 12 months. The new subscription VOD scheme is well funded and, at $15 a month for a solid line-up of TV shows, offers good value. I understand Lightbox is paying top dollar for programming deals and it appears Spark is not expecting a big return on its investment any time soon.
Technically, Lightbox has been put through extensive checks. But the company seems to have been in a rush to launch before Sky came up with its own such service later this year.
Spark has huge marketing resources and the notion of a Spark vs Sky battle has attracted lots of editorial coverage.
I think there are two issues over the marketing of Lightbox. The first is the decision to offer TV programming only, not movies. Spark says this makes sense and accepts its consumers will go elsewhere for movies. The second is that Lightbox has gone live with no deals for apps signed with manufacturers of televisions, insisting the ability to watch shows on the family TV set is not hugely important.
The counter argument is that while SVOD is the future, if Lightbox entices customers who don't have smart TVs, they may be disappointed. It's a bit like catching a fish, then letting it go.
Instead of the family TV set, Lightbox appears focused on apps for other hardware, like tablets. Another issue is that it seems Spark has not included Lightbox in its main billing system.
Sky TV is taking a leisurely stroll towards its SVOD service - no doubt aware it holds many of the cards, including its SkyGo on-demand service. The real trump is its dominance of sports rights, especially rugby. The big issue for its new, as yet unnamed, service will be making it competitive when it launches this year, but not so competitive that it cannibalises its existing (and lucrative) services.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sky offered the new service as an add-on for existing customers, while marketing it separately to non-Sky households.
In the midst of this jockeying for position, some consumers are using New Zealand ISPs to link with Netflix, the US SVOD operator - an impressive service by all accounts. But local rights holders, who pay high prices to sell content in this country, are pressing studios to stop this undermining of their financial investment.
