Getting your foot in or breaking down the door of PR?

I got wind of this when it was tweeted by award-winning agency Brandon Hill Communications; courtesy of PR Daily, this gem of an article giving tips to newbies might as well have my name written all over it. It got me thinking. As someone with at least part of a limb in the PR world through freelance work with Spear PR, and someone who is still trying to break in and get himself employed full-time, what is the best way to get ahead of the game?

I ask this because I recently got rejected from the Lexis PR grad scheme — a disappointing outcome given the effort I had made/am making — and would be particularly interested to know what the successful candidates did that I didn't. Obviously I lacked something and it would make the world of difference to me to know what that something is. I don't begrudge Lexis or the candidates who got through, after all they were asked to stand out and that is what they did, I'd just love to know how for future reference. But, the whole idea of standing out is changing at a rapid rate. No longer do you just need a degree and some decent social skills, for example. Now it seems you need to CV to end all CVs, your own website perhaps, maybe even someone on the inside. The point I'm getting at is, in the grander scheme of things, are you more likely to get employed by getting your foot in the door with internships and placements, or is breaking down the door with presents and personal websites?

I should stress, I'm not suggesting that it is so black and white that either of these is a direct route, nor that you require either of them, but there is a sense in which you have to be special to stand out in a saturated graduate market.

It was this very thought back in September that lead to the incorporation of Spear PR. Stand out from the crowd, show initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, throw yourself in the deep end. It seemed such a brilliant plan. But there are times I question it; not the (ad)venture, which I've relished, but whether it is enough. Since incorporating Spear with Isobel I have got myself some swanky business cards, I have been slogging at boosting my Twitter, I fixed up myLinkedIn profile and joined various relevant groups which I participate in, I blog on here and on The Conversation, I even got myself a flash website with a downloadable CV, case study and every possible route of contact information. In summary, I'm not sure how much more I'd be able to do to boost my online presence and show the world that I have what it takes and I'm working to the ends of showing that off.

Would an infographic CV help?

I'd love to get myself one because they look great — which would certainly be better than this hilarious, but a little wide-of-the-mark effort! However, I also have a sneaking suspicion that for PR it might not be quite as effective as it is for other creative industries. Perhaps I should write a press release of myself? (This is actually something I'm going to do).

The PR Daily article I started this post with was helpful because it gave me a measuring stick to hold up against what I do, what and who I am, what I can achieve, and what I still need to do. Conclusion? Well, that has yet to reached. But I can certainly say I'm on the right track. Sadly, on the right track is the careers-guidance equivalent of not wanting to dishearten a decent candidate, which is why this question still plagues me: get my foot in the door or just break it down?

I'm thinking of doing a cost/benefit analysis of this: sending cupcakes to Brandon Hill Comms, Flowers to McCann Erickson, Barbershop Quartet to Palamedes PR, shouting my name from the rooftops followed by 'employ him'. Alternatively, I've got some work experience with Haslimann Taylor and, among other things, they will hopefully show me a way to get my foot in the market door. How to keep it there is up to me, as is how to get the rest of my leg in, but the opportunity is a great one and I'm really looking forward to showing them what I can do. Show them my toolbox, as the PR Daily article advises.

Until you've crossed the river it is impossible to give the best advice as to how to get to the other side, and I'm still walking up and down the bank waiting for the flow to subside enough, or some perfectly positions rocks/tree trunk/beaver dam to present itself as a crossing place. Until I'm on the other side looking back I, sadly, won't be able to offer an answer to this. Maybe someone who reads this can? How many careers are planned and how many are happy accidents? Or, I hope, many are happy accidents you plan on happening. Either way, I'll keep on working away and hope that the hard work pays off without the need to send a hundred red roses to the HR department of a comms company; and if I get there deliberately or through some happy accident, I'll be sure to write a letter to send back across the river to the thousands of others still waiting to cross. Hell, maybe I'll make them a youtube video and hope one of them sends me a cupcake or two — strawberry, if you please.

Will a meerkat's ambassador have Diplomatic Immunity?

It is almost impossible that anyone has escaped the whirlwind of fur that is Aleksandr Orlov. Since first appearing on our screens in January 2009, the Russian meerkat has since been given the kind of back story that makes the well-documented life of Prince William look relatively empty. He has a family tree going back generations — each meerkat in turn also having a back story — a fictional, autobiographical film about the company he is the face of — The Journey of Courageousness, The Battle of Fearlessness, and The Streets of Ambitiousness — and, as if that wasn't enough, a comprehensive website about the town in which he resides, Meerkovo (no prizes for spotting the pun). In light of all of this, and the incredible number of Youtube, Facebook and Twitter followers, I was a little short of gobsmacked to see them offering £40k for a 6 month position as the official Ambassador of Meerkovo.

Why? I found myself asking. A brand image that, to many people, is pure genius must surely be sailing along quite nicely without needing to wave a cool forty grand paycheck under some one's nose to boost the already sky-high profile. To give you a humbling statistic, the fictional Aleksandr Orlov has almost three times as many followers as ex-PM Tony Blair. I'm not saying Tony Blair should have a sizeable following, but he did run the country for a decade!

The job is advertised very simply, and one would assume it will be a very high profile brand ambassador position, being a presence at all manner of sporting and cultural events (I can't help but hope the successful candidate might be invited to the royal wedding). But, other than gallivanting around, tweeting a little bit, and living the high life on such a tidy wage for just 6 months work, what will this person bring to the brand? One suspects it is a drive to convert Compare the Meerkat followers into Compare the Market followers — ironically the meerkat's problem generated the same problem for the brand.

In the world of social media there is a colourful history of corporate blunders, the sort of blunders than can set back a brand's image years in a matter of seconds. The beauty of Mr Orlov is that, as a CGI animal with a suspicious Russian dialect, he is largely immune to social blunders — there isn't much chance of catching him with his trousers down at any time soon, so to speak. So, why would a company bring the fallibility of a human ambassador into such a successful campaign? Could this all back-fire in a moment of blissful stupidity? The speculations are endless.

But, is it possible to 'fault-proof' the lucky candidate in some way? The possibility is no doubt there, but removing the humanity from what is perhaps a ploy at enhancing humanity would be rather short-sighted for any business. Perhaps the best solution to this risk then is to hire someone less fallible than your average joe, but surely this isn't possible? The thought of a successful marketing, PR, brand ambassador leaving their job for a 6 month jaunt into the world of CGI mongooses and dodgy, if infectious, catchphrases seems a little unlikely to me. Maybe I'm too negative. If I were to put my positive hat on I might be inclined to say they will hire a graduate with some flare, some drive, and a great deal of acumen (probably more than your average graduate); after all, the deadline and interviews seem to coincide with most other creative industry graduate schemes and it would be a great opportunity for anyone starting out in that vocation. But here the problem lies: gamble on a graduate, or try to poach a professional? Tricky stuff.

The questions remain open, and maybe someone will be kind enough to answer them, but for now I've decided to find out the answers the best way possible: I've filled out my application. Ultimately, I'd be glad to be a CGI meerkat's right-hand man; he can't be more intimidating than some other bosses and, who knows, maybe that invitation to the royal wedding will come pretty soon after my first pay-check. Here's hoping.

Saturated Social Media and The Conversation

It was with a great deal of scepticism that I found out about the CIPR's new social networking venture 'The Conversation'. It is going to be the social network du choix for PRs everywhere as it compiles all the best blog posts from professionals, students, agencies, freelancers and, quite frankly, anyone who wants to join in. They claim also that it won't require the tedious task of 'friending' everyone all over again either, you simply enter your Facebook/Twitter/LinkedIn/obscure social networking site details and 'The Conversation' does all the hard work in linking you up.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Well...

The reason I cited my scepticism earlier is that every time a new social networking site comes out or gains popularity I find myself wondering how helpful this actually is. Part of the brief for this new site is that it will be 'your one-stop shop' for PR practitioners. But, surely no PR is foolish enough to rely only on one site for all they need? If they did, it would be putting the blinkers on to a business that is all about the bigger picture. Granted, trawling blogs for relevant and interesting articles will now only be one click away, but isn't Google doing a rather good job of putting the world at your finger-tips anyway? If anyone can join 'The Conversation' then how do they intend on filtering the good from the bad any more than Google is able to? The mind boggles.

When I log on to the internet I check all the sites I know it is worth my while checking. Sometimes this will take two minutes, sometimes two hours; it depends entirely on what I find on each site. Surely having one more site to check is going to bring businesses to the stage where you need to employ someone to simply sit there and read post after post on 'The Conversation' and decide whether it is of any use to anybody at all.

It's not to say I don't think the CIPR are doing something worthwhile in bringing everything together into one neat package; but one has to question how useful this will prove to be in a world where everything you read must be taken with a pinch of salt. What I'm getting at is that there needs to be a filter to prevent anyone just posting rubbish which isn't helpful to anyone. The internet is already filled with pseudonyms and invented personas, so how will The Conversation avoid the problem these people can cause?

It is no surprise how many questions I pose in this entry. I find myself treating this great idea like one would treat a yacht with a hundred leaks: great to look at, but not something I would necessarily be investing time or money in.