PR Diaries

Reporter's jobs being outsourced ...

2005-09-13T10:36:00.000+10:00

This is bad for reporters and bad for PR people. In fact, it's bad all around.

See the full press release here (http://www.newsguild.org/nyguildrelease.php):

UNION TO FIGHT REUTERS MOVE TO OFFSHORE EDITORIAL JOBS

For Immediate Release:

CONTACT: Newspaper Guild of NY President, Barry Lipton – 212-575-1580

NEW YORK – The union representing U.S. employees of Reuters Group Plc (LSE: RTR; NASDAQ: RTRSY) announced that it will legally challenge the London-based news and information company's plan to outsource some U.S.-based financial reporting work to a facility in Bangalore, India.

"We intend to use every legal tool available to us to stop the company from taking a step that not only harms our members, but may also harm the quality of its service," said New York Guild President Barry Lipton.

Editorial managers of Reuters, which gets more than 90 percent of its revenues from selling news and information to players of fast-paced financial markets, told employees that the new plans to transfer some Editorial functions to Bangalore would eliminate up to 20 existing jobs, including 12 Guild-represented jobs in the United States.

As part of CEO Tom Glocer's job and compensation-slashing "Fast Forward" program, Reuters last April became the first major media company to base U.S. corporate reporting functions offshore. At first, the Bangalore bureau reported on earnings of small and medium-sized companies that usually were not covered by Reuters' U.S. journalists. The new plans call for Bangalore workers to cover larger companies' earnings, press releases and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and analysts' stock alerts. Reuters also has sent some U.K.-based non-editorial jobs to Bangalore.

The Guild, Local 31003 of the Communications Workers of America, represents nearly 500 print, television and still picture journalists, technicians and other employees at Reuters.

Now this is hilarious ....

2005-09-07T14:19:00.000+10:00

I tend to lean towards Kai Fu's version of the truth.

Why? Can't really tell you without me 'unmasking' myself.

Maybe Bill can recreate the infamous Connie Chung interview when this topic gets brought up at his next media conference.

I found Steve's 'gross exaggeration' line, well, to be a gross exaggeration. Let the Microserfs speak for themselves ...

We've been f..... by China: Gates
Seattle

September 7, 2005 - 9:30AM

Former Microsoft executive Kai-Fu Lee has accused the software giant of incompetence in its plans to gain a business footing in China, and testified that an expletive-filled tirade from chairman Bill Gates was a low point before he defected to rival Google.

In testimony during a hearing on Microsoft's lawsuit against Lee and Google, Lee said on Tuesday he wrote a memo to another Microsoft executive saying he was "deeply disappointed at our incompetence in China - that we have wasted so many years in China with little to show for it."

Lee went on to say in the email that he was embarrassed by Microsoft's business practices and that people in the government joked about Microsoft's internal politics. But he didn't provide any details in his testimony on Tuesday about what exactly frustrated the Chinese government.

He testified that one of the lowest moments of his career with Microsoft was a conversation in which Gates yelled at him and said the company had been "f-----" by the Chinese people and its government. Lee did not clarify the context of Gates' comments.

Lee also complained that Microsoft had more than 20 business groups operating virtually autonomously in China, with little cohesion.

Among other problems, Lee said, was a commitment Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer made in 2002 to outsource $US100 million ($A130 million) in jobs to China. Within the last year, after it had become clear that they weren't fulfilling this promise, Lee said he was put in charge of outsourcing jobs to China.

Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said she could not immediately comment on the testimony.

Lee, who worked at Microsoft from 2000, joined Google in July to lead the company's expansion into China.

Redmond-based Microsoft has sued Google and Lee, who is known for his work on computer recognition of language, a key problem in search technology. Microsoft contends that Lee's duties would violate the terms of an agreement he signed as part of his Microsoft employment contract. Microsoft also accused Lee of using insider information to get his job at Google.

Google denies the allegations and has counter-sued Microsoft.

Microsoft attorneys sought Tuesday's hearing before King County Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez to restrict what work Lee could do for Google until the lawsuit goes to trial in January.

Microsoft said Lee used insider information to get himself at job at Google in violation of an agreement.

In approaching Google about a job, Lee sent an email stating, "I am currently the corporate vice-president at Microsoft working on areas very related to Google," said Microsoft lawyer Jeff Johnson.

"He was saying, 'Look what I did at Microsoft and look what I can do for you,'" Johnson said Monday at a hearing before King County superior sourt judge Steven Gonzalez.

Lee, who had worked at Microsoft from 2000, joined Google in July to lead the company's expansion into China.

Attorneys for Google said in court on Tuesday that much of what Lee knew about the Chinese market came from his previous work experience at Apple Computer and other companies, and that Microsoft was exaggerating the extent of his work for Microsoft on China.

Microsoft has sued Google and Lee, who is known for his work on computer recognition of language, a key problem in search technology. The Redmond company contends that Lee's duties would violate the terms of an agreement he signed as part of his Microsoft employment contract.

Google denies the allegations and has counter-sued Microsoft.

At Tuesday's hearing, Microsoft lawyers sought to restrict what work Lee could do for Google until the larger case goes to trial in January.

Johnson alleged that Lee - while still on Microsoft's payroll - went so far as to send Google a paper he had written for Microsoft about the Chinese market and that he also made recommendations to Google about other people the company might want to employ.

John Keker, a lawyer for Google, argued that recruiting was not a violation of the agreement because it specified only that Lee could not take part in activities that were competitive with products, services or projects he worked on at Microsoft.

The case has illuminated the behind-the-scenes bitterness between the two rivals. Court documents released last week said Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer, in an obscenity-laced tirade over another employee having been hired away by the search company, threw a chair and vowed to "kill" Google .

Ballmer called the characterisation of his response a "gross exaggeration."

The press is not your friend ...

2005-09-07T12:08:00.000+10:00

I enjoy media training.

I enjoy telling company spokespeople the facts of life, bursting a bubble, mainly that press relationships are about lunches and chummy media friendships.

Most of these naive types assume that we're all Hollywood publicists: lunching stories into the press.

Nothing could be further from the truth and as one ad manager who tried PR once told me, she could not handle the awfulness of knowing that the line she was peddling wasn't being 'bought' hook line and sinker by reporters.

The 'honesty' of advertising lured her back: you pays yer money, yer gets yer ad. The fun is in the creative.

Since then, I've always regarded the ad business as day care for not too bright, emotionally challenged arts degree types who don't really want to work too hard at all.

But I digress ... here's why editors are not your friend according to an Australian media watcher site charmingly called Crikey.com (http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/09/01-1702-3297.html):

By Crikey political correspondent Christian Kerr

Memo to all politicians – journos are not your friends.

Date: 1 September 2005

"The media loves nothing more than self-analysis and it will no doubt begin in earnest following John Brogden's downfall and subsequent sad suicide attempt this week," Mark Latham's former press secretary Glenn Byers writes in The Australian today. Byers has a particular beef with how the meeja reported the story about his old boss and that video.

Fair enough, but pollies also need a bit of self-analysis – and should remember some basic facts of life. Number one is journos are not your friends. They have to be close to you, but they are close to you so they can do their job, not because they like you.

Peter Coleman's column in The Oz on Tuesday was absolutely right. Never trust a journalist. Or better, if you're a politician, watch yourself.

I can think of two federal ministers whose basic approach to women journalists is to flirt. It's jokey, but it's also arguably patronising, sexist and inappropriate – especially since one of them has a record in the pants department. Contrast that with the almost wooden formality of the Prime Minister.

One minister I used to sometimes mind was fine in interviews. It was they were over that he couldn't help himself. He just had to add that little bit more or make an aside. Of course, those, not their main message, all too often ended up becoming the story. I've stuffed up myself. I still cringe at the memory of a gag I made on a policy while backgrounding a journalist before an interview that was turned into a very barbed question for my boss.

Politicians and journalists have to live in each other's pockets. They naturally become close. And both seek and need a certain degree of intimacy. At the end of the day, though, journalists are there to get a story.

Sirius satellite radio ...

2005-08-25T12:25:00.000+10:00

Hey, anybody out there know anything about Sirius satellite radio?

Went to their website but it's pretty basic stuff. Wondering if this is not a great narrow-casting opportunity.

Be interested in people's thoughts.

Later ....

It's just like the army ...

2005-08-16T13:08:00.000+10:00

'Hurry up and wait', is the army's mantra. The new business pitch mantra nowadays too, I guess.

After busting our collective humps for three pitches in less than two weeks, the prospects are still sitting on their thumbs rotating slowly.

Yet, (not-so) funnily we had to submit wonderfully detailed plans within a week, because they were in a screaming hurry to appoint an agency.

But, two and three weeks on, we sit. I've called my other contacts in other agencies and they too are waiting to hear back.

I've called and left voice-mails with these inconsiderate jerk-offs just to check in and see where we are, and so far only one has responded, much to his/her credit. The other two assholes haven't even responded.

If you are an in-house comms person reading this, pay attention. The business is not so large that you can hide and your reputation for jerking people around will follow you.

Later ....

Pitch and more pitch ..

2005-07-30T13:01:00.000+10:00

Just spent about 40 hours on a new business pitch.

Including an all-nighter up to the day of the pitch. Pretty damned good proposal and presentation, if I do say so myself.

Have to gather more data and send to prospect, but overall feeling pretty good about landing this sucker. Must say, it's interesting too, which is a bonus. Will make a great case study when we complete the project, but I am way ahead of myself.

Will hear back end of next week.

Later ... (off to bed).

Jesus I am bored ...

2005-06-22T17:05:00.000+10:00

I think it 's time I seriously consider getting out of this game.

I am bored out of my mind doing great media pitches to thicker than pig-shit reporters and cold calling potential clients who are comfy with the status quo and can't see themselves actually getting results by switching to an agency that has a clue.

The other problem is that so called multinational marketing managers aren't really marketing managers: They implement strategies conceived elsewhere nd have extremely little leeway in what they do locally. Not a great deal of brain-power goes into what they do. In fact, when they try something new, they are stuck because they have no real frame of reference with which to think about the problems and processes.

Take for instance a major company that is trying to move into the consumer electronics space. The so-called marketing director is clueless on how to do this. Neither in terms of process, objectives, budgets and timeframes. There's no opportunity for real product development either -- that's done offshore. So we have a clueless marketing director that we can help -- if we get us some money for our efforts and expertise.

And that's the rub: no money ... or so little is makes no difference. So, no clue, no budget and not enough autonomy to really matter.

Christ, what a way to run a marketing department.

Later ....

Totally off topic but ...

2005-06-07T13:06:00.000+10:00

I saw this rather beautiful redhead last night. Rather is an understatement.

Now I am not in the habit of staring at women in public, so let me get that straight right up front.

However, last night, this girl took my breadth away. Not in a sexual way, I'll also hasten to add.

It was more like looking at an exquisite painting or work of art. Simply irresistible to look at.

Her hair was as shiny deep red color, not coppery, with flecks of bright red -- and no, it wasn't dyed. It was naturally that color. Alabaster skin, with the faint hint of light freckles, a perfectly formed nose and full, pouting red lips.

Her eyes were the most striking part -- large, clear, light blue, almost grey, with what appeared to be flecks of light gold in them. She was thin and willowy, but her eyes were what drew your attention. It was late, and she blinked languorously, which added to the overall effect.

It's rare that someone grabs your attention this way, but I was transfixed. Hope I didn't come across as creepy, but as I said, there was nothing sexual or menacing, I just couldn't believe anyone this gorgeous existed on the planet.

Oh well, I hope I see her again. What a visual treat.

Later ....

Seasonality stress -- your turn to cause some

2005-06-01T12:17:00.000+10:00

Ever wonder about the cyclical nature of of our jobs?

For non-agency types, it's the seasonal cycle that seems to dominate our clients and therefore us. I'm thinking of the major season pushes that our clients MUST have otherwise their entire marketing plans are thrown into disarray. Sometimes, it's just the quarterly numbers reporting or end of year wrap ups that getting lowly PR directors all wrapped-up around the axle.

Occasionally, I push back just to see what happens. I must say some of the responses I have received have stunned me simply because they lack any cogent argument. Even when I've tried to save them money, it looks like that these people resist the idea of thinking of the communications process except in last minute seasonal terms.

Don't get me wrong, there are seasonal buying trends: Just check out end of financial year spending by government departments who either use it or lose it or even winter/spring and summer/fall buying for consumer goods and fashion.

However, most companies forget lead times of publications, so when they push for a Christmas launch, what they need to make sure they understand is that involves an August start -- not a week before Thanksgiving, which is often what happens when they suddenly stare at the inventory building up to fulfill this anticipated Christmas demand. At that point, panic sets in and the PR agency/department are asked to be the shock troops of the marketing department.

"Come up with a cool stunt; get product placement on Oprah's show; see if you can't get Leno or Letterman to feature it somehow; what about Angelina, can we sponsor her pet cause and get her to do some roaching for us? etc."

Yes, PR pro, you've heard this lots of times. The question I always ask is why wait until the last minute to build demand? Where were the MBA dweebs when you counseled them that you need four to six months and a bunch of dollars to get things done? As usual, most of the time with their heads up you know which orifice.

So, as you read these words, write yourself a reminder to send those numb-nuts a message that planning AND execution for the Xmas push starts NOW, not after Labor Day. Go ahead, be a buzzkill for their summer plans -- and enjoy it!

Later ...

Remember that pitch I wrote about ...

2005-05-23T15:38:00.000+10:00

Well we did it, but I got the feeling we were set up.

Three went in: the incumbent (who were not going to win the account back no matter how hard they tried), us and another agency, whose account staff used to work at the incumbent agency.

Call me suspicious, but the other agency won on criteria that wasn't even specified in the brief. A happy coincidence that their pitch included ALL the aspects that were left off the brief? I think not. Especially when we made direct inquiries to the prospect and were told to stick to the brief and not deviate.

Talk about being set-up.

What a total waste of time and money on our behalf.

For the agency types out there, we spent near on 50 hours getting this together plus the expense of materials, art, printing, etc.

The asshole client prospect had already made the decision and we were there for show so corporate HQ wouldn't get too suspicious.

No wonder agency people have barely concealed contempt for their clients ...

Later ....

God I hate dealing with junior PR managers ....

2005-05-19T17:10:00.000+10:00

or why these dumb asses need to listen.

Call me a cranky or just call me Frankie, I say. There are some numb-nuts out there that have to check with corporate each time they scratch their asses to make sure it's OK.

They slow everything down .... and I mean doooooowwwwwwnnnnnnnn.

In the age of the Internet, we have to deal with people whose quickest response depends on how good or bad a a day their corporate headquarters is having.

And, frankly, corporate could not give a rat's couscous on some trivial news release or local announcement that's leaked anyway. But they have to check.

Hell of a way to run a corporation, I say.

Later ... Flack

I must be having a mental block ...

2005-05-06T14:36:00.000+10:00

I'm currently researching a bunch of stuff for a new client pitch and I seem to have hit a bit of a wall.

That wall is that this prospect seriously needs some decent channel and vertical marketing strategies to help them penetrate a number of key sectors. Instead, they focus on product rollouts, reviews and lots of small stuff. There's no real critical mass to what they do and they are fixated on horizontal communications.

The issue for me is that PR isn't really going to fix their problems. They need a revamp of their marketing, starting from the positioning downwards, assuming they can adapt their product to a more vertical focus. They need to seriously look at their product development, along with their alliances and partnerships too.

Now, how do I break the news to the prospect AND win the business.

Also, ethically do I highlight these shortcomings and risk not getting the account or will I lust ignore it and take their money while I try to push the proverbial up a very steep hill?

I have some ideas on the communication side, but the client needs a major marketing revamp for them to work well ... stay tuned, sports fans while I wrestle with this conundrum.

Later ...

2005-05-05T13:00:00.000+10:00

Why are the numbers of specialist IT titles shrinking, and the number of generalist 'digital' magazines growing?

Is it because IT is no longer for the early adopters and has now crossed over? If so, what does this mean for how we construct communications programs?

What does this mean for our B2B clients, who still mainly sell enterprise solutions? There appears to be a shrinking base of enterprise-class news magazines. Take a look at the advertising in most of those. Way, way down compared to the mid-90s.

So what are enterprise customers reading? CIO, MIS, et al. which focus not on news but on CIO as personality/troubleshooter/business driver. Yet, most enterprise clients are still hung up on product stories and news.

There is a not so subtle change in the media. Wonder if anyone else but me is picking up on it?

Your thoughts?

It's been a while ...

2005-05-02T16:16:00.000+10:00

since I wrote anything. So I have a spare few minutes before I try and revive a press release that I have been trying to craft for about three months ...

Well, so far, so good on the blog thing. Not sure if anyone has visited, but that's OK too. This could be my little universe where I can vent and self-psycho-analyze to my heart's content. My ego is not so huge that I crave people to hang off every word -- unlike 99% of the world's airhead celebrities.

Business-wise, it is very, very quite out there. No much agency churn. It's like companies are battening down the hatches waiting for the economy to slip out of control, thanks to insane oil prices. Thanks must be extended to George Bush, Inc. for screwing things up so badly in the middle east that we are going to have a 1974-style oil recession. Mind you, the local pollies here are no better (you get to guess which hemisphere I live in).

Client's are under control, media under control, but things are boring. I went to a industry marketing event recently. Three marketers from two large companies and one small company. Was completely underwhelmed by the ladies who presented. Heard a lot of marketing operations management talk: we do this for CRM, this is how we measure ROI, etc. It's the sort of mechanical management that makes companies boring, slow and ultimately counterproductive in terms of real marketing. No talk about customers, what new insights do they have, what new products and services are evolving -- nothing. Jeez, these people could have been bank tellers and done as well.

Maybe they did not want to open the kimono too much in case their competitors got a whiff of what they were doing (hmmmm, what a bizarre Freudian metaphor! Perhaps my mind really is on something else).

Maybe. Or just maybe they thought their job was being a marketing operations manager -- period. I think it must be the latter, because their talks were uncannily similar, as were their answers in the Q&A. Did I ask a question? I thought better of it and decided to network harder with the folks on the table with me. Got couple of promising leads that we'll see how they develop.

Later ....

Occam's Razor

2005-04-14T10:55:00.000+10:00

If you don't know what Occam's Razor is, look it up. It's a philosophical tool that can come in quite handy at times.

Take this story from The Telegraph in the UK: It's really about preconceived ideas and political correctness, and the ability of most people, including learned scholars to dupe themselves.

The story is about how one Prof. Richard Wiseman of Hertfordshire University in the UK did a study of 1500 people in which he tries to answer the question: are women more intuitive than men. He took 1500 people online and asked them to look at photographs. In those photographs, people were asked to tell which smile was fake and which was genuine.

Women rated their intuitive abilites far higher than men, 77 percent rating themselves as 'highly intuitive' while only 58 percent of men thought they were. Women, it seems, do believe they are more 'in tune' to other people than men. Just ask any women's editor/feminist/mother/wife/daughter or lover.

It is now an accepted part of the modern worldview. Men are clumsy and inept at social relationships and interpersonal skills. That's why women managers are really, really good ... read some stories on women managers touting their own prowess and this line comes through loud and clear.

To me, it sounds like a case of women believing their own feminist PR and replaying it without too much critical thought. It is their gestalt so to speak. In the PR world, it is often a given that women make better practitioners because of this belief in their intuition, especially for corporate or reputation management PR. But I digress ...

Now back to the good professor's study: men were able to pick out 72 percent of genuine smiles while women were able to detect 71 percent. Neck and neck you would say, but interestingly it doesn't support the view that women are by far more 'intuitive' than men.

Even more interesting is that when evaluating the sincerity of faces of the opposite sex, men were right 76 percent of the time compared to women, who were right 67 percent of the time. Yes, according to this study, men are actually better at reading the sincerity of the opposite sex than women are. We are more 'intuitive'. Isn't that counter-intuitive to what we have been told? Yep, it is.

Now how does this good professor and a small cadre of women quoted in the report rationalize this discrepancy to their worldview?

Well, the professor is busy trying to be Politically Correct (PC) rather than accepting the data. He reinforces the feminist stereotype of men as bungling, emotional cripples by saying: "This could be because women experience emotions more fully and are more expressive ... If men have a more limited emotional system, this may make it easier for them to fake it."

The professor's logic is: men are emotional cripples, they can fake emotions not really feel them (wonder how this is quantified??), therefore they can spot fake emotions better than women who are genuine.

What a tortured piece of reasoning that is.

Next, try this from Susan Quilliam, described as a relationship pyschologist in the story: "Women will be less likely to notice and want to see fakeness in any situation."

So they are 'fake blind'? Surely not a great asset to have in management, where you want to be able to assess the good and the bad employees quickly and get the bad egg out quickly before they screw the organization up? Even worse, these 'fake blind' women managers must be terrible negotiators so why would you trust them with your shareholder's money?

Her logic is as quirky as the professor's, but equally as tortured: women are nice people and they expect the people around them to be nice and hence don't see the fakes as easily. This 'relationship' expert obviously has limited experience in working in female dominated offices. She also quiet nicely undermines the 'women are better bosses because they are more empathetic and intuitive' line were are all so familiar with.

But wait, this all gets better. Gladeana McMahon, also a pyschologist, has this deep insight for our edificiation: "Cognitive pyschologists define intuition as the fast processing of information, so that we get the answer before knowing the question. It may be women have been labelled as intuitive because they tend to talk more about their feelings."

So, the labelling has occured because women talk about it more than men, and brag about how much more inituitive they are than men? So the fact is that according to this study, men are actually better at fast processing of this information than women.

What I find interesting is that in their contortions of logic and reason, no one has used Occam's Razor to say: 'Men are better are reading the opposite sex than women because they wired that way.'

Or even: men are better at reading fakes because they, unlike women, do most of the hunting and chasing. OK boys, own up, how many knock-backs did you get before you could read their minds even before the question popped out of your mouth? Maybe we are more intuitive as a result of this process? Sounds just as plausible as the bizarre rationalizations from the learned professor and the women psychologists.

No, instead we have these unchallenged female-friendly twists and contortions to help prop up the belief that women have 'better' or 'more expansive' emotions and are more 'genuine' than men, who are characterized as fakes and emotional cripples in this story to help continue to prop up the feminine mystique.

Next time you see crap like this, use Occam's Razor. It really does help.

Later ....

Musings

2005-04-13T16:49:00.000+10:00

I have one client that is, by all definitions I can think of, incompetent.

This, however, is not the crux of the issue.

The real issue is why this person was hired. The boss has to have some inkling that this individual is at best a half-wit and at worst a quarter-wit. Surely there was better talent out there? I know there is, so why did this marcom manager hire this person?

Well, some thoughts spring to mind:

1. The marcom manager is deeply insecure and ensures no one can threaten the position he/she is at. So hire a dummy and ensure there's no chance of a palace coup.

2. The entire organization is structured to hire half-wits. If the marcom manager is threatened by a half-wit, then what does that say about the environment he/she lives in?

3. The half-wit managed to perform like a full-wit for a time and fooled the manager into thinking he/she was competent. Hmmm, well this says a lot about how easy the marcom manager is to dupe. But, looking in every day, that seems unlikely.

4. The role is perceived to be a half-wit's job and therefore fully deserving of a half-wit to fill it. This, I think could be the answer. Stocks routinely rise and fall on good or bad press, yet this company thought it best to entrust their public persona to a half-wit because anyone can do PR or communicate effectively. Is this the way executive management sees all PR people and the people they have to deal with, that is the press? As half-wits? More on this in some other rant ...

5. The company sucks so bad, they can't attract good talent and have to hire half-wits. Well, probably a nugget of truth in that as well. The corporate culture is a morass of self-interested, self-absorbed individuals making a buck for themselves, despite their HR slogans. What's good for them, they reason is ipso facto good for the company.

Why is this person a half-wit? Try the following:

1. Knows nothing of the business they are in, its dynamics or its customers.

2. Writes passably well for a 12-year-old, but stumbles on being able to express complex ideas simply. That is, he/she does not get the idea in the first place.

3. Has no understanding of the media and its dynamics and issues. Surely a killer, you would think, for a PR person.

4. Has the interpersonal skills of a 10-year-old and manages to alienate most people that deal with him/her. One reporter once said to me he/she was an 'anti-PR person', meaning the antithesis of a PR person.

5. His/her management skills amount to writing things down on the back of envelopes and then losing them at the gas station.

The list could go on, but these are his/her finer points.

Is this a bitch session against this individual?

No it isn't.

I really would like to understand the organizational dynamics of how people like this get hired and seem to survive despite their bumblings. In my world, they would have been fired.

But then again, that's my world .... Later.

My first post

2005-04-13T16:04:00.000+10:00

Well, my first post and what do I say. Intro myself of course.

Well, why did I want to set-up a Blog? It goes something like this: I am an ex-reporter, now working as a PR person. No names, no pack drill. It's not that I am shy, it's just that my clients and the media I interact with are ... so part of your fun will be guessing who is whom in my world and maybe relating it to stuff that happens in your world.

Why am I writing this for the world to see. Well, recently I saw this great program about Grumpy Old Men. A BBC production. Truly inspired. It managed to resonate with me -- deeply. I could finally relate to something on TV. Something I have not been able to do for about 30 years ... Ha, so now you think you have a bead on my sex and age. Maybe, perhaps.

Well, that show gave me an idea. These guys were expressing a worldview I could relate to. Why couldn't I express my repressed worldview of the industry in which I work and the people I have to work with. Out of sheer interest, sympathy or loathing, even, I may spark some commentary and even some ideas I can use.

Why anonymous: well, that's easy. As I said, clients, press and analysts have thin skins. No only do they have thin skins, most are generally inept. There, I have said it. This is my journey through the mediocre, inept world I inhabit.

Welcome to my world. Enjoy the scenery and throw me a titbit every so often so I know I am not alone.

Flack 'n Hack