Work experience- A good experience? At Crystal PR, yes!

Having just finished a degree in Events Management at Brighton University, I find myself in the exciting (and daunting) position of trying to choose a career path. I have done work experience in Events (Jersey Live, London Fashion Week…) and Marketing (Bedell Group, Carbon Black…) and so really wanted to broaden my knowledge and gain some experience within the PR industry.

After a few e-mails and an interview, I find myself working mornings at Crystal PR, being supported financially by a different afternoon job. I have only worked at Crystal PR a short time but have gained a huge amount from the experience. Seeing how the office is managed, the e-mails that are sent to and from clients and being part of the daily grind has really given me a taste of what it would be like to work in PR. In my opinion, working at Crystal PR has been hugely helpful in increasing my understanding of PR, to learn best practice and the role PR plays in every day life!

The value of doing work experience is immeasurable, not only for one’s CV, but also the people one meets make each different job worthwhile. I go on now to New York to gain experience at an international level, however, the experience I have gained at Crystal PR will no doubt stand me in good stead for the future in whatever career path I choose to follow.

‘PR 2020: The Future of Public Relations’

This event, held at the CIPR in London earlier this month, aimed to offer a snapshot of the current state of the PR industry in the UK and, based on research carried out with the CIPR’s regional groups this year (though not the Channel Islands), look at what the future holds in store.

The results of the research were useful. It was highlighted, for example, that around 75% of PR practitioners see online reputation management as the biggest area of growth, and that, with two thirds of PR practitioners being female, more men should be encouraged into the industry - despite men having more senior positions than women.

Hot topics debated included evaluation, PR being represented at board level, that ‘the PR industry needs to better at its own PR’, and training opportunities for senior practitioners - though some attendees were clearly disgruntled that these issues were still even up for debate.

For an event that aimed to analyse and debate the future of the PR industry, though, the number of attendees was fairly low and there was a real lack of the ‘younger’ generation present. The majority of those that were there, with the best will in the world, were not likely to be still working in the industry in ten years time. It felt a bit like a ‘reunion of the old brigade’.

Which might go some way to explaining why those attending were complaining so much about the industry not moving forward. The event suggested that, in 2020 ‘a successful practice will be clear on what public relations is and the benefits it can deliver’. If we are to achieve that and stop treading water, the industry – including the industry bodies – need to be more inclusive, less cliquey, more outward looking and more relevant to the professionals that will actually drive the industry forward and be shaping it come 2020. This event was a start, but there is clearly some way to go.

The recommendations for the PR industry suggested by the event can be found at http://www.cipr.co.uk/sites/default/files/PR%202020%20Final%20Report_0.pdf 

AR

Offshore Centres and the EU

The decision by the UK to use its veto and not support a proposed treaty change designed to resolve the Euro crisis has indirectly brought the role of offshore jurisdictions into the frame, though not in a manner that would be expected. 

According to Channel 4 News, French President Sarkozy was reported as saying that Britain, in seeking safeguards for the City of London, was trying ‘to set up an offshore centre’ which would drain capital from the EU. Once again offshore or at least the term ‘offshore’ is drawn into the political debate as a negative feature of the financial services system. It was an interesting but rather unsettling comment, which perhaps is a reflection of the mindset of one of Europe’s most influential leaders.   

Some local finance practitioners believe that the shift in power in the EU will work in the Channel Islands' favour because more firms will consider Jersey as an alternative to London because of fears that the City will suffer increasing regulation from Brussels which Britain will be powerless to prevent. But I’m not sure it's as simple as that.

It seems to me that the Channel Islands have been successful because the City has been successful and if the latter is severely hindered by rampant regulation from the EU, does it necessarily follow that the Channel Islands would benefit and obtain increasing business as a result?

Furthermore, what have Sarkozy and colleagues in mind for regulating offshore jurisdictions? The EU leaders are probably convinced that the country with the most to lose from attacking offshore jurisdictions is Britain which has three of the most successful within the British Isles.  The outcome is uncertain.

What is certain is that the offshore jurisdictions remain bystanders to this political infighting between the members of the EU. With the UK on the fringes and other states angry with the UK for having used the veto, how will this affect the British Crown Dependencies once the dust settles? Will all the hard work to try and convince the EU of the value of offshore locations in supporting onshore economies come to nothing if political objectives take precedent?

The relationship between Germany, France and the UK would seem to be crucial here and the implications from the decision on Friday December 9 are far from clear, so we will be watching political comments from the EU about the UK and its financial services industry with renewed interest.

MS

Jersey and Luxembourg

A recent visit to Luxembourg offered us the chance to gain an understanding of a financial jurisdiction with natural links to Jersey. A number of clients have established a presence in the country and this pan-jurisdictional approach seems to work well for companies wishing to adopt a complementary onshore/offshore approach.

At a funds event focusing on the next steps for the Alternative International Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), it was clear that Luxembourg, both its businesses and the Government, are striving to be among the first jurisdictions to offer AIFMD compliant legislation and are making a concerted effort to ensure everything is in order to attract as much business as possible.

Similarly, Jersey has also committed to offer an AIFMD compliant regime and there will be a race to see which jurisdiction across the EU will be first. Traditionally, Jersey battles against a lethargic legislative environment, which may create challenges to be first to the AIFMD compliant post.

An interesting challenge facing Luxembourg is its workforce. Thousands of cross-border commuters travel to work from France, Belgium and Germany each day. As one observer we met mentioned, many of the workforce are from rural environments which do not have sophisticated finance industries and, as such, do not have the standards of training and qualifications which is so highly regarded and imperative in jurisdictions such as Jersey, which for example apparently has among the highest per-capita qualified accountants in the world.

The strengths and apparent weaknesses of each jurisdiction is perhaps what makes the two a natural fit for businesses looking to capitalise on new legislation and opportunities in financial services.

LD

Social vs Traditional: is social media king when it comes to reputation?

Social media allows organisations and individuals to do their own talking and its monumental success has led to some hailing the death of the press statement.

However, it seems traditional media still has an important role to play in the media landscape.

A recent survey 'Influencing the Influencers' found that top business people and politicians do not take negative reputational comment seriously until it appears in print or broadcast. 

The survey found that 62% of those interviewed, which included business people, journalists, NGO executives, MPs and the public, would respond immediately to negative coverage in papers or broadcast media while just 21% would feel the need to take a social media story seriously. 

This suggests social media is, in some quarters, viewed as of secondary importance when compared with more traditional methods of communication. Many organisations are working on social media strategies to monitor and engage with an online audience, but this research shows that a robust approach to traditional media remains as important as ever.

Social media generate much content but, in the views of key influencers, traditional media is still viewed as more trustworthy and credible than its newer online sibling. 

London Evening Standard business editor Anthony Hilton, writing in PR Week (October 20, 2011), agrees:

'A million people may listen, but if they have forgotten what they heard by the next day, can't the company simply ignore it?'

You can download the full report from http://www.theopen-road.com/?p=2272.

LD