“Almost two million people are living with sight loss in the UK. When you lose your sight, you feel like you lose everything.” (RNIB)

Five years ago, my dad was registered blind. Having had sight until his mid-60s, he had to adapt to the complete loss of his vision in later life. Quiet roads that he’s known and walked around with ease for 40 years suddenly became hazardous unknown territory and difficult to navigate (although the arrival of a much-loved guide dog, Eli, has helped immensely). Going to the theatre or cinema or just watching TV became impossible. And even eating a favourite meal became a huge challenge.

However perhaps the biggest hurdle he had to face was losing the ability to read. Throughout my childhood and teenage years, my dad always had a book on the go, and his love of reading became mine too. (It’s the reason I studied English and Russian at university – the interest in Russian borne from a love of “A Clockwork Orange” – and led to me having a career in the communications industry).

For such an avid reader, no longer being able to read was devastating and one of the hardest things he had to cope with on losing his sight.

That’s why RNIB’s Talking Books service has been what he calls a “life saver… without it I would have gone mad” – and thanks to their support his love of reading has been able to continue. He’s a regular user of the service, which offers users access to over 19,000 audio books, reading up to 50 books a year – whether those he’s picked himself or the choice of his telephone book club. And thanks to the work the Man Booker Prize did with RNIB (ensuring that the shortlisted books are available in accessible formats before the announcement of the winner), he was able to work his way through all six shortlisted novels… and well before I did. (His personal favourite was Stephen Kelman’s “Pigeon English”).

Knowing first-hand the invaluable support the charity is able to give, I’m delighted therefore that MRM has chosen RNIB to be our first charity of the year. Throughout the year, we’ll be writing, blogging and tweeting about what we’re doing to support the charity – whether volunteering, fundraising (our very own Charlotte Banks has jumped right in and signed up to her first-ever half marathon to raise funds… you can find her JustGiving page here!) or raising awareness of the charity’s work, including today’s Twitter Marathon.

To find out more about the work of RNIB, please visit the charity’s website or follow it on Twitter.

And if you’d like to join us in supporting the work the charity does, please email me at jenny.crossland@mrm-london.com.

In her latest blog, MRM’s Katy Allison provides some ‘who, what, when and where’ lessons from some of the latest news stories that have hit the press.

Lesson #1: Who is it about?

"Ethics?" (image from http://bit.ly/Aq2f)

In what can be looked at as a lesson for all spokespeople, Daily Star editor Richard Desmond, who arrived at the Leveson inquiry on Thursday last week, was berated for telling the High Court that he doesn’t know the meaning of the word “ethical”. With media ethics a hot topic in this industry (my colleague Charlotte Banks posted a blog on the UK Bribery Act earlier this month) it is true that guidelines are hazy – but with Desmond’s authority in the tabloid press and the way in which he worded his testimony, it is who he is as a spokesperson that made his comments particularly unwise…

Lesson #2: What happened?

Twitter trouble (image from http://bit.ly/wv2XCx)

On Monday this week, The Economic Times in America posted an article on the ever-increasing use of social media in workplaces, highlighting a study conducted by The Ethics Resource Center which found that the use of social networking sites is “leading to the decline of ethical behaviour in many businesses”. The problem, according to the research, is that we have become so used to sharing information via Twitter and Facebook on all aspects of our lives, posting ‘public information’ and ‘confidential information’ has become much more difficult to define. This one is by no means a new lesson -  but perhaps a useful one to remember.

Lesson #3: Where did it take place?

(image from @FinePersonn http://yfrog.com/)

At the weekend, news spread quickly of the tragic sinking of Cruise ship Costa Concordia. As the sequence of events dominated newspapers, front pages were splashed with shocking images of the accident. An important lesson here is where stories are placed. The juxtaposition of this cruise ship holiday advert with a photo of the Concordia was not a good move by this particular newspaper. Similarly, the Belfast Telegraph’s placement of it’s ‘Win A Dream Holiday’ competition right above its reporting of the Concordia news and the Guardian’s exclusive ‘Give Queen a new royal yacht…’ headline (more on this below), printed slap bang next to the disaster photos, was badly misjudged. This kind of mismatching doesn’t do much to sympathise with a story – be you a journalist, media buyer or reader.

Lesson #4: When did it take place?

Oops! (image from http://bit.ly/Ak2irx)

Also on Monday this week, the Guardian splashed the exclusive news that education secretary Michael Gove believes a new yacht could be a suitable mark of respect  for the Queen for her diamond jubilee. Alongside news of massive Olympic spending and rising transport costs -  the timing of Gove’s letter did not really rally him support for the idea. As a double lesson in timing, the day the news hit the papers was also  Blue Monday, dubbed the most depressing day of the year thanks to the arrival of Christmas credit card bills in homes across the country…

MRM, the London-based financial services PR consultancy, has promoted Charlotte Banks and Katy Allison to the positions of senior account manager and account manager respectively.

Before joining MRM as an account manager in March 2011, Charlotte spent three years as a financial journalist, working across Professional Adviser, Investment Week and IFA Online and latterly as a financial analyst at Trustnet.

Katy Allison joined MRM in September 2010 as an account executive, having graduated from Edinburgh’s Queen Margaret University with a first class honours degree in public relations.

Commenting on the announcement, MRM director Andrew Appleyard said: “Charlotte and Katy are valued members of the team and their promotions reflect the remarkable progress they have both made since joining MRM. They are talented individuals and we are confident they will continue to play an integral role in the future success of the business.”

Prior to her new role, Ommanney worked at MRM as an account executive, working on a variety of accounts, including Ignis Asset Management, GLG, Cofunds, Sesame, and Castle Trust.

Before joining MRM in the summer of 2010, Ommanney graduated from Leeds University with a first class honours degree in French and Spanish.

Commenting on the announcement, MRM joint head, Andrew Appleyard said: “Cat’s progress over the last year has been tremendous and her promotion is reflective of this and highly deserved. She is a valuable member of our growing team and we are confident that she will rise to the challenge of her new role as consultant.”

“First the banks. Then MPs’ expenses. And now in our press…

“All are about the irresponsibility of the powerful. People who believed they were untouchable. This issue of responsibility is one which must be tackled throughout British society.”

[Ed Miliband]

Last year, on the back of the Google/China row over censorship and the consumer anger against the banking crisis, corporate bonus culture and MPs’ expenses scandal, I questioned what this all meant for corporate social responsibility (CSR), highlighting that if companies weren’t “being good” (inherently responsible) then “doing good” (being seen to ‘do’ good deeds/responsible activities) ultimately meant very little.

As the furore around the phone-hacking scandal rages – with new twists and turns and tales of corporate wrong-doing emerging on a daily basis – it’s clear that this applies now more than ever.

As I wrote previously, I felt there were two key factors that played a crucial role in consumer and corporate relations/social responsibility, and I believe these still hold true today:

i) The need for businesses to act as “corporate citizens” was, and is, vital – working for the interests of what is ‘social’ (for the benefit of all of us) as opposed to ‘anti-social’ (for the benefit of individuals… or those of corporate shareholders). How companies conduct their business, internally and externally, is under increasing (public) scrutiny – and companies that don’t take into account consumer opinion and feeling are being challenged and will ultimately face a fight for survival.

ii) The shift to social media is significant, as consumers have the ability to take away control from a previously dominant traditional media and tear down the boundaries between press and public. Consumers now have the opportunity – and are increasingly using it – to shout out about any socially irresponsible corporate behaviour and demand those involved take action. This infographic from The Guardian shows how Twitter reacted to the decision to close the News of the World.

As David Connor, who writes on issues of Corporate Social Responsibility (his blog can be found here), commented on my original blog:

“The arrival of the internet was key in an earlier step change in CSR’s evolution by suddenly making available additional information about corporate activity to those who went looking for it. Social media is providing another step change for CSR as this information is now being pushed at everybody online, every minute of the day”.

As is shown by the summoning of Rebekah Brooks and James and Rupert Murdoch to face today’s culture select committee, people are being held accountable, and one thing is clear: those not demonstrating responsibility are ultimately deemed to be irresponsible, and we, the public, have the power to ensure that things change. And do so for the better.

The Daily Mail (@MailOnline) and Holly Thomas in the Express (@holly_thomas_) noted how savers had less than a week to ensure they don’t lose this year’s tax free Isa allowance, and gave some handy tips on the best cash Isas currently in the market.

Also in the Daily Mail, Sylvia Morris looked at how the interest rates on fixed rate bonds are creeping up due to rising inflation. The piece noted that savers would do well to hold off for a year or so before locking themselves into a long-term deal.

Fraud and scams experienced the biggest jump in coverage, rising from 4 per cent to 14 per cent. Tricia Phillips (@Triciaaphillips) wrote in the Mirror about the campaign the paper has launched to stop debt management firms ripping people off and ensure they’re properly regulated. This is aimed at the rogue firms that offer debt management plans but end up pushing people further into the red.

Also on the scam theme, the Daily Mail looked at how sports fans buying Olympic tickets are being warned about handing over their credit card details to fraudsters as many fake websites have appeared, looking very similar to the official channel.

And the rest of the scores are as follows:

There was a time when people would walk past a huge, colourful billboard with Coca Cola emblazoned all over it and think “Oh look – that’s nice; I must buy a bottle of Coke”. And that’s exactly what they did.

Marketing was that simple. It was about creating as much noise as possible to raise awareness about your product and hoping people would buy it because it was on their minds and looked kind of nice.

Why? Because there was no other way of interacting with brands. They shouted; you (sometimes) listened and (occasionally) bought. The more noise they made, the more attention they captured, the more sales they made.

This was the heyday of mass marketing, where the medium with the biggest audience was king – the Sun newspaper, the Radio2 interview with Terry Wogan, the FA Cup final half-time advert.

And on and on it went: companies spewing out more and more propaganda about their products as we consumers passively sucked it up.

It looked like this, a one-way flow of communication:

It looked a little like this:

Here’s Apple’s first go at a website in 1996 (have a look at the link to see the difference now):

See how people could join in and leave comments in the groups/discussion area on the left hand side?

But there was a rub. Because people started to realise that if they could talk to a brand, they could complain about its products and services, ask tricky questions about its profits and losses and generally make off-message statements right where the brand didn’t want them – on its own website. Companies discovered that having two-way conversations meant they didn’t get to control all of it. In fact, they only got to control their part of it.

So brands began doing what we now know you should never do. They deleted the comments they didn’t like, despite having invited those comments in the first place. They over-moderated forums. Wherever they could, they controlled what saw the light of day and what didn’t. In other words they wrested back control of the conversation. Or that’s what they thought they were doing.

I don’t have to tell you what the response of the masses was to this.

They didn’t like it, wouldn’t tolerate it and didn’t want any part of it. But that wasn’t the end of it – because the internet was by now all around us and its power, technology, and participation levels were growing every day. It was mainstream.

So people began to use it for many, many other reasons than to interact with businesses. They joined clubs, reviewed films, arranged dates and – let’s be honest – looked at a shed-load of porn. But they still wanted to talk about the products and services they used every day, from their Nike trainers to the number 43 bus. And that’s what they did.

The quality of two-way conversation with the providers of those services was so poor we began to look to each other for information and opinions we needed to inform our spending. Pretty soon, most big companies across the globe were facing the reality that there was as much knowledge and expertise about their products and services outside their firms as there was within.

So not only had they lost control of conversations about their brands – they often weren’t even involved. There was no use them pasting up a huge colourful billboard anymore – or a newspaper ad or some key messages in a radio interview – that just didn’t do the job on its own. Yes, it still grabbed attention (although less of it), but people would just ask each other about what they’d seen or heard. “Hey, have you tried that new type of Coke? What’s it like? What, it rots your teeth?”

Suddenly, the message coming out of businesses about their products had to be truthful, authentic – not exaggerated or deceitful. If you lied – “Hey, look what I’m selling; it’s wonderful!” – and it was a pile of crap, you’d get found out. People would never just take your word anymore. They’d ask people who knew, people they trusted, people on the internet. Bull**** stopped working.

And the more people interacted with other people, the more solid and meaningful their online networks became. We suddenly had huge three-dimensional webs around us that we built, nurtured and tailored around our own interests and aspirations. The internet started being completely and utterly about relationships: weak ties, strong ties, helpful friends, amusing strangers.

These seismic shifts in communications created this key difference: people went online in the past to see things, experience things, and search for things. Today, we go online to be connected, to be available and to be a part of other people’s conversations, the conversations that matter to us.

It became almost entirely about human relationships and marketing had to be about people too…not products. Companies that were selling something had to understand how it might be relevant to a customer’s life; how it could solve a problem or fulfill a need. They had to understand a customer’s buying motive, rather than presuming everyone wanted their product for the same reason.

Before, the appearance and presentation mattered, the crafting of the message was paramount, the product was everything. Now marketing is not about objects, it’s about people, and how it brings people together. People have taken over completely.

Some brands grasped this pretty quickly.

Apple, for example, emerged last decade as the market leader in MP3 players because the brand communicated (and still does) as much about its beliefs – beliefs it knows consumers share – as its products.

When you buy an iPod, you are aligning yourself with a brand that believes in beauty and simplicity – the things you believe in – not because of the battery life or price. Owning your iPod affirms your view of how the world should be. Apple thinks first about people when it brings its products to the market, not the product.

The shift from things to people was what created these:

And they are now the fabric from which the internet is made.

At first, social networks caused swathes of the advertising, marketing and communications industries to fly into a blind panic. Some went into a wild frenzy to come up with ideas of how to regain the power to impress people on the internet. To ask this is to misunderstand the changes that have taken place. The old way of pushing out shiny marketing and advertising won’t – on its own – work anymore. Going on Facebook isn’t solving the problem. Creating a Twitter account isn’t the way to make your products look prettier. Putting your ads on YouTube won’t change things.

Just look at Michelin. They uploaded a ludicrously expensive advert to YouTube, rather than showing it on TV. After 10 days it had an insignificant 6,780 views, which for a company this size is poor (they have 177,500 employees). A year later it has only 90,000 views. They should have just put it on TV.

Marketers must accept that people will never revert to passively soaking up nuanced messaging and spending, spending, spending like good little consumers. People will dislike you if you interrupt them with your marketing when they didn’t ask to see it. They’ll resent you if you fail to understand that they look to their networks for advice and recommendations about your products, not to you.

If this blog has made you worried, made you want the social web to go away and never return; it shouldn’t have. In fact, the internet is the best thing that ever happened to businesses. As long as you provide a valuable product or service, as long as you don’t fib or distort the truth and as long as you stop trying to use it to do traditional, one-way, push marketing. If you pay attention to those rules, you will have the most powerful and influential communications tool ever conceived of dancing to your tune.

So if you can’t market AT people, how do you get involved?

Simple – you get some of this:

That starts with entirely changing your own view of yourself. You don’t just sell something, you exist to make people’s lives better. And you aren’t marketing that thing – you are SHARING it with people who will benefit from it. When they start to benefit from it, you stick around to show them how they can get even greater value from it with a tweak here and there. Then, when you’ve made their lives better, your job is to help them tell the story of how it did that, to make them feel special.

If you do that people will want to hang out with you. They’ll invite you into their conversations and into their lives. You’ll make them feel more valuable because you’ll equip them to help their own friends and connections. You’ll have permission to tell them about your stuff.

And that’s how to do business on the social web.

Starting with tax, Tricia Phillips (@Triciaaphillips) in the Mirror warned that today’s budget wasn’t going to look favourably towards struggling families and that even minor changes could push people into a financially devastating situation.  Similarly, Holly Thomas (@holly_thomas_) in the Express wrote that George Osborne will be under pressure to simplify the tax system as more and more people struggle to understand their current arrangement.

Looking at savings, and still on the budget, Tony Hazell and James Coney (@MailOnline) in the Daily Mail explained how the Chancellor might be able to help out savers today by announcing the return of index-linked savings bonds from National Savings & Investments. Although just speculation, Hazell and Coney believe today’s budget would be the perfect time to bring them back after their eight month hiatus as they have traditionally been a salvation for pensioners looking at a safe place for their savings.

The rest of the scores on the board were as follows:

Despite having dealt with a series of price hikes this winter, in the Daily Mail, Lauren Thompson (@MailOnline) warned many householders to expect a surprise energy bill this month if they pay by direct debit as their fixed price may be too low. Moreover, further hikes are expected as a result of Japan’s earthquake, with gas prices already increasing.

Fortunately, these higher charges could be offset by a drop in the cost of calling mobile phones from landlines. In the Mirror, Clinton Manning (@clintonmanning) explained how Ofcom has ordered an 80 per cent cut in rates charges by mobile networks for connecting customers from rival services.

The rise in mortgage stories was partly due to the new ‘Local Lend A Hand’ scheme, covered in both the Daily Mail and the Mirror, which allows first-time buyers to put down a 5 per cent deposit on a home if their local authority agrees to put up 20 per cent as security on the property.

Another mortgage article that caught our eye was the worrying revelation in the Mirror that the number of people struggling to pay their mortgage rose by nearly 39,000 in the last quarter of 2010. However, it’s not all doom and gloom, as the number of repossessions fell in this quarter to reach the lowest level for three years.

The rest of the scores on the board were as follows:

Charity                  0%

Credit cards        4%

Fraud/scams      8%

IFAs                       0%

Insurance            21%

Investment        4%

Mortgages          17%

Pensions              7%

Property              0%

Regulation          0%

Savings                 10%

Tax                         8%

Utilities                 21%