So writes .com marketing legend Seth Godin in his piece “The Secret of the Web”. He’s totally correct. As anyone who has ever striven to realise an original idea knows, not only the media but those with the power in business and in society are professional cynics working to a very small time scale. If you want to create something real, you’ll have to spend a lot of time ignoring those who take your lack of results as proof of failure almost as soon as you’ve started.

It’s a thought that conmingled in my head over the weekend with the triumph of the pathetically named but surprisingly talented ‘Little Mix’ in this year’s X Factor. The audience got behind this somewhat rag-tag bunch because they got about as close to representing truth and single-minded determination as it’s possible to on the X Factor.

Media coverage has centred around their close intra-group relationships, and perhaps more importantly their relationships with existing stars. The tale of Geri Halliwell sending the group a bouquet before their final performance spread through the British and Scottish tabloids and highlights a crucial part of their appeal: these are individuals with respect for those who went before them and a desire to forge something similarly tangible. They’re the antithesis to the Frankie Cocozza model of empty fame.

Their plight is now clear, and one that every new brand- whether a teen pop sensation or a small scale start up- can learn from. One hopes that from the opportunity they’ve been handed, they’ll be able to plunder something sufficiently real to live up to their seemingly earnest aspirations- success in the true, not pre-packaged sense. However, from the outset they’ll be confronting a tidal wave of critics desperate to swamp them. They’ll also find a similarly formidable number of bigger and significantly more corporate fish looking to appropriate them into the cliché-ridden world of advertising contracts. In a year’s time, it’s sadly likely they’ll either have been hijacked by Tesco or be dead in the water.

Sound familiar? You’ve probably started a business, or even are still running one. You may not be splashed all over the tabloids or have Tulisa on your board, but you’ll have faced the same war on two fronts: the ravenous detractors on one side, the ravenous appropriators on the other. In our digital-driven world, speed is often considered to be everything, and not without justification. However, it’s vital to remember that perseverance is just as important in a market characterised by fresh or shocking ideas. Google, Apple, Facebook and countless other technological sacred cows have achieved great things by settling in for the long haul time and again. Even as I write, there are scientists at CERN firing particles around, hoping to prove a model they’ve been working on for 47 years.

Unfortunately, I can’t offer you any concrete hope, but I can press upon you something which is absolutely central. Your initial success, your first meeting, your incredible idea: these are only the doorways to true attainment. Like Little Mix, it’s vital not to be satisfied with a few minutes of cheap exposure. Shoot for what’s real. Hopefully one day you’ll end up more like the Spice Girls and less like Olly Murs, introducing younger competitors to camera with the empty smile of the truly heartbroken.

What is it with snack moguls? First Fredrich Baur, retail genius and inventor of the iconic ‘Pringles’ can, had his ashes buried in one of his beloved crisp receptacles back in 2008, and now this fantastic news item from West, presumably a sight that roughly resembled Doritos’ stoner student target customer after a big night in. The real genius of the retail surpremo is represented by these almost mythic funerals: these were guys who truly lived the brand, who integrated their lives and their behaviour into what they were communicating. There is something unimaginably inspirational about these two men, who know who to grab column inches even from beyond the grave.

Their heritage is rich. When Gordon Selfridge came to London, he made a fortune out of the women’s lib movement by promoting luxury shopping as a lifestyle choice, a statement of freedom: he was unafraid to be a huge character and to consciously attract huge characters. He encouraged women to look at his freedom, to look at that of his wife, and to demand this for themselves via the medium of their wallets.

Throughout his career, he ran his store less as a business than a story factory. He invented the clapometer, he maintained extraordinary contacts throughout the national media, he orchestrated fabulous window displays with top celebrities. Selfridge, like West and Baur after him, understood that being a true brand ambassador means treating each day as a news item, investing each step you take with narrative flair. He was Selfridges, and he lived by one of his most powerful maxims: “People will sit up and take notice of you if you will sit up and take notice of what makes them sit up and take notice.”

Even going back as far as my idol P.T. Barnum, we find the tradition of the showman retailer. Before the FeeJee Mermaid, Tom Thumb and his great travelling roadshow, Barnum was a store clerk, and apparently an excellent salesman. This stuff isn’t coincidence: the retail world represents the beating heart of what all communications and sales industries do. On the shop floor, it’s sale or nothing, and it’s a cradle that has taught some of the best the art of haggling, cajoling, dazzling, even deceiving. What’s more, whole retail brands have been built on those personalities that rise to the top of such a world.

There is nothing more inspiring than having a marketing mind at the top of the tree: when a showman is running an outfit, their communications strategy isn’t something pasted on top of a rigid corporate interior. Their very essence, all of their activity, is informed by the spirit of the big risk and the hard sell.

The question is, where are the inheritors of this tradition? In these days of corporate retail groups, where shareholders reign supreme and ideas often have to pass through so many hands that they’re killed off before delivery, is there room for another Arch West? I see a lot of truly ambitious kids in the course of my work, I only hope some of them resist the pressure, keep the fire, and remember even at the age of 97 that a funeral is just another stage to be mastered. As Ken Campbell, another recently departed showman, once said: “the anagram of funeral is real fun”. Let’s hope that we in the commercial world don’t all now take ourselves too seriously to remember this.

The campaign, which allowed people to sign up their friends to be ‘pranked’ with a serious of worrying emails from one of 5 colourful fictional characters, was a bungled attempt by the Saatchi suits to make the world’s most boring car company look radical. This is a textbook example of why forging the brand narrative is best left to the publicists: the creative excellence of Ad Agencies does not extend to long form narrative content.

In other words, it was a textbook example of advertising as insular and irrelevant communication. Instead of seeking to connect with any true brand narrative or profile, the Saatchi & Saatchi team betrayed their arrogance and remained convinced of their idea of what the brand needed, irrespective of what people actually wanted.

Ad folk lack understanding of the psyche of the news agenda: unlike PRs, they aren’t programmed to anticipate the downside, to work the worst case scenario into the fibre of their strategy.

Amanda Duik, the woman suing the company, was apparently targeted over a week long period with emails- genuine, for all she knew- from a football hooligan character called ‘Sebastian Bowler’, who came complete with his own S&S-created myspace profile and other web-based proofs of existence. She reckons she experienced sufficient mental distress over the terrifying period to sue for massive damages from all involved.

Those who don’t follow my thoughts closely might be surprised that I’m condemning S&S for this: what differentiates it from the kind of stunts perpetrated by myself and my influences? It’s certainly not because I’ve decided to clamber onto my high horse.

When classic Hollywood movie publicist Jim Moran placed a lion in a motel room under the name ‘TR Zan’ to promote the release of a strikingly similarly named movie, he caused a good deal more distress than S&S have here.

However, his stunt did what good PR does: it tapped into the popular conversation and interwove the brand narrative with it. It spoke of wilderness and adventure, which was exactly right at a time when movies were reflecting the increasingly adventurous spirit of the American public. It had also involved significant calculation of risk, and understood that inevitable bad press would be absorbed by the whole daring nature of the thing.

In part it’s a question of money: ad firms, arguably, have too much. Insular ad campaigns are bred when teams have the time and the resources to ponder their angles until they’re warped out of all recognition, over-thought. PRs, by contrast, are fleet footed. Their spatial awareness of the publicity landscape is second to none because careers spent responding to repeated brand events in real-time have honed their instincts and trained them never to slip up.

It also adds weight to a pet theory of mine: of communications professionals, it’s the PRs who skew furthest to the right (creative) side of the brain. Rightbrained functions, both numerical and linguistic, are much more involved with the comparative, the contextual, the pragmatic. While the leftbrain has the advantage when rigorously pursuing a clear, single minded idea, it must be difficult to wrap a leftbrained mind around an idea as mutable and intangible as a brand narrative.

While I think that Duik is probably taking this rather too seriously, her lawsuit should come as a warning to ad folk everywhere. In the modern world, the hierarchy of ideas does not flow from the comms professionals to the public. Communications must be discursive, responsive, and above all, narrative. Nobody understands this better than a good PR.

I’m off to wade in the ever-welcoming Somerset mud. Yes, it’s work not pleasure, especially considering the Glastonbury Festival regularly descends into a replica of Passchendaele’s swampy goo.

I’ve always struggled to understand the risks that passionate music fans take when buying their tickets, knowing the chances are high that the heavens will deliver rain. Why? I guess partly it’s hope. If you want to see hell, you can get a great view from the Pyramid Stage.

Over the past two decades, the PR to sell the behemoth of festivals has changed utterly. Consumers drive the conversation and therefore the experience. Is it based on truth or collective determination? The conversation has certainly grown the market. Currently the festival conversation is not owned by the conventional media.

Although the BBC commits huge resources to feed the vibe back to the sensible majority who prefer to be armchair viewers, those pleased to watch the festival struggle to manoeuvre around the swamp from a safe distance. In truth, the media prefers to see a wet festival, craves images of semi-stoned, half naked music lovers body boarding on the slime and spew. The hardy festival goers make stoical merry inside the monsoon and boy do we laugh.

Brands can learn something from the way the seeming disaster of a rainy festival can never destroy the Glastonbury brand, however. You’d think that countless rain-drenched festivals would obliterate the Glastonbury brand trust. Absolutely not, however; Glastonbury is what it is and there is a collective will to overpower any negativity. Call it herd instinct if you will, but there is a definitive humility emanating from the festival.

Yes, it has a legacy and heritage which will never be surpassed. The conspiracy to smother the truth is a thing of wonder. The truth – whisper it quietly – is that Glasto is actually big, chaotic, crazy, commercial and unwieldy. It has mushroomed into a gigantic clusterfuck.

Moisture or no moisture, it’s impossible. Only the hardy mosh pit faithful get close to the stage vibe. The rest shuffle round wondering why the hell they spent a fortune on tickets, camping kit to put them through a physical wringer. But will they admit the truth? Do they complain, do they stamp and shout for the duty manager? Of course not.

Glasto is a super deity, a brand that occupies a place in the heart, not the head. If brands want that special relationship, they need to remember the investment the humble Michael Eavis oversees. Consistency in leadership and a complete experiential overload are but two elements. Brands need a 25 year grand plan and something to love, not a two year bang and blast. If you can keep it up for 25 years there’s hope that not even your equivalent of a monsoon over Somerset could sink your brand.

Cheryl’s recent sacking is an opportunity to re-evaluate her identity and learn valuable lessons in creativity. We all have to learn to deal with rejection and the word ‘No’.

1. Focus on who you are and why you’ve been successful.

A strong identity and deep roots in what made you successful in the first place will help you weather the worst storm. Was the American ‘X Factor’ actually the right strategic move for you? What is your real mission in life? Is your brand in accordance with this? Remember, being a sleb is not the most important thing in life.

2. Do you have a relevant narrative?

When you move on to a new challenge is your ’story’ appropriate for the new context you are moving in to? Consider this: is an American TV focus group going to be moved or confused by “British television celebrity/Geordie singer/overcame the odds/deprived back story”? Always bet on the latter.

3. Make the most of your successes to date

Your strategy here is to ensure that your previous successes that made you are amplified as much as possible. What new things are you planning to do? What past, present and future exciting projects can you plant as memorable seeds in people’s minds?

4. Don’t piss off your enemies. Forgive. Don’t bear grudges.

You evidently landed the role in the American ‘X Factor’ thanks to your links with Simon Cowell. Encourage these links and you may open up new avenues.

5. Do you need to focus on new skills? What can you learn?

Take time to come back. Use that time to learn new skills. Don’t mention them until you’re ready. Project confidence. People with authenticity will always surprise.

6. Go back to basics – your core skill, your ‘essence’.

Don’t confuse people. Remind them why they love you. Learn the power of saying ‘No!’ to things that aren’t you. Make sure you understand what your Brand Essence is. Don’t let rejection define you. Get back to basics, and you will find new ways to move forward.

7. Bounce-back-ability

A fundamental characteristic of creative people is the ability to bounce back after a major knock. It may be a cliché, but if you get knocked down the best way to cope is to get straight back up again.

8. Make sure you trust your team.

If you can trust the people around you and you are willing to let them be honest, they can inject new insight even if it is sometimes not what you want to hear.

9. Say very little until you have something to say.

Filling the social media with endless weak messages will dilute your brand, as will staggering in and out of the tabloids. A little mystery goes a long way. When you have the platform, then it is time to seed the social world with strong positive stories.

Take Charlie Sheen, for example. He’s been a chaotic hellraiser for years, but only now is the extent of his hedonism and mania coming out, in a giddy rush. Or take the arrogance of Prince Andrew, which is coming out now and souring many of the deals he was hired to make, trading on hs royal status.

It’s not just toxic celebrity that is being outed; the tobacco industry is also having to cope with the effects of transparency, notably the latest victory for the Smoking Kills lobby. First they got the truth put on cigarette packaging and now the packs will no longer be on display in shops, having also had their attractive design peacockery removed.

But the tobacco industry is far more powerful than any celebrity. Their PR has the biggest budget and the subtlest minds it can find who are prepared to sell death in a tube of paper. Edward Bernays, the father of the publicity industry, is a prime early example of sophisticated campaigns for cigarettes – he got millions of women hooked on them by associating smoking with freedom and the victory of the suffragette movement.

There is no way that they will not have thought of something to counter the disappearance of iconic designs; perhaps a tactile edge for the blank packets, making them wonderful to feel? There is no doubt that big tobacco will comply with the new rulings on the one hand whilst looking hard for ways around it on the other.

But they will be up against it – the coming years will see the integrity of brands and what they stand being outed and, going forward, the brands that will survive are the ones who’s strengths lie in transparency, integrity and brand truth. A brand or celebrity caught lying or filibustering is likely to suffer for it.

Click here to see what Ivan Clark has to say on the matter as well.

It’s a grossly unfair practice, dismissing a show on its technical preview and amping up the pressure on the team behind it who have millions invested, almost a bloodsport. But that’s the way the media’s moved – into a place where they have to keep creating stories to keep ahead of the Internet.

It bothers me that Broadway haven’t realised that they could get fans of Spider-Man in to blog and tweet about the show first, though. Let’s not forget that the heroic arachnid is one of the most popular brands on the planet – surely the team behind the musical could harness the huge fan base (and possibly even create more fans in the process) by inviting them in to given their perspective online, thus diluting the poison pens of some of the more rabid critics.

The publicists for the Spider-Man musical must be troubled by the reception the previews have had, and by balancing the needs of the media against the needs of the show. Currently, the media seems to be winning, as the flurry of articles claiming that the show is doomed suggests.

Critics are a vital part of the Broadway process, of course, but it seems counter-intuitive to let them in to the previews that are put on to see what could go wrong in front of a live audience. The publicity team behind the Spider-Man musical would surely be better off inviting devotees of the comics character in to offer their opinion online via Twitter instead – they would be far more likely to get constructive opinions that don’t quail when the need to sell newspapers kicks in.

It makes sense, surely, to get it as right as possible before the critics and their agendas get the chance to wade in. If the show stinks after that, on their own heads be it, of course.

Cowell’s money machine TV show has always trodden a fine line between seeking privacy for its big announcements and demanding that everyone talk about the show around the water cooler, be it real or virtual, but that need for word of mouth has come back to bite the show on the backside with a vengeance in the last week. Depending who you listen to, that is.

On the audience’s side, there widespread disgruntlement on the social networks at Cheryl Cole’s dismissal of Gamu Nhengu in favour of less well-liked contestants (an act that has brought up ugly slurs reminiscent of the hoo-ha surrounding Cheryl’s alleged racist assault on a nightclub attendant seven years ago – a prime example of how easy it is to switch from nation’s sweetheart to bête noir in a matter of moments) but now, Twitter has been used to leak the names of four wildcard acts who are apparently to be reintroduced to the show in a new feature this weekend. This happened with the names of the 12 finalists as well.

But what the audience, and the people complaining on Twitter, forget is that the X Factor’s modus operandi is not solely about talent; it’s as much about what will generate vast swathes of PR, its about creating the captivating narratives behind the contestants and it’s about engaging public conversation and driving up TV audiences. That’s what keeps contestants on the show.

There is too much debate about the talent, but it needs to be made clear that this is a ruse, a conversational opiate that the people consume gleefully. The talent is only there to serve the commercial designs of the people behind the show – the X Factor is a hard-arsed exercise in accumulating cash. Show business with a capital BUSINESS. So few singers involved in the show go on to a serious career and any that do only keep that career as long as they march to the tune of the bosses. The only real winners are the owners of the format.

Just to emphasize the point, take a look at the X-Factor PR team, who are really playing a clever game with this series. I strongly suspect that they may be deliberately leaking info and then claiming to be upset, thus generating more stories. There is certainly a constant back and forth of “someone’s pissed of with someone else in the X Factor” stories bouncing all around the media and the Internet. All of this boosts the show, the ability to make money, and more often than not it is at the expense of the ‘talent’.

It’ll be interesting to see what impact Twitter will have when the show turns to the live format. The X Factor team are surely hoping that the live shows will stem the willy-nilly flow of information onto the Internet. They really do like to own every aspect. I personally don’t think tweeting in real time can become a major force until it’s voice generated; I don’t think it’s possible to type and respond in real-time. What’s being tweeted will already be passé by the time it’s written. You need an a speedy typist to do it for you.

I think tweeting in real time to a celebrity, watching a live TV show, will be a great PR story, possibly in conjunction with or for a client with internet enabled TV, YouView, IPTV, GoogleTV etc. But the individuals who prefer their followers to family prefer privacy in their messaging; just look how big comparatively Text and Blackberry messaging are to Twitter.

Very few of the X Factor hopefuls are likely to find themselves in this position, mind you. It would probably be seen as too dangerous for the show’s brand.

–

Talking of bad for the brand, I heard the other morning that there is to be a production at the Barbican where the audience will arrive at 11.00 pm, lie in beds and fall sleep, to be woken by cast eight hours later who will serve them breakfast. Going to cost £42? The producer was quoted as saying he’s been to the theatre himself and fallen asleep, so he’s doing the show to put you to sleep.

I’m not convinced that this is the best PR stunt. Surely it just reinforces the stereotypical view that the theatre is a dull place. Theatre needs to reawaken itself and interest in it, not tell people that it’ll put you to sleep.

Add in the fact that you wouldn’t pay that much to sleep in a youth hostel, let alone an emergency shelter for the middle classes, and it amounts to a PR fail in my book.

A more entertaining, if also somewhat self-defeating, PR stunt is the news that Little Chef have produced a T-Shirt commemorating their 50th Anniversary. The slogan on the shirt is “I love Charlie”, which is allegedly the name of their mascot – who I always thought was called Fat Charlie.

PR spin says that hordes of students are buying the t-shirt with a smirk, because of the “difficult to spot Peruvian marching powder reference”. It can’t be that difficult to spot, surely? It was obvious to me and a mother who spotted her teenage son wearing the T-Shirt is up in arms. Stirring up a little PR controversy never hurt anyone, but surely it would help if it were relevant to – and unlikely to damage – the brand.

Ever since flight attendant Steven Slater swore at a passenger over the PA, grabbed a beer and descended to the tarmac at JFK airport down the emergency chute, the entire internet has been leading the response, whilst JetBlue’s corporate arm squashed the company’s previously golden child social networking department’s ability to respond. JetBlue were caught between a rock and a hard place. The brand was powerless, trapped in the headlights of an extreme action, one which captured the global wave and birthed another fabulous internet nobody.

For a while, it seemed like JetBlue had been revealed to be wearing a fur coat but no knickers – after all, although they were right to withdraw support from a panicky attendant, they could have so easily done it with grace on the internet. There is always a need to balance the ‘must do’ corporate PR with the caring embrace the stressed out Slater clearly needed. Despite having the whole of the web against them, it took the corporate arm of the company quite a while to retreat and allow their message to match that of the social media that had previously allowed the company to appear to be a cut above companies like Ryanair.

Simply, they learned, the hard way, what most PR savvy brands have to know; you must have a plan in place to survive incidents like this or you’ll lose the image that you’ve so carefully nurtured by looking like a corporate dinosaur. All brands are fumbling around with social media wise up at the moment and are having to work out ways to plan for the unexpected – how does one plan to deal with a modern-day everyman hero like Slater, who channelled the collective frustration of working people everywhere by doing something so unexpectedly decisive? Of course, duty of care is vital, but so is the careful continuation of the brand’s narrative, alongside a serious dose of blue sky thinking – something all good airlines should really be adept at.

After the initial hiccup, however, JetBlue came back with a graceful blog post: :it wouldn’t be fair for us to point out absurdities in other corners of the industry without acknowledging when it’s about us. Well, this week’s news certainly falls into that category. Perhaps you heard a little story about one of our flight attendants? While we can’t discuss the details of what is an ongoing investigation, plenty of others have already formed opinions on the matter. Like, the entire Internet. (The reason we’re not commenting is that we respect the privacy of the individual. People can speak on their own behalf; we won’t do it for them.)

“While this episode may feed your inner Office Space, we just want to take this space to recognize our 2,300 fantastic, awesome and professional Inflight Crewmembers for delivering the JetBlue Experience you’ve come to expect of us.”

Sometimes the best response to a potential PR disaster is a couple of well-written paragraphs that wink at the reader without giving too much away. JetBlue certainly pulled on a sturdy pair of knickers at the last minute.

If he is setting out to refocus the world’s attention on Tiger the golfer rather than Tiger the philanderer, he is unlikely to want to apologise for the very thing he wants to avoid. It also helps to remember that the current trend is for not saying sorry at all. Mel Gibson didn’t, David Letterman didn’t, Beckham didn’t, Blair didn’t. So why should Tiger Woods be any different? I think that, tomorrow, Tiger will set about redefining the word sorry.

I strongly suspect that tomorrow will be about Tiger taking control of the tank and trying to prove that he’s still firing on all cylinders. It is most likely that there will be a carefully controlled statement and no hard questions. I think that Tiger will face down his critics unapologetically. Bear in mind that the event is timed to detonate the day before a tournament sponsored by Accenture, who dropped Tiger at the end of last year. Tomorrow, I suspect, will be about Woods asking: “Who is more important, me or golf?”

Tomorrow will also be about “framing” a new reality, a fresh idea, about creating a new meaning for the Tiger Woods brand. It will be an enactment of apology, a burst of bullish positivity to construct a new journey.

And there’s every chance that Tiger will get away with it if he stalks straight into his first tournament and wins. If he can get back to winning, and winning with style, people will forget that there was ever a problem. We like our heroes flawed, as long as they keep winning. If he loses, however, not even the humblest of apologies will save him…