Local message becomes gobal in just three years!

As reported in the Fairfax press, up to one in seven people around the world flicked the switch for the good of the planet for Earth Hour.

It's hard to believe that a simple idea - turn off your lights for one hour - has become a global phenomenon in just three years.

Staging the event in thousands of locations in every time zone around the world was an enormous logistic challenge, largely co-ordinated from the local office of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Australia in Ultimo, Sydney.

Check out the website here for an outstanding model of how to use the internet to spread a message.

Consider: What did WWF do to turn a local promotion into a global one? Trawl the website and list all the elements that contributed to the spreading of a 'political' message - which resulted in the personal participation by millions of people right around the planet.

What price sponsorship?

Usually we hear of brands dumping their sponsored celebrities over an incident of wrong doing - so does the same rule apply if the shoe (or the undies) is on the other foot?

The recent news story that Pacific Brands, famous for the iconic Bonds range, is under fire for the decision to sack 1850 Australian workers and transfer those jobs offshore to China has upset many Australians, particularly as the company has received a reported $157m in recent years in government assistance.

As a result, tennis legend and former Australian of the Year Pat Rafter, and his fellow Bonds ambassadors, were urged to condemn their sponsor Pacific Brands for this decision.

Do you think it is appropriate for a celebrity to condemn or sack their sponsor? Just how responsible are they, as the 'face' of the brand, for the quality, ethics and standards of a product they are recommending by nature of their sponsorship arrangements?

(Consider the article here which outlines what the celebrity deal is likely to be, when forming your opinion).

"Former PR head real culprit, say Hardie lawyers" ...

How would you feel if you opened today's paper to read this headline in the Business Section - if you were Greg Baxter, former head of Public Relations for James Hardie?

It raises the question as to just how much responsibility public relations practitioners have in relation to the accuracy of the information they are instructed to release on behalf of a company that employs them.

The issue relates to the long running case in the NSW Supreme Court against the former directors of James Hardie and their actions in relation to paying of compensation to those suffering from asbestos-related illnesses as a result of James Hardie products.

Apparently the law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, who were advising Hardie at the time of the incident, named the former head of public relations as "the culprit" in announcing incorrect information when he issued a media release about a new asbestos compensation trust - even though the release had been approved by the Board.

What do you think? Just how responsible should the PR practitioner be for the issue of information on behalf of an organisation? What are their legal rights and responsibilities?

(The report of events on the asbestos compensation issue on James Hardie's Investor Relations website page makes interesting reading too. )