The Quest for a Graduate Job

So, as a recent graduate from Bournemouth University's PR course, I am eagerly searching for a graduate PR position. I thought I would write a blog post about my journey so far, what I have found helpful and not so helpful. At this time, I am yet to find a job but have three interviews in the pipeline, so fingers crossed!

I started early, choosing to apply for a number of graduate schemes. I reasoned that I may as well give it a go, although I knew that the schemes attracted a huge number of applications and that marketing schemes often didn't involve PR tasks. The chance to work within large businesses and gain experience in a marketing role would mean I could work my way into their press office department, so I applied for four: BT, Sky, Marks and Spencer, and Sainsburys. A number of the applications involved personality measures, after which, regardless of your CV, they decided that these answers provided enough information to reject or accept you. I understand why it is done - with so many applications, they have to divide you somehow. If you pass that, often there are verbal and numerical tests to determine how smart you are. The numerical tests were somewhat of a challenge! Although I got an A at GCSE Maths, some of the calculations were beyond me and I feel that the need for advanced mathematical skill is not a requirement of a PR position. I failed to secure any interviews from the graduate schemes and although I was disappointed, I was not worried - there were plenty more opportunities to get an entry level position.

I think it is wise here for me to describe what type of job I am looking for. Ideally, I would like to work in-house because I believe that focusing on one 'client' or company means that you can immerse yourself in their targets and requirements, and as part of the company, strive to succeed. In an agency, I feel that the juggling of clients often means there isn't a chance to really understand the company and all jobs seem to merge into one. The type of company I want to work for isn't necessarily that particular. I have a year's experience in a press office for an international television company, and I found that incredibly enjoyable so TV would be great. Working for a retail company is also something I think I would enjoy. As long as I find a company that I want to work for, can believe in and work hard to succeed in, I will be happy.

So far, I have applied for about 20 jobs that fit these criteria and have been for 3 interviews, with 3 more coming up. This is quite a positive statistic and I am confident that my CV is strong enough to gain a good position. I finished up my degree just over 2 weeks ago, and although that doesn't sound like very long, I am getting restless! I am one of those types of people who needs to be doing something and I am eager to get going. Here's to hoping that my wait for a graduate job is not much longer. At the moment, I am in limbo.

Here are a few things that have helped me. I have found twitter to be an invaluable tool in my job-searching quest. In particular, the following users are constantly posting PR jobs:

@voxpopPRcareers (website: www.vox-pop.co.uk)

@UKYoungPR

@PRJobsLondon

And the most useful websites so far:

www.PRWeekJobs.co.uk

www.Jobs.Guardian.co.uk

www.Monster.co.uk

Not so helpful, I am afraid to say, have been recruitment agencies. I wish that more employers chose to post their adverts themselves because having to go through a recruitment agent makes everything a lot more difficult. I applied for a job recently through a recruitment agency advert, and before the agent would send across my details, I was forced to fill in and scan my passport for my registration. By the time I was able to use a scanner and get the details across, it was too late. I understand why they do it - if they didn't, they would not get their commission had I been successful. However, the need to go through a recruitment agency slows everything down and means that often, I miss out on opportunities I feel I am perfect for. 

So, wish me luck! And be prepared for a jubilant update when I succeed! 

Update on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 04:54AM by Ellie Stokes

Just a quick update - I got a job! I have been for about 6 interviews and have got used to the line 'We really liked you and you would fit in really well BUT...' Now I don't have to worry about that any more! I have secured a really great job doing something I find incredibly interesting and which gives me the chance to take on more responsibility and develop my career. It just goes to show that perseverance pays off! 

Super-Injunctions - What a Waste of Time

The hot topic for this week is the stream of super-injunctions taken out by athletes and celebrities to protect their reputation. The identities of these people is a court bound secret, but by the power of the Internet, the whole world seems to know! So in this post, I want to discuss the point of super-injunctions as a PR defence and whether the whole process could just be a complete waste of time.

The reason given for taking out a super-injunction seems to be to protect their family, but surely its not for that reason. It's because the celebrity doesn't want to damage his reputation and his sponsorship deals - it's all about the money. If the celebrity cared about his (or her, let's not be biased) family, he wouldn't have had an affair in the first place! And is it really worth it? With the Internet around, the truth will out eventually.

Could the better way to handle an affair be to be honest about it? Someone in PR, recommending honesty?! Never! But I am going to go out on a limb here and say yes. The celebrity should own up for his/her mistakes and move forward. A family affair is a private issue but by being in the public eye, rumours about the celebrities actions could actually become more damaging than if they are straight up about it. The whole situation would have to be carefully managed, of course. The juicy details could be highly damaging and a kiss-and-tell from the mistress wouldn't help anything but in the long run, honesty must be the way forward? 

Perhaps this is me taking the moral high ground and thinking about what I would want to happen if it was me. The safety net of a super-injunction might turn into a paranoia trap that haunts me for the rest of my life. So, as the catholics would say (although I am definitely not religious!), absolve yourself of your sins and you will be forgiven. The public have a soft spot for people who come back from scandal and prove themselves. Unless you're Ashley Cole of course.

What do you think? Is honesty the best way forward?

Have OfCom become the only option?

Now I don't know about any of you but I am getting sick and tired of the constant news stories about OfCom complaints. If people don't like the result of a reality show or the outcome of a soap storyline, they automatically turn to OfCom as their saviour. If you don't like the result of a reality show, you should have voted! And as for the soap storylines, just don't watch! The declining viewing figures have more of a chance to make a difference than you ringing OfCom!

It's all well and good that people have the right to voice their opinions but it is having a detrimental effect on television. The uproar surrounding the EastEnders baby swap storyline may well prevent screenwriters from taking further risks in future. And isn't it edgy new storylines that we're looking for? Without a degree of risk, we will be watching a repeat of the same old storylines played out by different characters for the rest of time.

OfCom exists for serious breaches in the broadcasting code, not for people who think Gamu should have got through on X Factor. Let's gain a bit of perspective and realise that controversy may be just what the TV producers are looking for. A bit of publicity for the show, good or bad, is still an opportunity to attract new viewers. I'm pretty sure Dancing on Ice didn't suffer from Jason Gardiner's outrageous comments a couple of weeks ago. In fact, more probably tuned in to see if the death threats would be enacted.

It's a clever PR ploy to provoke outrage and then encourage debate, and it must work because it seems to be on the rise. Do you think its clever to play with the public or should TV producers beware of a massive backlash?

Do Fly-on-the-wall TV shows help or hinder celebrities?

I don't know about anyone else reading this, but I love watching fly-on-the-wall reality shows. I don't know exactly what it is about them that intrigues me but I guess it is the "behind-the-scenes" look at celebrity's real lives which appeals to me. We live in a society where celebrities are an important part and it is good to have the opportunity to see that celebrities are just like the rest of us. 

Two of the most popular reality shows on British TV are 'Peter Andre - The Next Chapter' and Katie Price's 'What Katie Did Next'. A former couple born out of a reality show (I'm A Celebrity), they ruled British TV for many years in their joint show, where their bickering seemed to capture the nation's hearts. Now, in their post-divorce separate reality shows, they still carry on courting the cameras. So what are the advantages for them?

Peter Andre came out of his divorce smelling like roses and so it makes sense for him to stay close to the public by exposing his personal life and kids to the cameras. He further endears himself to the audience, although it has to be said that all of the shows may be subject to heavy editing! As for Katie Price/Reid, she seems to have lost her sparkle with the public, but has somehow managed to recreate her Katie and Peter show into the Katie and Alex show. As a person, she comes across as unemotional and whereas before, this added to the dynamics of the relationship with Peter on-screen, by remaining so hard now, she opens herself up to harsh criticism and people therefore find the recent media 'slaughter' justified. 

A classic example of a reality show gone drastically wrong is Kerry Katona. Her career and personal life breakdown was all documented on camera and made it difficult for her to recover from it. Without the reality show, her agent could have managed the stories and shaped them into something positive (if possible!). But with her entire life documented, she couldn't hide the truth from the public and it severely impacted on her reputation. Apart from keeping her in the public eye and the much needed money, there really were no other advantages to her shooting the series. 

It is sometimes better to keep the mystery rather than showing the public everything because it means there is always something more to give. People are often more interested if there is an aspect of the unknown about someone because the curiosity is overwhelming. To satisfy them by making a reality show can sometimes be the answer, but often, keeping the public interested about who you really are can be more advantageous. 

On the other hand, a reality show gives fans another facet of celebrity and gives them a chance to see the real person behind the facade. There is a skeptical view that the celebrity is heavily edited to make them look good but it is fair to say that a good representation of the subject's personality will always come across. Another advantage to the reality shows is that you can see the truth behind the media's stories. Katie Price often cites this as a reason to continue her show as the media will often twist a story so much and even invent wild stories of their own with no substance. The show gives them the chance to prove the media wrong, and expose their lies.

Obviously, it is the celebrity's individual choice if they want to take part in a fly-on-the-wall show and from past experiences, it is clear that it could go either way. If everybody took part in a documentary series, it would shatter the fantasy of Hollywood and the platform of celebrity would be changed forever. We have to weigh up whether we need to know everything or whether life is better with an air of mystery.

Moving with The Times

When I learned this week that TheTimes.co.uk would be charging its customers to view their website, I was immediately convinced it was a bad idea. Now having thought about it further, I thought a blog post was in order so here goes.

From the end of the month, TheTimes.co.uk will charge users £1 a day or £2 a week to browse their content. In my opinion, this will shut off a large section of it's users who are of the opinion that the Internet should be free. All of the other major newspaper websites (The Times' competitors) still have free content and I think it may be a mistake to make the entire website subscriber content. The majority of people will resort to The Guardian or The Independent instead. Why pay for something that you can get for free somewhere else? The answer to this is quality.http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/obviously believe they are offering something nohttp://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/newspaper is and are therefore able to charge for it. Only time will tell if they have the necessary quality to hold on to their users.

If the venture is successful, it might herald the introduction of other papers who will charge for their content. The potential for thesun.co.uk to make money would be vast if all 21 million of its users decided to pay for the content. With the newspaper industry steadily declining and the wide choice of internet news content, this may be a way to keep the classic newspaper brands alive.

So what implications will there be for PR? If newspapers all eventually turn to purely online content, the value of having an article in the online version of The Sun will be the same as if it were in print. As for now when there is a clear difference between The Times in print and The Times online, the opinion of the majority seems to be that print is best. Whether this is right or wrong, it always seems to be a bigger achievement to have something printed than for it to be published online. I believe this will gradually change. The vast audience online will always beat the number of people who buy the physical newspaper.

The big question is: Will The Times become less of a target for PRs because less people can read it? I think the answer in the beginning will be yes. Depending on the success of the venture and whether any other national newspapers follow suit, it may well become the new norm to pay for our online newspaper content. Whichever way you look at it, if seems the death of the printed newspaper is almost upon us.