
How many different PR outfits should you hire in crisis? Well the answer seems to be three if you are Phorm, which according to PR Week has taken on Freuds, Citigate Dewe Rogerson and crisis guru John Stonborough to rescue its business.
For those of you who have missed the wave of negative coverage, Phorm is essentially an ad-serving company which has signed deals with leading ISPs including BT, Virgin and Talk Talk which allows it to track the browsing behaviour of customers and display better targeted ads – with the ISPs collecting a share of the ad revenues.
The current national media storm was triggered by claims from Cambridge academics at the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), that Phorm’s activities are ‘illegal’, as gathering information about site visits without a user’s consent could be considered to be in contravention of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which prevents unlawful interception of communication. The FIPR has called on the Information Commissioner to investigate and his report on the service is due in the next few weeks. Phorm’s immediate fate rests on his verdict.
Hindsight in PR as in everything else is a wonderful thing. Given the scale of the controversy surrounding Facebook’s introduction of its Beacon platform last year, it was however entirely predictable that similar concerns about Phorm would be vigorously voiced by consumers and privacy groups in the UK. Good crisis comms is as much about prevention as effective cure – having the Information Commissioner on side before going public seems like such a no brainer. It would have given the service legal credibility and helped reassure the ISPs, publishers and advertisers on which the service depends.
Ultimately though Phorm’s fate rests with the ordinary consumer, the internet users clicking those banner ads. Taking the national ID card debate as an example, I doubt there is any amount of official reassurance from government and regulators which could overturn the deep scepticism of the British public towards having their online behaviour tracked in such an all pervasive way. The near 8,000 strong Downing St petition calling on Phorm to be shut down and the growing volume of customer complaints directed to the ISPs supporting the service could just be the start.
Let’s see what Freuds, Citigate and Stonborough can do…
Filed under: Marketing

The backlash against price comparison sites in recent weeks is proof if any was needed of their growing power and influence in the online economy. Moneysupermarket.com’s IPO at the end of July was one of the largest for an internet firm this year, valuing the company at a cool £840 million. Its success with 55% of the UK market according to Hitwise has led to a spate of new and well funded competitors who are spending millions on advertising to attract shoppers – Comparethemarket and Gocompare.com to name but two. Established brands are also trying to get a piece of the action with Thomson Local this week launching its own financial product site ThomsonLocalMoney.com.
When your middle aged uncle starts eulogising Kelkoo when you mention you’re looking to by a new TV you know that price comparison sites have become an integral part of the modern shopping experience. Their growing power has prompted the likes of Direct Line to attempt to strike back with campaigns urging people to shun the ‘middlemen’ and buy direct. The question of impartiality is one the sector is going to need to develop an answer to as it comes under further attacks from major brands and greater scrutiny from consumer groups. I suspect few people realise that Confused.com is actually owned by Admiral Insurance for instance.
Research this week from online cash-back site Quidco goes further. It claims that one in three British consumers has stopped using price comparison sites, while 47 per cent said they would not use them again after finding out the results can be biased according to which listed company is paying the most. Figures suggest that the use of price comparison sites is still increasing so whether these results are a case of wishful thinking remains to be seen. If true, they are a timely warning to the new imitators looking to make millions from their own lucrative IPOs in the coming months.


