Welcome

Hi, I'm Paul. That's all the introduction on offer (for now).

This blog has been set up to run alongside some of the studying that is happening on the third (and final) year of my PR & Communication degree at Southampton Solent University.

Anyway, this is an entry about Peter Andre (pictured, image courtesy of the Daily Mirror), and his overbearing management company.

A couple of weeks back I was reading the 3am 'gossip' website, when I saw a story about how Peter Andre's management company (called Can Associates, rather ironically) tried to force the site to sign off on a rather extensive contract about what could and couldn't be featured in a promotional story.

Some of the stuff included was:

• No mention of Katie Price, or any reference to Katie and Peter's recent divorce in the story.
  
• "Everything written must be entirely positive, or the feature won't be allowed to run"


• "Can Associates want full approval of all words and headlines prior to publication, and interviews have to run with appropriate photos from the event."

Those in charge at Can Associates also wanted an editor to read and sign off (via fax) on this contract in just 20 minutes, or else they could miss out on the 'opportunity' to interview Peter Andre.

Theres a lot more (as well as some sharp humour) on the 3am website here and earlier in the year here (similar story, just a different product launch for Costa Coffee).

Now I can understand why a company would like to protect their 'assets' (in this case, Peter Andre) but some of the wording paraphrased from the contract is borderline totalitarian, and this is something that hasn't been covered at all in the course structure so far. Nor is it what I (or presumably the CIPR) would call good practice.

My understanding (based on what I've learnt in the past two years) is that we as PRO's (current, or in my case, future) should always aim to make a story attractive and relevant to journalists, not smother the story of a product launch in tightly-written legal contracts, causing newspapers to feel opressed by the PR opportunity.

This story is almost on a level of celebrity propaganda, normally reserved for politics, wars and conflict - not a perfume launch. If I was a journalist (and without wishing to plug away too hard, I've written and reviewed for a reasonably-sized music website) I would be telling them where to go with the story...

So, what I want to know is - does this happen all the time?

Does [Insert celebrity] only get positive coverage in the glossy magazines and newspapers because of agreements like this one?

Should it be this way, or should newspapers be allowed to run stories however they want (obviously keeping within the limits of legality - libel, defamation etc)?

Are arrangements of this kind the future in celebrity PR?

Let me know what you think...

Paul