Credibility versus Cool at London Fashion Week

The Lunch bar at Michael van der Ham's show on Monday. Topshop sponsored the Billingsgate venue

My latte and "meringue, blood orange,[and] orange blossom cream" which were followed by a "ham hock and parsley pie". I did realise I ate my courses backwards, yes.

I think my sensitivity towards product placement is a little more exaggerated than the average person's. Even before I began working in PR, as a journalism graduate trying to make my way into the world of ethical fashion and fair trade writing, the little flashes of corporate branding would just niggle at me and flash up in my mind's eye at the most inopportune moments throughout my day. It sometimes happened after I watched an episode of X-Factor (those Nescafe mugs!).
When executed properly, product placement is a fantastic opportunity for brands to get their name and image out there without having to pay for advertising. Great news for PRs/PROs, as they like to embrace fun ways of improving an existing relationship between a consumer and a product. 
But what about when product placement goes wrong? An article by John Owens in PR Week made me wonder what the "right" kind of PR is.   
I had the chance to see first-hand on Monday when I went to London Fashion Week, and my hyper-sensitivity went into overdrive.
First I was handed an "I heart LFW" canvas bag with my floor plan and itinerary in... sponsored by the Mulberry Monster, and Vodafone. 
Both are credible companies, and in context of the situation, either cool in their own right (the 'Mulberry Monster' sounds cute doesn't it?) or cool by association for the right reasons (in Vodafone's case).
It was difficult to miss the 'Mayor of London' logos plastered all over the make-shift walls as you walked into Somerset House, an association which I personally have my reservations about, but makes complete sense. BoJo's team did a great job literally marrying fashion with politics.
I noticed throughout the day while I tweeted my excitement, that others were tweeting about theirs at LFW too. But they weren't getting all excited about Lady Gaga's 'Alejandro' sunglasses or the soundtrack to Sophie Hulme's salon show, they were saying their public Ps and Qs - to Land Rover and Mercedes Benz for chauffeuring them around LFW venues. Very clever guys, I see what you did there.
I am slightly upset that I missed "a pr effort to push cleaning products by scrubbing the catwalks with them as part of the show", which suffice to say is not credible, nor cool (apparently, who am I to judge?). Consumer brands were obviously falling over themselves to be associated with LFW, however tenuous or obvious the link.
"It's not about being cool, which is something transient. Credibility has depth," John Doe (PR agency) founder Rana Reeves told PR Week. 
Notable credible and cool collaborations occurred between Giles Deacon and Mercedes Benz, and Marios Schwab with American Express/W Hotels. I will also never forget the avant-garde Topshop-sponsored venue of Michael van der Ham's show at Billingsgate.
I curbed my cynicism early on and decided to just enjoy LFW for what it is; an amazing opportunity for new and existing British-trained designers to showcase a tiny nation's talent. 
I must confess that I'm not really sure what cool is, but if Reeves says that it's impermanent, then I'd be inclined to agree that credibility, could be the new cool.

Gaga's 'Alejandro' shades 

Just say 'No' to bonuses

Antonio Horta-Osorio, chief executive of the Lloyds Banking Group, broke the mould this week by refusing his annual bonus worth £2.4 million. Some say this is just a very clever PR stunt, and oh, coincidentally, he is just back from a much-talked about two month hiatus. The news of Osorio rejecting his bonus comes just days before it was announced that RBS chief executive Stephen Hester was more than happy to receive his annual bonus of £1 million, at a time when 3,600 members of staff are being made redundant at RBS. 


But the naive, truth-seeking little girl in me wants to hope that he refused it on genuine compassionate grounds - guilt. While I'm normally the first person to leer and revel at a rich man's misfortunes (shadenfreude actually suits me quite well sometimes), Osorio seems to be in real, human suffering.


Yes, those words and the word "banker" don't technically fit well into the same sentence, but after being signed off for two months due to insomnia and health issues, I do think it's acceptable to feel a marginal amount of pity for the guy. Even if his annual salary does come up to £1.6 million I will never, ever get to see in my lifetime. Ever.


The truth of the matter is, (again I stress this bearing in mind the amount of positive publicity he is gaining for Lloyds) it makes him seem more human, less infallible. He reminds us that sometimes, it's OK to admit we're not OK, and that he can't always get it right. And on those grounds, he refuses to be rewarded for it.


This is a simple human instinct, and one which I applaud him for embracing. After two months off from the banking industry, it would be nice to think that he's become a little bit more empathetic towards the average minimum wage earner, and his mindset as a millionaire banker has been diluted.


While it's easy to feel very little compassion for someone who most of us cannot relate to, I do believe that just saying no to a bonus which is larger than your annual salary might be hard. He was offered it, and he refused it. In the same position, would I have done the same? Probably not.


Sometimes it's easy to dehumanise people when it suits our needs, and particularly when the media helps us along our way. Osorio is showing initiative by taking the lead, and saying "No, I don't deserve this," before any other bank has done so. 


Having said all this, Osorio has hit the headlines during a time when Lloyds' share prices are dipping - hmmm... Maybe I won't be going into banking any time soon.