So, the election campaign has begun and, while it seems far too close to call with regards who might be forming the next government come May, what we do know is there will be a whole new generation of MPs taking seats in parliament this summer, with a large number of new parliamentarians expected to be voted in, if only because so many existing MPs have chosen to step down following a tricky twelve months for the political class.

And that could have an impact on the way the political community communicates with the electorate. PR firm Fishburn Hedges and researchers ComRes spoke to 100 new parliamentary candidates who seem likely to win a seat in the Commons on 6 May, and found - perhaps unsurprisingly - that digital platforms and social media are already much more important as communication channels for these future MPs.

83 of those interviewed are already using Facebook as a key communication tool, while 50 were also on Twitter. 84 said that Facebook, Twitter and blogs would play an important part in the way they communicate with constituents if they win at the election, while 82 said they expected to treat contacts made via social networks with the same importance as a formal written letter.

Fishburn Hedges Associate Director Simon Redfern told reporters: "A lot of new candidates have really embraced social media tools and talk to their constituents using these channels. But what's good for the campaign may not work as well in power. [But] new candidates are innovating with the tools available. You only have to look at Charlie Elphicke's (Conservative, Dover) use of Chat Map, Chuka Umunna's (Labour, Streatham) YouTube channel and Stella Creasy's (Labour, Walthamstow) Facebook page to see how modern political campaigning is changing".

PR group Burson-Marsteller has published the results of a survey of 115 senior journalists from across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and it reveals a gloomy mood in the news industry, where the recent advertising recession and continued challenges posed by the internet mean smaller teams have to produce more content than ever before, while working in an insecure market.

81% of those journalists surveyed said they'd experienced cost-cutting measures in their editorial teams, and most felt that that was having an impact on the quality of their publication's output. 34% said cost-cutting was the biggest threat to high quality journalism, while 17% said the internet was a bigger threat.

There were mixed opinions among those surveyed about the digital domain, with the internet having both positive and negative impacts. Most agreed digital tools gave them access to unprecedented amounts of information, but many added that the rise of so called 'citizen journalism' and what they see as a de-professionalisation of their trade were courses for concern.

On the up side for the corporate communications profession, most of those surveyed admitted that, because of the cuts, PR agencies played a more vital role in their work than ever before, as sources of information and providers of story leads. Nearly half said they dealt with PR people more frequently now than before, while over a quarter said they saw PR agencies as being good sources of information.

Commenting on the survey, PR Week quote Burson-Marsteller's EMEA media practice boss Dennis Landsbert-Noon as saying: "As the media industry undergoes these tremendous changes, there is both an onus on us to ensure that our standards remain exemplary, as well as an opportunity for us to use new and exciting digital tools to communicate with traditional journalists as well as a whole new digital and social media landscape".

The previously reported UK Public Affairs Council has officially launched.

As much previously reported, this is the new body that aims to create and administer a voluntary register for the British lobbying sector, in which lobbyists will be encouraged to declare who they work with and who they deal with in government.

The register, similar to one already operating at a European level, aims to overcome negative perceptions of the public affairs industry; though not everyone in the lobbying sector supports it.

The PAC is backed, though, but the three relevant trade bodies, the Association Of Professional Political Consultants, the Chartered Institute Of Public Relations and the Public Relations Consultants Association.

Launching the new council late last month, Philip Mawer, Chairman of the UKPAC Implementation Group, told esPResso: "For the first time the public can be confident that lobbyists from all walks of life, be they in corporations, charities, local authorities, law and accountancy firms, management or communications consultancies, think tanks and public affairs companies, will be able to be monitored by a single, independent organisation".

He continued: "The UKPAC will create and oversee a central register, updated quarterly, which will hold key details of those who practice public affairs. All those listed will be demonstrating their commitment to promoting public confidence through transparency, accountability and effective self-regulation".

The Men From The Press, the previously reported online service which planned to offer a "brand new type of music PR" by paying journalists to fill out online feedback forms after listening to unsigned and self-releasing artists who signed up to the website, announced yesterday that it was closing its doors, a matter of weeks after launching, following widespread derision from both the journalism and PR communities.

As previously reported, the journalists who signed up to the scheme, who were seemingly all freelancers, did not commit to give anything they listened to any actual coverage in any of the media they work for (and in many cases would not be able to anyway), but, rather, they provided a direct critique to each paying artist, which might constitute useful feedback in itself and, if positive, could be used in a band's other publicity. That said, the aim obviously was to force participating journalists to expose themselves to the music bands had paid to upload to the website, in the hope some of the hacks would genuinely like some of music, and then become influential champions of those bands.

Though in theory there was nothing ethically wrong with the service - providing paying bands knew they were buying feedback not coverage - because the service charged a per journalist fee, and because the rate card listed the publications each writer worked for (minus their names), and also because the fee was higher the more esteemed the publication, some argued that the implication was that you could, in fact, buy coverage.

Certainly it would have been easy for less media-savvy exposure-hungry new artists to misconstrue what was actually on offer, and little was done to stress that actual coverage was not for sale. The page on the website where artists selected which writers they wanted feedback from was topped with this explanation: "Listed below are the current publications our journalists write for together with their respective submission fees, which are to cover our admin costs and journalist submission fees - there are no other hidden charges! Please note: Most of our journalists write for several publications, which is why some are bundled together as below... the submission fees are for each bundle, so this gives you more value for money".

As a result, many of the publications listed requested that their titles be removed from the site, even if some of their freelance contributors were actually involved in the new service, because they didn't want confused bands to think editorial coverage was for sale. Meanwhile, some of the journalists signed up seemingly withdrew their services, possibly because the publishers and editors of the titles they write for had started to express concerns. Or possibly because they never really understood what the Men From The Press offer was going to be. Some of the service's participating journalists said they were originally approached by someone who simply asked if they would like to be paid to give feedback to new bands, without being told they'd be participating in a new kind of music publicity venture.

A statement posted on the website yesterday by founder Dave Chisholm, and also emailed to signed up artists, read: "The whole point of themenfromthepress.com was to provide PR in a 'brand new way'. So bands, artists and small labels who simply haven't got the funds would be given a chance! I put a hell of a lot of work into this and set TMFTP up for all the right reasons and with all the best intentions to help new bands and artists as I know how tough it is for them in this business... But we have now been shot down in flames!

He continued: "Certain publications and some traditional PR companies (who I will not name) have made it impossible for us to carry on through their constant slanderous remarks and activities which have damaged our reputation to the point where we have lost all heart with the project. And so sadly and with great regret we have now closed! I would like to say a very big thank you to the many bands artists and journalists who have and still support us ... I tried to make a difference but sorry guys... they wont let us..."

Chisholm also said that all subscription and submission fees would be refunded to those artists who had signed up. Though those artists who opted to pay by PayPal were never charged in the first place, because a glitch in the website's programming meant that, although subscription fees were charged, those paying by the online payment system were able to submit their music for review without paying anything at all.

Moves to regulate the lobbying industry are likely to be stepped up following the latest political scandal to rock Westminster. As you will no doubt have seen, the big story in the political world this week is Monday night's 'Dispatches' documentary, which was previewed by reportage in the Sunday Times at the weekend, in which various outgoing MPs expressed their interest in cashing in on their political influence by taking on lobbying work on behalf of a fictitious American company.

Focus has fallen in particular on former Labour ministers Geoff Hoon, Stephen Byers and Patricia Hewitt, and to a lesser extent another Labour MP Margaret Moran, who were all secretly filmed expressing an interest in the non-existent lobbying work. In the interviews Hoon was seen saying he wanted to make "some real money", Moran boasted about her access to a "girls' gang" of ministers who could influence decision making in Westminster, and Byers described himself as "sort of like a cab for hire". The latter was a particularly unfortunate turn of phrase, because it links back to claims made by Harrods owner Mohamed al-Fayed during the height of the Tories 'sleaze scandals' of the mid-nineties that you could "hire an MP the way you hire a London taxi".

That said, Byers' interview has dominated the headlines less because of the "cab for hire" quote, and more because in it he claimed to have previously influenced government policy in return for a fee, claiming he lobbied current ministers Andrew Adonis and Peter Mandelson on behalf of National Express and Tesco respectively. He seems to have distanced himself from those remarks after the interview, even before he knew he had been talking to an undercover journalist. Meanwhile, since the scandal broke both the ministers and companies name checked by Byers have denied any knowledge of his claims.

As both the political and lobbying community awaited the airing of the Channel 4 programme yesterday, key players in the latter were keen to stress the documentary showed the shady side of the former, rather than presenting their own industry in a bad light. The boss of the public affairs division of communications firm Weber Shandwick, Jon McLeod, told PR Week: "Yet again it is the fumbling attempts of parliamentarians to be lobbyists that have cast a shadow over the professional practice of the industry".

As much previously reported, moves have long been afoot within the political community and the public affairs sector to regulate lobbying in someway, partly in a bid to end any dubious practices, but more to convince the increasingly cynical public that most of the PR industry's work in this domain is completely above board.

Although politicians on all sides have supported such regulation, the favoured route to date has been some kind of voluntary code of conduct set up by the lobbying industry, possibly with a register in which lobbyists declare which politicians they have lobbied on what companies' behalf. Some in the sector actively support such a voluntary code and register, though it does not have the universal backing of the entire industry.

But some believe that internal opposition will now be irrelevant as it looks increasingly likely politicians will force a statutory code on the lobbying community. As Labour went into damage limitation yesterday, with the Parliamentary Labour Party expelling the four shamed MPs despite their protestations they didn't actually break any rules, the party also indicated it would include setting up a statutory lobbying register in its manifesto at the upcoming General Election. David Cameron's previously reported commitments to make the lobbying world more transparent hadn't previously gone that far, but the latest scandal - although focused on Labour ministers - may force him to support a statutory register too.

Confirming he thought the lobbying sector would now face compulsory regulation, McLeod added in his interview with PR Week that statutory regulation of lobbying is now "both right and inevitable", though, also talking to the trade magazine, the MD of Hanover Communications cautioned "backing a statutory register for lobbyists is deliberately missing the point as it alone would do nothing to stop MPs taking outside interests".

Another one from the political world, though one that provides a lesson in digital communications. An effort to seize the digital initiative in the upcoming General Election back-fired on Conservative supporters yesterday after the makers of a political website failed to grasp the risk of allowing Twitter-generated content to automatically appear on your site.
The website is called Cash-Gordon, and aims to embarrass the Labour government over the large donations the Labour Party receives from the union Unite, currently in the headlines for spearheading the unpopular British Airways strike. The website encourages visitors to read a speech by Tory frontbencher Michael Grove, to bug former Labour advisor and now Unite political director Charlie Wheelan via his social media accounts, and to check out what is being said about the campaign on the Twitter network.

Unfortunately the latter was enabled by a widget that showed any Twitter message containing the so called 'hash tag' #cashgordon. Labour supporters and general jokers on Twitter used this fact to tweet anti-Tory or just generally offensive remarks, alongside the required hash tag, knowing their contributions would then appear, albeit for a short time, on the home page of the anti-Labour website.

According to the Guardian, more advanced Twitter users then worked out how to embed images and programmes into their tweets that would add extra unwanted content to the political website, while others worked out how to use the Twitter widget to force a redirect, so that people going to the site would be taken to another, at one time the Labour Party website, at another the Rick Astley video that is so frequently used in online practical jokes these days.

Despite initially insisting a totally unregulated approach to #cashgordon tweets would be maintained, the website's owners later admitted misuse by the Twitterati had forced them to remove that element of the site. As of last night it was back, but with a moderator installed to decide which Tweets go live. So much so, one Tweeter remarked "Aw, #cashgordon tweets are no fun anymore now that the feed's moderated. I'm going to bed. Night all". That tweet made it through moderation though.

The lesson for digital PRs? Probably best not to put an unmoderated hash-tag-based Twitter feed on your home page. Especially if you are involved in anything vaguely political.

The dispute between the media relations and press cuttings industries and the Newspaper Licensing Agency over the latter's efforts to launch a 'links licence' will rumble on for at least a year. Papers published by the UK Copyright Tribunal last week revealed that in a preliminary hearing last month the copyright court rejected the NLA's efforts to have the legal case against the agency dismissed, and then ruled it wouldn't consider the disagreement in full until February 2011.
As previously reported, the NLA argues that agencies who provide corporate clients with lists of relevant newspaper headlines and links to the actual articles than mention their company should have to pay a licence fee, in the same way they would if they provided photocopies of the actual articles. But the PR industry argues that because no copies are made when links are provided, the copyright laws that empower the NLA in the print media and photocopy domain don't apply with digital links.

Cuttings agency Meltwater and the PR Consultants Association are opposing the NLA's efforts to launch the links licence, and took the matter to the Copyright Tribunal, the court that considers disputes specifically relating to copyright issues and royalty payments. The NLA was forced to suspend its link licence operations when Meltwater began its action, and given the time scale of the Tribunal hearing those operations will now have to be on hold for over a year.

In related news, the NLA recently announced a new fee structure regards their traditional newspaper copying licences for smaller PR agencies, those with less than five staff and three or less clients. The new fees will simplify the licence system for said agencies and, the NLA argues, reduce their costs. Though the boss of one affected agency said that while he recognised both the NLA's claims were true, it still wasn't a cost effective licence for his company.

Mervyn Edgecombe, MD of London-based PR agency Mervyn Edgecombe Associates, told Communicte: "The old system was so complex and convoluted that anything that simplifies the process has to be welcome. [But while] £150 [per client] may not sound much, that's £450 for the three main accounts that would warrant this license, and there's not enough value to justify it. When we get the coverage, we just send the office junior out to buy an extra copy of the paper".

So, there has been much chatter in the music journalism community in the last few weeks about a new service being offered to grass roots artists that guarantees to put their music in front of apparently influential music critics. The company can make that guarantee because it pays the journalists in question to listen to their clients' music and to provide a one-to-one critique.

The service competes with those traditional music PR agencies which offer their services to unsigned or self-releasing artists, normally for a few hundred pounds per campaign. The founders of the new service, called The Men From The Press, say their web-based promotional platform is more cost effective than traditional PR, because it ensures exposure to a small number of targeted journalists, whereas the traditional approach involves sending CDs or press releases to a long list of reviewers and editors, none of whom might actually listen to the music they are sent. With TMFTP bands pay a registration fee, and then an additional fee per journalist they wish to make contact with.

The journalists signed up to the scheme, who are seemingly all freelancers, do not commit to give anything they listen to any actual coverage in any of the media they work for, but will provide a direct critique, which might constitute useful feedback and, if positive, can be used in a band's other publicity. Though presumably the real attraction for bands is that it commits signed-up journalists to listen to any music they are sent, meaning that - if any of those journalists turn out to genuinely like an artist's music - an influential fan may be secured.

The page on the new service's website that lists the journalists who can be targeted has been through a number of incarnations. Initially customers of the service could choose which publications they wanted to target, and presumably any freelancers who write for those titles would have been contacted on a signed up artists' behalf. But that page was removed, reportedly after some of the featured publications complained it implied coverage in their titles could be bought, or that journalists participating somehow represented the viewpoint of the titles they may contribute to.

The crucial page is now structured by journalist, listing all the titles each reviewer writes for. The more titles, and the more influential the titles, the more it costs to put your music in front of a signed up hack. At one stage this page actually named participating writers, though currently the identities of participating reviewers are not actually revealed.

While there is nothing ethically wrong with it in principle, providing artists are clear they are buying feedback not coverage, and providing participating journalists are never unduly swayed to give coverage to paying bands, many music publicists and journalists are nervous about the implications of the new service.

It's founder, Dave Chisholm, admits that part of the aim of his service is to try to win his clients new fans in the music journalism community, but told The Guardian that he disagrees with the viewpoint that it is wrong to offer cash-strapped freelance journalists a financial incentive to ensure his bands are exposed to opinion formers. He argues that such financial incentives are no different to traditional PRs offering journalists free perks in a bid to ensure they listen to their clients' music.

But also speaking to The Guardian, one artist manager who previously worked in PR, Tim Vigon, said he still had concerns. He told the paper: "My instinct is that it's wrong on every level ... it feels like payola [paying for coverage], even though there's nothing illegitimate about it and all they're after is feedback".

Meanwhile the founder of one music website, some of whose reviewers were approached by Chisholm's team, was more blatant in his criticism. Drowned In Sound's Sean Adams blogged yesterday: "I sit around listening to mostly not very good unsigned bands for free. I can kinda see where the 'concept' came from, in terms of greasing the wheels to bring certain CDs to the top of the pile and give bands some feedback. Not all ideas are worth running with though, especially when they're so poorly executed, and give the impression [bands will] get a leg up when it generally seems exploitative and EVIL. If you're in a band, don't do this, just do your research of who will like your stuff. People are easy to communicate with".

It's been reported that Matthew Freud's PR agency has been appointed to the take the lead in communications activity for the 2012 London Olympics.

It is thought Freud Communications will lead the wide-ranging communications brief that will be attached to the Olympics games, with a portfolio of other agencies then brought on to deal with specific areas or mini-projects.

Freud’s company owns 20% in sports agency Pitch PR, who may well be involved in this brief. Freud Communications is in turn half owned by the Publicis Groupe, who may therefore get involved in the international dimension to the campaign.

A spokesman for the games would be not be drawn on their PR plans, telling the Guardian: "We are in the process of appointing a number of roster agencies to work on a range of campaigns between now and 2012. The procurement is ongoing".

Talking of lobbyists, the PR Consultants Association has confirmed it will be lobbying key decision makers in both government and the Conservative Party as part of its previously reported campaign to stop the Newspaper Licensing Agency from charging PR companies who provide clients with lists of URLs that link to relevant media coverage on free-to-access newspaper websites.

As previously reported, the NLA recently claimed companies who provide such links on a commercial basis need a copyright licence, similar to that required when a communications department or agency distributes photocopies of articles to their managers or clients. But many in the PR and newspaper cuttings industries disagree, saying that as no actual copy is made when a link to a relevant web page is provided, no such licence is required.

Media monitoring company Meltwater is taking the NLA to the Copyright Tribunal about their links licence claim. Meanwhile the PRCA is busy trying to win influential support for their campaign against the NLA's new licence. They recently surveyed 151 MPs on the issue, and say that 65% supported their viewpoint.

Now PRCA chief Francis Ingham now plans to engage in some lobbying on this issue. He told PR Week: "We will now be rolling out the next stage of our campaign against the NLA's plans. It centres on good, old-fashioned political lobbying".

There has been much chatter in the lobbying community in the last fortnight about an email sent by communications agency Luther Pendragon to every Conservative MP and parliamentary candidate on behalf of the Association Of Home Information Pack Providers.

The email, which came from a Luther Pendragon address, was very critical of Tory policy towards Home Information Packs, which the party says it will scrap if it forms the next government later this year. The email called the policy “irrational and regressive” and accused the Conservative frontbench of having ignored “many voices and reams of evidence” on the issue.

Strangely, the email was also sent to the Tory policy makers and frontbenchers it openly lambasted. It also personally thanked each recipient for their previous responses on the issue, even though many of the current and hopeful MPs receiving the message had never previously corresponded with Luther Pendragon or the AHIPP.

The Conservative leadership reacted angrily to the email. Shadow Housing Minister Grant Shapps, both a recipient of the email, and someone specifically criticised by the letter, told PR Week: 'This is one of the most crass examples of public affairs I have ever seen from a lobbying company. Spamming parliamentary candidates with political abuse from a company email address hardly displays the intelligent political awareness that Luther Pendragon proclaim on their website".

He continued: "Email has great potential to engage parliamentary candidates with the public in the forthcoming general election. Yet the public affairs industry needs to realise that, like poorly targeted, unsolicited press releases, email also has the potential to annoy and undermine the very issues you are championing. Conservatives are happy to talk to the housing industry over our plans to scrap Home Information Packs, but personal, angry campaigns are not a great way to win friends and influence people".

The story subsequently gained more momentum when the AHIPP accused Luther Pendragon of having sent out the wrong emails to many recipients, hence why the correspondence openly criticised some of the MPs who were actually receiving it, and the odd remark regarding past responses. The lobbying agency subsequently admitted there had been an administrative error in the distribution of the letter, adding that it should also have come from an AHIPP email address, rather than being so clearly linked to their agency.

AHIPP has now apologised to any offended Tories, though it seems unlikely even placated backbenchers or parliamentary candidates will now have much sway on this issue with Shapps and his frontbench colleagues. Luther Pendragon had already told AHIPP it wished to bring to an end its relationship with the association before the email error took place.

An interesting development from the advertising sector now.

The Advertising Standards Authority will expand its remit to cover all forms of online advertising. The ASA, which regulates advertising on TV and radio, in print media, and on billboards, does already oversee some online communications, ie banner and text adverts bought on other people's websites.

However, the new development - which is supported by ad industry trade body the Advertising Association - will see ASA regulation extended to advertising content published on companies' own websites, and on their social media pages, such as Facebook profiles and Twitter feeds.

Such online activity will now have to meet ASA rules regarding all advertising messages being responsible, legal, honest and truthful. Concerns have been raised that consumers, and especially children, may be misled by company websites and social media pages which have not previously been open to active regulation.

It's an interesting development because those communication outputs are sometimes managed by marketing or even PR people, rather than advertising execs, meaning the ASA's remit is extending into other communication sectors.

The move will have to be approved by the Committee For Advertising Practice, which feeds into the ASA, but given the Advertising Association is already a supporter most seem to think that approval will be forthcoming.

The PR Consultants Association has surveyed both PR agency chiefs and in-house communication execs about the agency pitching process, to identify what both sides of the buying equation are looking for, and what both buyers and sellers could do better.

Some in the agency community have complained in recent times about the increased tendency for potential clients to invite large numbers of their competitors to compete for the same job, or to invite pitches for projects where an internal budget has not yet been confirmed. Such activities increase the risk of the pitching process for agencies.

Commenting on some of those concerns, which have seemingly grown during the recession, PRCA Communications Director Richard Ellis told esPResso: “As the economy recovers we need to start to reverse some counter-productive trends that emerged over the last twelve months such as longer pitch lists and briefs without budgets. Even in the short term these tactics end up providing poorer value for the client. These surveys provide the basis for a series of discussions where both sides can highlight their frustrations and share best practice. More open discussion will lead to better pitching”.

The Association is talking to agencies and in-house teams separately at the moment, with the view to staging a discussion involving both parties in late May.

The Chartered Institute Of PR has denied recent reports in PR Week that members of the association who work in the lobbying sector and who refuse to sign up to new efforts to introduce more transparency into the public affairs arena could be forced to give up their membership.

The CIPR has been collaborating with the PR Consultants Association and Association of Professional Political Consultants on new measures to encourage those in the lobbying sector to voluntarily become more transparent about which companies they represent and which political types they have access to. Pressure for increased transparency has been growing both within Westminster and at a European level.

A voluntary register of interests for the UK public affairs industry, similar to one that already operates in Brussels, is a favoured option, though not everyone in the lobbying sector agrees such a thing is needed.

As part of these efforts, the CIPR, PRCA and APPC are collaborating on the creation of a Public Affairs Council, which would spearhead increased transparency in the lobbying world. PR Week speculated that by supporting the Council, the CIPR would have to change its own members code, and in doing so force lobbyists in its membership to sign up to the new transparency commitments. The trade mag reckoned this would force those CIPR members who oppose the register to leave the body.

But a CIPR spokesman subsequently denied that the Institute’s support for the Public Affairs Council would necessarily require a change of its own code of conduct. The spokesman said: "The article in today’s PR Week is purely speculative. Contrary to the report, the CIPR is not looking to make changes to its code of conduct. What we are doing is taking a leadership role with our partners in this drive for increased transparency in lobbying".

The statement continues: "As part of a planned process we have consulted with members on the implementation of the UK Public Affairs Council, and the need for lobbyists to be registered and declare their clients. We are currently reviewing their comments. We are also looking at the possible implications that CIPR membership of the Public Affairs Council would have for our membership joining and renewals process. Ultimately, it is our members who will decide our next step. Once comments on the consultation have been reviewed we will report back to members".

Warner Music US publicist Liz Rosenberg, probably best known as the frequent American spokeswoman for Madonna, is leaving the major to set up her own PR agency. Rosenberg has handled press relations for Warner Bros artists in the US since 1971, which is an incredibly long time to be with one company in this business.

The move will enable Rosenberg to continue to represent Madonna, who is currently winding down her career-long relationship with Warner following her mega-bucks 360 degree deal with Live Nation. The publicist will also continue to represent a number of other high profile Warner artists in the US via her new agency, including Michael Bublé, Cher, Stevie Nicks and Katherine Jenkins.

Confirming Rosenberg's departure from the Warner division, Warner Bros US boss Tom Whalley told reporters: "Over the course of her remarkable tenure, Liz Rosenberg's contribution to the company has been immeasurable. We are delighted that as she begins her own enterprise, we will continue our association with her on behalf of several of our key artists. We wish Liz all the best and are confident that she will succeed beyond all expectations and have the opportunity to work in other realms of the entertainment business".

Rosenburg herself added: "No one has had a more thrilling ride than I have had during my decades at Warner Bros Records where I grew up and learned my craft. I was given the opportunity to work with the most talented artists in music history. I'm grateful that I will continue to represent some of these artists, in addition to several new artists. I am grateful to Tom Whalley for his tremendous support. I will miss him and my entire Warner Bros family".

Reputation management expert Jonathan Hemus of Insignia has said that while there have been some impressive elements to Toyota's PR effort in responding to the recent 'sticking accelerator' issue, the whole escapade throws up some serious questions about wider communications at the motoring giant - and in particular about their internal communications activity.

Writing in The Guardian, Hemus says: "Toyota has done many things right in responding to its current crisis: its spokespeople have filled the media with messages of reassurance, its PR people have blogged and tweeted non-stop to fill the information vacuum, its website is full of details about the recall and its call centre is working flat out to deal with customer enquiries".

But, noting that Toyota's reputation is still taking quite a bashing, despite those efforts, he continues: "Central to Toyota's problem is its perceived delay in identifying and addressing the situation in the first place. Whatever Toyota says now, and however well it acts, there is a sense that it ignored the problem until it was forced to take action. [And] the most effective crisis management takes place before the problem escalates out of control during the 'incubation' phase".

Achieving that early response, Hemus continues, is also a comms challenge, but an internal communications one. He says: "[There is] a hierarchical approach to management and a lack of open communication. Where this exists, junior employees who are best placed to spot early signs of crisis feel unable to point out flaws. As a result, problems go unnoticed and unresolved until they explode into a major crisis. Much better to put the fire out before it has reached this stage".

You can read Hemus' full piece on Toyota's communication challenge here.

David Cameron has said that he will introduce new rules to better control the lobbying sector if he forms the next government. In a speech at the University Of East London, the Tory leader said lobbying rules would be introduced as part of a Parliamentary Privilege Act.

There has been increased debate in recent years about whether new rules should be introduced to force those in lobbying and political consultancy to be more transparent about who is talking to whom about what. So far there has been considerable disagreement within the lobbying sector as to whether new rules are needed at all, and if so whether they should be introduced by new laws or a voluntary industry code.

But Cameron says he will take the initiative on this issue if and when he is in power. He said: "It's important that businesses, charities and other organisations feel they can make sure their voice is heard. And indeed, lobbying often makes for better, more workable, legislation. But I believe that it is increasingly clear that lobbying in this country is getting out of control. We don't know who is meeting whom. We don't know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don't know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence. This isn't a minor issue with minor consequences. Commercial interests - not to mention government contracts - worth hundreds of billions of pounds are potentially at stake".

While, as we say, not everyone in the lobbying world will welcome Cameron's comments (and some are probably already lobbying to reduce the impact of any new rules!), the head of public affairs at the PR Consultants Association, Mark Ramsdale, welcomed the Tory man's remarks, though added that new rules should put obligations on MPs and ministers as well as lobbyists, both while in office and once they have left parliament or Whitehall.

He told Creative Business: "This is something that is both timely and necessary. We support fully a transparent and open system. This does however require the system to work both ways. While we continue effectively to provide self-regulation for public affairs practitioners, Parliament must be prepared to do the same for its members. Those who have held office must remain accountable beyond their tenure. With individuals moving so quickly from government positions to roles outside Whitehall - whilst still maintaining a seat in Parliament - their use of insider knowledge and connections inevitably brings into disrepute a vital and legitimate component of the democratic process".

Edelman, the "world's largest independent PR agency", as they like to say, has recruited former BBC global news boss Richard Sambrook, who will join the company as its Global Vice-Chairman and Chief Content Officer in May, after three decades on the media side of the fence in various roles at the Beeb.

Sambrook's news and television skills will be very much utilised in his new role, helping Edelman clients to produce their own video content (an increasingly important task for many PR departments, as discussed in this esPResso interview with Dan Humphreys) and advising companies on crisis and issue communications.

Confirming his new job, Sambrook told Creative Business: "I'm delighted to be joining Edelman in this new senior role. They are a company which I have long respected. Edelman's leadership with digital media and their work on Trust and public engagement sets them apart and I'm greatly looking forward to helping to develop their content production and their approach to crisis and issues management".

Edelman chief Richard Edelman added: "We are delighted to have someone of Richard's calibre and experience joining our global team. His journalism and senior media company management resume is difficult to rival; equally important to us and our clients, Richard has been at the forefront of the digitisation of news and its interaction with the audience and stakeholders. Through his work establishing several BBC News channels [around the world] and his own long-term and personal commitment to social media, he understands very well how the audience is now - to use his own words - 'on the pitch', how content and news must be shaped by the needs of the consumer, and the new opportunities provided by social technologies".

Despite recently announcing it would no longer comply with government censorship in China, a bold statement that reaffirmed its reputation as the friendly free spirit of the internet, the ever-expansive Google is nevertheless having to tackle the challenge that faces any trendy start-up once it becomes the establishment figure of its sector, the end of its honeymoon relationship with early adopters and opinion formers.

Which is possibly why bloggers and tech journalists gave the web firm's latest innovation - Google Buzz - something of a lukewarm reception when it was launched earlier this month. And why many then jumped on the bandwagon when people started to express privacy concerns about the new service, which automatically set itself up on existing Gmail webmail accounts.

Google Buzz is an attempt to add Facebook and Twitter style social networking functionality to the search engine firm's existing Gmail platform, enabling users to have a more public Google profile and to share status updates with those people they most frequently communicate with via the Gmail's email and instant messaging services.

Complaints began to surface, though, over Google's decision to automatically add Buzz functionality to every GMail account, and to automatically 'connect' each GMail user with those they already communicate with frequently by email. Many GMail users objected to such connections being made without their consent, and complained that the auto-connect function revealed to others who they most frequently correspondended with in private, information they may not want made public.

But as criticism for the new service spread through the blogosphere and on Twitter, Google did react quickly, both in terms of altering those parts of the service that had caused concerns, and in issuing a statement on the issue via their own blog. A Google product manager blogged thus: "We quickly realised that we didn't get everything quite right. We're very sorry for the concern we've caused and have been working hard ever since to improve things based on your feedback. We'll continue to do so".

Google have always been good at responding quickly and honestly to issues via their own website. Whether that will be enough to overcome the decline in trust and goodwill which naturally comes with being a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation remains to be seen.

Talking of MTV, the music telly company is reworking its logo. Slightly. It's removing the words "music television" from underneath the iconic MTV motif. I think the original plan was to replace it with "tacky reality shows and other tedious shit television" but someone pointed out that wouldn't fit.

MTV's marketing head Tina Exarhos told the LA Times: "The people who watch it today, they don't refer to MTV as music television. They don't have the same emotional connection that, say, the people who are writing about [the change] do". Which surprises me. I wasn't aware that people still watched MTV.