Thought that we would revisit something that we did a while back and see who (as the PR Week Awards confirms their Agency of the Year), the PEOPLE'S choice of "Most Admired Agency" would be.
From the entirely undemocratic list of agencies (which is basically those that were suggested by various folk in Seventy Seven PR), who would YOU make agency of the year ...?
NB. if you can AVOID voting for your own agency, it might make it a bit more interesting. We can't police it, of course, but go on, give it a go ...
UPDATE 17.57, 1 September: anyone get the sense that an email might've gone around Cake? I know that you're good guys, but am not quite sure that you justify 57% of the votes?!
UPDATE 10.26, 4 September: interest in this wee spate of PR jollity has been slightly higher than expected. Which is nice. Mike Matthieson raises a fair point about whether the We Are Social and FRANK scores are a bit higher than you might expect from online supporters alone (ie. they could be taking a lead from Afghanistan in the ballot stakes). Interesting one, that. All my logs say that their traffic is coming from Twitter and facebook and that a lot of it is legit. Which means that I should probably revise my opinion of Cake's score as I noted that Mike was punting his vote about the place. Who knows, maybe this is as much a look at the most web- and socially-connected agencies as it is the most admired.
UPDATE 10.30, 4 September: thanks to Mark for his hat tip and call for honesty.
UPDATE: 16.10, 5 September: it turns out that Poll Gate (as it shall henceforth be known) has gone national as the Telegraph has picked up the "story". Thanks to MikeMath for mentioning it. Am not really sure who comes out worst really, us, Cake or Mark B. Which I suppose is as it should be when journalists write about PRs.
GolinHarris all the way!
Posted by: Aideen McGrath | 02 September 2009 at 03:09 PM
Sigh... all these emails and tweets canvassing votes, if someone sends me an iPhone my vote is yours ;-)
Posted by: Marc | 02 September 2009 at 04:20 PM
Like the loyalty, Aideen.
I'll keep the iPhone, Marc.
Thanks both for stopping by!
Posted by: James Gordon-MacIntosh | 02 September 2009 at 07:03 PM
So where's brandosocial.com ? :-)
Posted by: david cushman | 03 September 2009 at 10:57 AM
I think we require an update to the update - Frank and We are Social have arrived late to the party...
Posted by: Mike Mathieson | 03 September 2009 at 04:39 PM
I don't know even one of them, so I choose not to vote. thanks for the post. I want to learn a lot in social media industry.
-jomie-
Posted by: social media marketing | 04 September 2009 at 03:58 AM
Mike ... my opinion is revised. And the post is duly updated. Thanks for stopping by, chap.
Posted by: James Gordon-MacIntosh | 04 September 2009 at 10:33 AM
Im not sure I appreciate Mr Borkowski's sour grapes accusations. As you've rightly pointed out James, our current standing is solely the result of a few tweets from our main @wearesocial twitter account and some of our team’s personal ones (and more recently, a passing mention in our SXSW panel blog post), and of course, people that voted for us organically anyway (we were in third place before any tweets were sent).
Which leaves the big question, when is the winner announced?
:)
Posted by: Robin Grant, We Are Social | 04 September 2009 at 01:37 PM
Anyone like to ask a recruitment consultant for their opinion? No need for viral brandstanding here.
Posted by: Tanya Ferris | 07 September 2009 at 02:27 PM
maybe Stephen Fry would waive his usual fee to host the awards dinner - this kind of social engagement is right up his street isn't it?
Posted by: James Herring | 07 September 2009 at 07:06 PM
interesting...especially the iphone bribe lol!
Posted by: retail sales jobs | 02 November 2011 at 08:30 AM