I read the PR Week front page story on Bite this morning with obvious interest (and wondered mischievously why the surely far more significant Ketchum/Pleon merger didn’t warrant the front page instead).
Whilst the article contained some inaccuracies (which has then fuelled further way wide of the mark reporting) it did actually manage to get one thing right. And that is that after 14 years Bite is no longer working with Apple. Given the length of our relationship with Apple and the nature of the Apple brand this is obviously a significant development for Bite; during the last 14 years we’ve had a fantastic working relationship with Apple and have had tremendous fun working on its behalf. Representing a company that has transformed itself into such an iconic brand has truly been a privilege for Bite.
But, to coin a cliché, nothing lasts forever and by moving Inferno into Bite we knew that we would have to end our relationship with Apple given the obvious client conflicts. As you would expect given the length of time we have worked together, this was done in conjunction with Apple and in an amicable manner. To say that the split is a ’serious blow’ as PR Week has claimed is therefore inaccurate and unfair. And furthermore to claim that Apple is our ‘anchor’ account is also unfair on the myriad of other blue chip brands that we represent. Lastly, (and this is a misconception which, given I was a cofounder of Bite, I feel rather qualified to correct) PR Week’s assertion that Bite took its name from the Apple connotation is just wrong. Quite simply it came about because the original MD of Bite, Matthew Ravden, suggested to the other founders that Bite sounded like a strong, impactful name for a PR agency. In the absence of any other alternative, the Bite name therefore stuck! I happen to think he was right about the name although it’s been something of a pain to have to occasionally point out to people that the spelling is Bite rather than Byte!
Whilst PR Week chose to sensationalise the news about our relationship ending with Apple we’re treating it in a more realistic manner. Of course it’s a significant milestone in the development of the agency but it’s only the closing of one chapter – we’re utterly confident that there are lots more exciting chapters to come as we develop the agency into a worldwide brand. So, thanks for the memories Apple, you’ve been an amazing brand to represent and we’ll now watch you from the sidelines with interest. But Bite’s future now lies in a different direction and we’re excited about the potential that we see for our business and are anxious to achieve it.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments }
Great decision to write this blog post! A good insight into the real story.
Good post, Clive. It’s hardly surprising PR Week wrote the way they wrote, given the stature of Apple as a company. Naturally, everyone assumes it is a massive budget and will therefore cripple you. Ha bloody ha. Anyway, thanks for referencing me – remember the video where I explained the Bite name to Oracle? I think it was inspired by the terrier-like females we had in the company at the time – Mel and PC Wilks come to mind. And I should point out that it came down to a shoot-out between Bite and Judy’s favourite, Rough ‘n Tumble. Imagine ….
Crikey, that’s brought back some memories. Whatever happened to Mel? And Judy went off to do Bite in the US, didn’t she?
(By way of explanation, I was working at MacUser back then…)
I was intrigued to get the ‘other side of the story’ but unfortunately this post just reads like a desperate attempt to try and play down the significance of what happened. I will freely admit I have no insight into what really went on and also that I tend to treat anything a PR says with a certain degree of cynicism – but nonetheless this article does nothing to actually put the record straight, but rather just seems to try and deflect the blow.
Ian
I can assure you that my blog entry was not designed to ‘deflect the blow’ and certainly wasn’t written in desperation. Instead, I wrote it because the PR Week story was not a wholly accurate description of what had happened between Bite and Apple. In that sense I was therefore trying to help those who ‘had no insight into what really went on’ see that there may have been an alternative version of events here. Whether people choose to belief that version is, I guess, a matter of personal preference.
Clive
Matt…sshh, I’m still going to open a business called Rough & Tumble one day! Shrinking Violets was my other fave, and I believe you were partial to Cumulo Nimbus?!?!?!
Mr B – hello! I’m in still the US, but with another agency now. How the devil are you?
Comments on this entry are closed.