Three great aesthetic procedures, one great magazine editor

So why indeed has that Look magazine article stirred my passions so much? (for the original coverage of our latest press outing click on : (https://www.miloclinic.com/blog/?p=239 ).

Well to be honest  I am not that bothered about what happened, but it makes for a good blog..

So let me tell you a story…

Following our press coverage in last month’s Grazia, Look magazine contacted me to help them put together an article on 6 of the new procedures loved by the A-listers and they proposed that these were quick nip/tuck procedures, perfect for red carpet outings. Having previously read about our expertise on eye bag and nose procedures, the journalist asked for our help in putting together texts on these two topics. I gave them a long interview and put them  in touch with some of our willing patients who would be happy to talk to the press, and having thanked me, the journalist said that she would be in touch when the article was published.

A few days later, the PR agency from the Harley Medical group contacted me (I still do some occasional sessions for them) asking me to talk to Look magazine for an article on new Nip/Tuck procedures, as having heard about my leading status in the field of baby botox, they were very keen for me to give an interview on the topic. This sounds familiar , I thought to myself..

Imagine my surprise when on the day of the article coming out, Milo clinic was only attributed to the eye bag section, baby botox was suddenly the expertise of some phantom doctor at the Harley Medical Group, and most surprising of all, the nose shaping procedures were attributed to an even more invisible doctor at the other large aesthetic chain, Transform. In addition, Juvederm Ultra was suddenly the filler of choice for noses, and restylane for eye bags.. A balancing act me thinks?!

Well as the great  Oscar Wilde once said :

“In America the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs for ever and ever”

And how apt and how correct he was, especially during the current pre election fervour which is sweeping the UK .. (just as an aside, it is my humble opinion that only David Cameron and the Conservatives can save this country right now from a certain apocalypse. Go Dave! I’ll be watching all night on Thursday..and of course Dave will be leading us for 5 years at least.)

In our profession, we rely on journalists quite a lot , we need them to spread the word of our wonderful ever expanding profession, with all it’s daily advances and novelties. We also rely on them to recognise us when we do good work, when we have gained great experiences, and rely on them to spread the word far and wide. And I have learned through years of dealing with journalists, that they are hardly ever wrong. Yes they do need to sell their publications, and that means that they sometimes over step the mark, but usually they are very very fair and give very balanced opinions.

In the case of the Look article we are discussing, it is obvious that it was the editor’s decision to make some of the changes. Was he wrong? As I said, definitely not! At first I thought to myself, rather self boastfully, I AM the leading expert in these 3 fields, and should be credited for it, but when I had time to think I realised that what the editor did made absolute sense. They were trying to give a balanced view, and in describing 6 cutting edge aesthetic treatments, they wanted to point the reader to 6 different centres of excellence. To point the reader to the same clinic for 50% of these procedures, would have just looked lazy and biased…

Until the next blog, “All is fair in love and war” and I can’t remember who said that….