Some PR practitioners – normally junior ones – think that their job is always to be “invisible”, and ask journalists to refer to them only as “a spokesperson”.

But, as David Segal of The New York Times has pointed out, when a person who is paid to speak for a living demands to be anonymous, it sounds ridiculous. And, in my view, if a PR practitioner is not willing to be quoted representing his paymasters, he’s working for the wrong people.

Actually, given that the media and business is more informal than ever – especially with blogs and social media – the use of the term “spokesman” without a name looks increasingly bizzare.

Besides, journalists like speaking to players, not someone who is too insecure or junior to be directly quoted. Organisations not wanting to give access to the CEO, ought at least to give access to someone with a name.