Seat at the Table

If the irony of Andrew Cohen of CBS (yes, the one that had a few misreporting fiascos) bashing PR (really, Andrew, all PR people all liars? Isn’t presenting opinion as fact a form of overspinning?) drove you crazy, then enjoy this rebuttal by the hero of PR - Stanley Bing:

I’ve always been taught that the best teachers and speakers (in other words, communicators) are able to make complex ideas simple.  Doing this requires avoiding complex words and sticking to plain English words - the kind you use at polite non-business dinner conversation. 

So when I saw the AP article on local British governments committing to cutting out “non-words” I had a moment of embarrassment for PR industry.   Why weren’t we making this call?  Here’s what the local British government association is aiming to achieve:

The Local Government Association, whose members include hundreds of district, town and county councils in England and Wales, on Friday sent out a list of 100 “non-words” that it said officials should avoid if they want to be understood.

The list includes the popular but vague term “empowerment;” “coterminosity,” a situation in which two organizations oversee the same geographical area; and “synergies,” combinations in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Officials were told to ditch the term “revenue stream” for income, as well as the imprecise “sustainable communities.” The association also said councils should stop referring to local residents as “customers” or “stakeholders.”

Reading this got me thinking that if there’s one thing the PRSA and other PR related industry groups could do, it’s lead the charge to eradicate business buzzwords and bring back the English language.  Doing this would address several key problems for the industry is seen (other wise known as perception problems):

1) Helping companies clearly communicate to the people who care (i.e., the stakeholders).  I’m sure we can do better if we are using the offending buzzwords as much as any other consulting profession.

2) Providing true leadership in communications.  Right now, a [British] government association taking a communications lead on something as fundamental as speaking clearly.  Let’s be the communications leaders we should be and, as an industry, call on corporate America to do the same.

3) Provide the best possible communications counsel.  I don’t think we are doing this now if our counsel does not start and end with asking our clients to speak clearly and in plain English.  How can it if the presentations to our clients are filled with this very jargon (I’ve been in enough to know).

If anyone has seen this actual list, I’d love to get a copy.  It may be our next great piece of PR literature.

(disclosure: I’ve used the offending language including stakeholder, value-add, maximize and other 6+ letter words more times than I can admit).

Every once in a while I pick up an 800 call in the evening to see what organization still thinks it’s wise to call us at home.  Usually it’s some non-profit organization fund raising or my bank with a new offer (thus causing me to look at switching banks).

The other night I was unpleasantly surprised to hear The Gap offer me a new credit card using an automated dial out message.  Hearing this, all I could think was “dear Gap, just how dumb are you?”

Companies often do not put business decisions that impact public perception through the PR ringer.  They should.  Maybe The Gap would have done this anyway but I can’t image The Gap wants it’s brand to be seen as one known for harassing people at home to buy a credit card using automatic messages.  First, these calls come across as very low end.  Second, it’s bad enough to disturb the dinner hour, but to not have the decency to do it with a real person adds insult to injury and sends the message that we have no personal touch.

Next time someone brings up The Gap, this phone is what will illustrate my opinio.

If you haven’t read the Wall Street Journal article on buy and bail real estate and Columbia Journalism Review critique of that article, I would add it to the recommended reading list.  (buy and bail is where people buy a new home at a lower price and then bail on their current home which has a higher mortgage).

I’ve always stated that everyone spins - journalists, PR people, marketers and people in everyday conversation.  What’s important as a professional is that the spin, or context, in which you present a story or fact be completely backed up by verifiable facts.  I don’t expect dinner partner conversations to keep this in mind, but I do expect public relations professionals to do so (which is why we are always pushing research so hard).

The problem with the WSJ article, according to the CJR, was that it presented buy and bail real estate as a phenomenon but then presented no facts to back it up.  It only cited several pieces of anecdotal evidence.  If that’s all there was, either it should not have been published or should have been written as a potential problem that the system currently allows (even then I think it’s shaky as what is not a potential problem).

In fact, the article addresses this by saying (down low) the practice does not appear to be widespread.  But if so, they just admitted they overspun when referring to it as a new phenomenon.  It’s a potential one, not a new one.  This is lesson two for professionals, pick your facts and then pick the right words to present them.

Spinning is, according to my definition, for presenting a biased view of a situation and facts.  This is in fact a part of every day conversation (ever talked politics in a social setting)?   The problem with spin is that is easily leads to facts being misrepresented or potentially made up.

This isn’t about gloating over journalists spinning as much if not more than public relations professionals.  It’s an example of what not to do and a reminder that whatever your position is in the marketplace, be prepared to back it up.

I’ll always maintained that the strongest communications programs always remember that it’s the bottom line that determines business success.  But I also maintain that if the bottom line is what defines the business, the chances of success drop precipitously as a business succeeds due to mission and purpose - the bottom line is just the most fundamental measure of that success.

And that’s Sears’ problem right now.  They seem to exist to survive and not serve a purpose to customers and communities.  After reading about yet another bad quarter and misguided strategy, I thought I’d compare how Sears describes itself versus competitors (as defined by media reporting on Sears).

In taking a look at the about section of Web sites, here are the key lines that jump out for each company:

I found the positioning contrast between Sears and competitors surprising and not a good sign.  Wal-Mart, Target and Lowe’s leading statement all focus on the need . they fill for customers.  For the consumer, they outline why they want to shop there For the investor, they outline their market place position.

Sears, on the other hand, simply makes a market leadership position that is not event quantified.  If you’re going to use the word leading, then back it up with a big number in a market people can relate to and that sows growth.  But that’s only for investors.  Sears isn’t clearly communicating why customers should shop at its stores.  It’s as if Sears is thinking without a sense of mission or specific market in mind.  It’s a drowning business that’s just thinking about saving itself.  That’s fine, but it needs to give customers, the audience most important to its survival, a reason to  save it.

The USC Annenberg School of Communications released it’s 2007 GAP (General Accepted Practices) Study for Public Relations.    There is too much good information to go into detail here so I suggest you download the full GAP Survey here.

There are a few key areas that stood out in terms of what senior level public relations professionals

1. More than a quarter of respondents reported that they have international or global authority over their organization’s PR activities.
2. Reporting to the CEO, Chair or COO is the preferred structure. 
3. Reporting to the c-suite also means having greater responsibility, influence and budget.
4. There is still inadequate resources devoted to PR evaluation.  This is despite increasing press to show value. 
5. PR organizations that reported to the c-suite where more strategic in their evaluation.  For example, evaluation may include contribution to market share and  stakeholder opinion.  PR organizations that reported to marketing were more tactical and focused on clips.

 
There were no major surprises though I think it’s important to see the difference in how PR measures itself based on wether it reports to the c-suite or to marketing.  It seemed to highlight how PR can be a marketing tactic or a strategic center of excellence.  In the past I’ve found many that use PR both ways with corporate communications being the strategic center of PR excellence and public relations being the marketing department.

When reading the report for the purposes of creating a more strategic, c-level public relations function, think about what skills are needed in both the senior PR executive and staff.  Most public relations and corporate communications departments have most of the tactical skills down (e.g., media and blogger relations).  However, there is a separate list of critical skills (survey and other research skills, reputation modeling and risk management, message analysis and more) needed to qualify for the c-suite level of public relations and corporate communications.   

(Thank you to Professor Jerry Swerling who led the study).

Business Week had an excellent update on the state of blogging but missed a core business lesson - do what’s right for your business, not what all your friends are doing.   The article provides a worth update on how blogging has evolved, is right now and where it might be going.  But like so many other articles on the state of blogging, it fails to focus in on which businesses need to engage in blogging and why.  Instead, it leaves a blanket impression that blogging and social media will transform business. 

While I’m out there every day talking about the importance of social media, I’m doing so by first discussing how to determine if and how your company needs to engage in social media activities.  The world is more complex than simply saying you must do it.  Just as not every company needs to be engaging broadcast media, not every company needs to engage in social media. 

A core example is using social media to listen to the customer.  Easily said but not always clear how to implement.  Apple vs. Dell is a high profile case in point. 

Apple is not known for designing products based on customer feedback; they are good at designing what they believe customers will love.  And while they do talk to and listen to blogs, they do not seem to rely on them to make business changes.  In fact, they’ve sued blogs that leaked secrets (something many other companies are wary of doing) and loud blog complaints often fall on deaf ears (e.g., battery replacement issues).

Dell, on the other hand, had a worsening reputation for PC design, quality and customer service.  They’ve been using social media, blog outreach and other forms of social media driven customer communications to gain a reputation as a company that is listening to customers and improving based on what they hear.  So instead of simply coming our with product and process improvements (a la Apple), they are showing how they listen first and will then, hopefully, execute.

Two companies, same industry, similar customer base, very different approaches.    Bottom line: always seriously consider and pursue a social media strategy but first make sure it’s the right one for your company.

Public relations professionals are always watching the reputation impact of ethical business as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs.  A new study covered by the Wall Street Journal (Does Being Ethical Pay) shows how we can better quantify the brand reputation impact CSR programs. 

The article outlines a study to see if and how consumers reward ethical behavior in terms of pricing power.  Will they pay a price premium for high ethical standards? How much do they punish low standards.  You can read the results of the study here.  When doing so, keep in mind three takeaways from this article and research.

1. People will pay a premium for ethical behavior.  This is critical for public relations teams to consider in making recommendations.  Are we recommending a CSR program that will have a positive impact on the brand in the eyes of consumers?  If so, a study such as this one can quantify that impact of a CSR driven reputation program.

2. Consumers may severely punish companies when unethical behavior is uncovered.  The study shows that consumers may penalize companies even more for unethical behavior than they reward them for ethical behavior.  In other words, defensive CSR may be even more important and profitable.  So even if your CEO is not a huge CSR fan, there may be an opportunity to quantify the cost of skipping a CSR audit and potentially facing consumer wrath should unethical behavior get out.

3. High ethical standards (CSR programs) need to be clearly communicated.  This is a key learning is implied in the article but not clearly articulated.  In the study, consumers were well aware of when a company engaged in ethical behavior and rewarded them for it.  In the real world, you can’t expect consumers to find out about good or bad behavior, CSR programs and ethical standards; consumer must be told.  Companies often have a strong focus on upholding the highest ethical standards but don’t clearly communicate how these standards are implemented in a way that affects their customers. 

This last learning means there is a potentially huge opportunity for companies to uncover substantial hidden value in their brand in a way that translates into a clear financial impact.  The opportunity for public relations professionals is to use CSR audits to determine where communicating high ethical standards will enhance the brand reputation in a way that has a quantifiable financial impact.  In other words, make sure there is no bad behavior then do a better job of communicating relevant good behavior, and customers will buy more and pay more.

Other posts of interest:

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts show how being environmentally friendly is just good business
http://www.fortexgroup.com/blog/2008/05/01/kohlberg-kravis-roberts-makes-a-serious-reputation-move-with-the-environmental-defense-fund/

CSR as risk management
http://www.fortexgroup.com/blog/2008/01/21/csr-as-risk-management/

It’s always notable when a major corporation makes a serious business move to enhance it’s green focus and reputation.  It’s particularly notable when a major private equity firm like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company - a firm that represents the bottom line investor value focus of private equity - makes such a move.  This is a firm that only makes moves if they think there’s a real financial return.

Today’s New York Times covers Kohlberg’s partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund to improve the performance of the companies in which the private equity firm invests.  The move shows that being environmentally friendly is not simply a reputation issue but a bottom line business issue.  How the value of being an eco-friendly company may differ depending on the business - more sales for a consumer company, sustainable energy plans for a manufacturer - but the move by Kohlberg shows that there is real financial value to be found in being eco-friendly.  The result, first for Kohlberg and potential for their companies, a greener reputation.

This is the cart and horse lesson for companies.  Kohlberg and the Environmental Defense Fund did not first do a PR push to say how they will become green.  They announced a specific business move the commits the private equity firm to pushing its companies to be environmentally friendly in a way that has  positive business impact.  The PR driven reputation can then come from the business moves being made.

Hopefully, we will soon see examples from this partnership that provide additional lessons from corporate America.  Reputation does not simply result from a strong public relations and reputation management strategy, but from a strategy that is wrapped around real, substantial business moves.  If you’re in corporate communications the question you should be asking yourself is "would my company have me suggest a similar move or do a reputation evaluation of such a move that would be considered by senior management."  If the answer is yes, then you’re a business executive with PR expertise that sits at the table.  If the answer is no, then your are  PR executive waiting to execute what those at the table decide.

I have no idea if American as Apple Pie is copyrighted but we seem to be heading in that direction. This sad article on the official Little League organization suing over the use of the phrase "Little League" certainly makes it seem possible.  It’s a great lesson on how organizations blow it when aggressive legal counsel takes the drivers seat ahead of reputation management counsel (the recording industry has been doing this for years).

When you own the name of something so embedded in the culture of a country there is terrific opportunity to leverage the brand value.  The official Little League could simply seek non-paid permissions that enhance the value of the brand and present revenue opportunities.  For example, it could allow leagues to use the phrase providing commission is paid on any goods being charged and provided they meet certain guidelines to ensure both quality and fairness (e.g., abide by certain rules, etiquette etc).  The result would be stronger positive feelings toward the brand, new revenue opportunities and as American as apple pie.  Instead, the association will look petty, selfish and as American as petty lawsuits. 

(disclosure: I am a coach in a baseball league for children that was asked to stop using the phrase - we have as our lawyers have other work to do).