Want that figurative seat at the table? Provide business (not PR) counsel first
- Posted by Ephraim Cohen on March 16th, 2006 filed in Agency Management, Business of PR, Corporate Communications, General, Industry PR, PR Strategy, Positioning, Public Relations, Reputation Management
The PR industry commonly complains that it deserves a seat at the table. Does it? Other senior level functions such as finance and legal provide counsel that starts first with recommended business changes to improve the legal or financial situation. How often does the communications counselor start with such business recommendations in order to improve the reputation. But if a reputation problem stems from audiences properly understanding a flawed business, then the business must be fixed before the communcations can solve the reputation problem.Â
To put it in terms of a simple decision making tree process: look at the company’s reputation challenge and decide if it is due to A) a communications problem where the company is being misrepresented in the public’s eye; or B) a business problem where a lousy business practice is being properly presented in the public’s eye. If A, professionals must push management to make business changes first, then turn to PR second. If B, it is in the communications department realm of responsibility first.Â
The graphic below illustrates both this simple decision making tree as well as where companies usually fall down on the job - by ignoring business problems and pushing for PR to communicate the problem away.
Today’s Wall Street Journal Marketplace section has an excellent case study on how making fundamental business changes can lead to fundamental reputation changes. The article covers how the credit bureau industry is being seen as far more consumer friendly by not simply communicating with consumers, but by offering helpful services. This is a far cry from only a few years back when credit bureaus were often cited as consumer credit enemy #1.
This is a perfect example of why public relations professionals, especially at the corporate level, should be business consultants as much as communications consultants.  Communications professionals need to both recognize when reputation problems stem from business problems, not communications problems, and then articulate how different business strategies will affect the company reputation.  When we are at the point where it is both common for our industry to not only provide this advice, but to be listened to, then we’ll have truly earned that figurative seat at the table.Â
Sphere: Related Content
March 16th, 2006 at 4:07 am
What a fantastic post. I’ve used this logic so many times and been looked at funny. The unsaid is usually “our business is our business…you need to make the bad press stop and the good press start.”
I love the chart…it crystalizes the sentiment so clearly. Thanks for writing this.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:37 am
[...] April 7th, 2006 Not measuring the most important thing - audience opinion, message retention, reputation - is often what keeps public relations departments in that “why don’t we get respect” rut. Seth Godin makes a good point that we shouldn’t bother measuring things that aren’t important, but why it’s done so often should also be asked. It’s done because it’s often easier to show progress using metrics that aren’t all that important but tend to show better results. Media relations is a core tactic for getting messages out to audiences through third parties. What really matters here is that the messages appear in media truly read by the target audience, and that the article leaves the reader with the desired impression. What’s the best way to do that? Ask the audience (survey). What’s the second best way to do that? Analyze articles only in media your audience has told you they read/watch. What the third best way? Analyze the message wherever it appears. What’s done most often? The last one. Measuring every message in every article allows public relations teams to show quantity not quality. Quantity in media relations results is what too many people think count. It does, but only with quality. I’ve seen the standard message/clip measurement used all to often in front of senior management to great, though not alway obvious, harm. First, management may see metrics, but they don’t see the value of media relations (the impact on public perception). Second, media relations measurement is often the centerpiece measurement system leaving the impression that the main purpose of public relations is media relations. So how should companies decide what to measure? They should look at measuring both at a tactical level and a strategic level. At a tactical level it is looking for performance data such as getting the quantity and quality of media placements, speaking opportunities, analyst reports and the like. At the strategic level, it’s how the final target audience (e.g., investors, consumers of your product) perceives the company. It’s testing to see if they are getting the messages, if their perception of the company is changing, if a sponsored event or speaking engagement had an impact on how they view a brand or company. I would also suggest that tactical data not be used as the primary measurement tool for senior management. It can be used to show progress or efficiencies (clip and message count performance year over year) but only in conjunction with perception surveys. For public relations departments that want to break the perception of being media focused only, never present media relations alone. Always present it next to data that lines up with other high impact programs (SEO PR, industry analyst relations, speaking engagements, information mailings etc), along with perception surveys that show how all the programs impact public perception. None of this is new to seasoned public relations folk. I think it’s not done more often as too many PR departments know their programs aren’t always having a real reputation impact, I think it’s that they realize the company never truly committed to the program in the first place (not enough dollars, not enough executive time, not enough business moves to match desired perception, etc). And without real commitment, there’s won’t be real impact. If that was measured, then someone would have to tell the CEO…and that means talking not PR but real business…and whole other issue (click to see the “providing business counsel (not PR)” post). [...]
April 24th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
[...] This is a solid example of how good PR results not from good PR plans, but good business moves (public relations then communicate those moves in the best and most appropriate light possible). [...]