Seat at the Table

Are you focused on business or focused on PR?  That’s a critical question for public relations executives that want to “sit at the table” (a tired but still appropriate phrase).   It’s the difference between being reactionary and a pure communicator, and seeking to understand when, how and why a business move with a strong reputation impact should be sought.

Yesterday’s USA Today provided a good example of this issue in an article on the greening of - or desire to green - data centers.  It points out that such an objective can make good business sense as energy costs are high and a green data center makes for good public relations while also pointing out that while a press release is easy, greening a data center is hard.  The question public relations counselors should be askign is as follows: is the reputation and related business impact important enough for this to be a company objective?  It is the best public relations person that will address this as a business question prior to decisions being made.

The job of the counselor should not be to simply best communicate the decision (where too many PR departments start), but to provide an analysis of the impact of the decision before it is even made.   The analysis should focus not simply on the reputation impact, but on the related business impact.  That means sometimes saying that it may be a high profile issue, but it’s not one that will affect the business (e.g., because buyers, investors, regulators etc may not care).

The chart below shows the different phases a public relations and reputation management counselor may need to forecast.  It tracks the potential scenarios of where buyers, public dialogue and a company’s reputation stand on an issue. 

1. This is the starting phase where there is little concern or awareness all around.  Here, professionals should be forecasting potential issues and making plans but no immediate action is usually needed.
2. Here, the company stays in line with public  concern but is ahead of buyer concern.  Companies that are simply being proactive are rewarded while those with customers that will never care may end up seeing this position as nice PR with questionable business value (and will potentially cancel the program at some point).
3. Here, buyers are in line with public concern so if the company is lagging in addressing the issue, it may cost them business (e.g., companies that use data centers may steer business, and even pay a premium, for a green data center).
4. At this point, a company is in line with its buyers although the public is ahead of both of them.  This was Wal-Mart where there was big public concern over their health care practices but that didn’t affect sales as this was less of an issue for their buyer base
5. This is where a company like Wal-Mart is heading.  They are not in line with public discussion on employee health care but are ahead of their customers.  Moves like this are often made to head off potential buyer concern (you don’t want to wait to lose money) as well as government action (if you’re a larger company).   For companies that see an issue continuing to gain momentum, this is often the optimal position.   It allows the company to show action and be ready for more should buyers and other bottom line audiences (e.g., regulators) become concerned, but the company does not need to invest to the level of the public dialogue.
   
   Technorati tags: environment, green, data centers, wal mart, wal-mart, usa today, reputation risk management, reputation management