In discussing public relations counsel, I often hear discussions focus on reputation over understanding the public.   However, some of the best reputations are earned by taking a PR approach that relies first on understanding the public, then by making business decisions around that understanding, and, finally, communicating those decisions and related actions.   An article on M&T Bank Corp in Fortune focuses in on this approach:

In the article, M&T Bank Corp. Chairman and CEO Robert Wilmers is quoted with the following take on public relations:

Bankers should do what he calls "public relations" – not burnishing an image but actually relating to the public and its needs. At M&T, regional banking heads live in their communities (vice chairman Michael Pinto is based in Baltimore, New York Metro head Kevin Pearson in New York City), and their employees get involved in everything from volunteering at a bake sale to schmoozing the local pols. Every area has its own advisory board made up of merchants who weigh in on key loans. President Mark Czarnecki, who started as a bank manager in 1977, says the bank has learned that the closer a customer lives to a retail branch, the better he performs on his loans and the more bank services he is likely to use.

There are a few very notable points about M&T Bank Corp’s approach to public relations:

1. Mr. Wilmers takes the time to understand his business’ audience in order to make the best decisions for his company and customers.  The result is a positive consumer reputation.  One could look at their local approach to management (placing senior executives in the markets they oversee) as a business move driven by both business and PR considerations as management understands that just locating executives near customers drives a reputation that results in more business.
2. Business decisions drive reputations.  This is a redundant point but it needs to be hammered home.  If you read the whole article, you’ll find that the result of a key business decision is, in fact, the desired image (a local bank that understands customers) and reputation (a solid business approach that others should consider emulating).   This is not a bank that makes business decisions then  wonders how to achieve a certain reputation and image. 
3. Research research research.  Understanding an audience takes research.  It can be a in-depth survey or having executives meet and talk to the public/audience (I tend to recommend both but, if only one, do the latter).

There were engineers in almost every country, and way too many product people. We had one product management person for every three engineers,We had a lot of people telling engineers what to do but nobody fucking doing anything. Excuse me. I knew that would slip out one of these times. (click here for the audio)

Her honest approach to communications (talking the way she talks, not the way someone trained her to talk) seems to simply reflect her approach to business – no one doubts her sincerity and seriousness because she’s honest to a f***ing fault about getting things done.  Here’s a good outline of her style at GigaOm.

I’m one of the (few? many?) public relations professionals cheering on this style of communications.  While it’s often not appropriate, it is how people (including executives) talk in the real world and that needs to always be kept in mind.   When an executive doesn’t use their natural language style but instead gets caught up in PR speak (yes, I said it), audiences detect and that affects the trust factor.  People are more likely to believe someone they can relate to and people easily related to people who talk like they do.  

So have I actually told an executive it’s OK to curse?  Actually, yes (ping me as I’d rather not call out that executive…but they took my advice and it f***ing worked).   While executives should stay on message, they should also communicate messages in their natural, honest style.  And if that f***ing means dropping a lot of f***cking f-bombs, then f***cking do it.  You’re more likely to be believed.  And from what I’ve seen, no one doubts that Carol is seriously focused on fixing broken things f***cking fast.

You can find more examples of Bartz’s “real world communications” style at Alley Insider here.  

In a recent earnings call with Wall Street analysts, Mr. Bass was reporting a lousy last quarter for the last year and a murky, at best, outlook globally.  When an analyst, fishing hard for good news, asked what regions were immune to the global slump, Mr. Bass made it clear he would not try to spin bad news into good:

Well, I think Antarctica has been relatively immune, maybe Greenland, as well, although not Iceland, as we all found out.

Enough said.

(note: I first picked up on this in Fred Hickey’s High-Tech Report and you can get the full background from Barron’s).

Paul Boutin has a great example of one of my favorite simple but effective positioning approaches for startup technology companies – take aim at a high profile 800 lbs gorilla and back it up an argument that you can win using strong numbers.

Boutin briefly outlines how Rudder differentiated itself from Quicken Online (and newer but still higher profile Mint) – numbers.

Here’s the email pitch he got from Rudder PR.

While Rudder (www.rudder.com), a new, FREE personal finance tool, might look similar to others at first, this personal finance tool has a very different focus – a big reason why 45% of Rudder’s users are ex-Quicken users and 35% are ex-Mint.com users!

Boutin’s point is that “Rudder touts the wisdom of the crowd, rather than the genius of its founder.”  This is another take on what PR people often advise – get and lead with third party testimony.  But there are more important points here that a startup executive should remember

1. Media love a fight and reporting on potential weaknesses of seemingly undefeatable giants.  In this case, how this small startup might post a threat to Quicken.  Remember, a news story is a story complete with a protagonist and antagonist.
2. While they love it, they hear it all the time (“we’re better than Microsoft because…”).  What’s interesting is to hear how a company is already starting to beat the big guy with numbers to back it up.
3. Numbers (real, not made up) serve as both a story and proof of something.  In other words, numbers are news – not features, strategies or individual customer wins.

On of my favorite examples was our Musiwave work back in 2004.  Musiwave, a startup (eventually aquired first by OpenWave then Microsoft) that delivered mobile music.  We worked with them before over the air music was a topic of industry conversation.  So we took aim at Apple’s iPod and outlined why our over the air model would put the iPod in a position of potential extinction with numbers to back it up – we could show adoption rates in Europe where the role out started.  In addition, we also have an economic model to show how over the air music would make far more money for the wireless and music industries than the iPod.    The trade and business media loved it and used Musiwave as a prime example of changes to come (Barron’s even questioned if the iPod is toast and with a picture of it in a toaster).  Obviously, we were on the mark as Apple is now offering over the air music through the iPhone (if the iPod isn’t toast, it certainly seems to be playing second fiddle).  Here’s a case study on our work with Musiwave.

Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic; and professor at the Harvard Business School

[Siemen’s] competitors should have come out and stated their own anti-corruption principles…CEOs need to face reality…CEO’s often go into denial, and that’s the worst thing they can do.  it’s a huge mistake to hire a PR firm and ask it to restore your image – Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic and currently a professor of management at Harvard Business School.

Mr. George not only provided some very good PR counsel, he also highlighted a reputation problem with the PR agency industry’s reputation (yes, ironically).   Hiring a PR agency is often seen as a way to order a good reputation.  As this quote shows, smart executives know that is not the case.  

PR counselors, and in particular agency based executives, need to be consistently clear that reputation is not a function of communication, but is a function of communicating business action.  Mr. George understands this, but obviously does not see PR agencies as a source of this type of business counsel.

The level of respect for an agency’s work always goes up when clients see that clear, specialized business counsel, not simply PR counsel, is being provided.   Bill George’s quote is a strong reminder of the importance of this approach.  

Of course, for this to happen agencies have to start hiring based on strategic business smarts and not simply tactical smarts.  But that’s or another post…

P.S., I was recently asked why, as an PR agency owner, I would post advice to other agencies.  Simple, these are PR industry issues which, if solved by more agencies addressing them, would result in more and better business for all of us.

They all need to listen to the tape of the US Airways pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson River.  He makes decisions by first thinking of the broad, public implications (risking landing in a crowded area), then thinking about is the best choice even if it’s a high risk one (the river) and then goes on.  And he does it all with more calm then I’ve ever seen in the office.  So if you listen to inspirational tapes, throw them out and listen to this instead.

While Thaine may well be correct in thinking that his decision making may have saved the bank, he is missing the larger picture…and maybe, for once, the board, which denied the request, is not.  Thaine is obviously not recognizing the reality that 1) any bonus request is seen as being tantamount to corporate fraud; 2) the leadership role of the CEO is to set a public example and show sensitivity to the economic situation; and 3) the management role is to save as many jobs as possible (laying off people while requesting a bonus does not seem to be consistent with that goal.  So while Thaine certainly deserves a pat on the back for realizing Merrill needed to be sold, he seems to have fallen short in other critical decision making areas.  And one must wonder that if a CEO that can’t see where the world is today, should they be CEO in 2009?

1. Directly addresses key areas using common sense language. Case in point: Stating that taxes are , in fact, a redistribution of wealth but a necessary one making the point that who else will pay for our roads, military and other necessary public investments (yes, there are a million programs we can argue over but that’s separate from the core principle.
2. Did a better job of highlighting McCain’s negative campaign than Obama did by simply reminding everyone that McCain’s campaign announced they were going negative during the economic crisis. 
3. He sounds like an adult and make others sound childish.  Making accusations always brings the maturity level down a notch. 
4. Like the good man he is, he reminds everyone that this is about country first.  Being a Republican (until yesterday), a well regarded military man and a diplomatic that correctly forecasted Iraq, he has respect that most can’t ignore.  Unlike the candidates, it’s easier to believe as he does not back up this position with accusation or party platform policy positions.

Quite a few months ago I wrote that McCain’s hiring of Steve Schmidt would lead to a negative campaign that would turn off voters.  I took a lot of flack for that (especially as I usually hold the position that negative campaigning works).  But in these tough times, people, seem to be trying harder to focus on the issues and ignore the accusations.   By avoiding missteps that create a negative, immature energy and focusing on practical decision making, someone like Powell just reinforces what is really important, and what is campaign noise that should be ignored.

Yes, I know, there will be that political crisis management philosophy that says deny, point and blame and the legal approach that says “never admit wrongdoing.”  But this is about true leadership and faith in government.   Everyone assumes the government played a critical role in letting the markets get to this point.  So if politicians are not, on behalf of the government, willing to take responsibility, how are we to have faith in their ability to be responsible for leading the fix to this problem.

We teach our children to take responsibility for their actions as, by doing so, people are more likely to trust them to do the right thing the next time around.  If our leaders don’t event have a grade-school level sense of responsibility, how are we to trust them with a global-level economic solution?