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.

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).

In a post about large vs. small agencies, Mike Bawden  makes the good (and what should be but isn’t always obvious) point that what is really important is the quality of people.  Quality in communications often comes down to knowledge, experience and common sense.  Sadly, an early question often asked by companies is the contacts of an agency and not about the quality of the people.  In truth, they should ask about both.

It’s not that contacts don’t matter as they can certainly make it easier to open a door or provide insight into a publication.   But stories get written because they are good stories, not because of contacts.

So what kind of knowledge does matter?  There are a few key areas companies and agencies should be looking for and it can be found both in people with a range of experience in media relations (starting with none).

1. Common sense – This is in short supply with no relief in sight.   Does the person think about the schedule of the reporter (when are they on deadline), read up on what the reporter covers and how they cover the topic (this is one reporters beg PR pros to do…but it is still often forgotton) and think about how they can help the reporter.

2. Know the topic to be a help…not just a call – This isn’t just about knowing the company or product being pitched but being a category expert.  Can you answer questions about competitors and their products? Growth of the industry?  Describe the consumer base?  If you can be an expert you can be a resource.  If you can’t, you’re just another cold caller.

3. Know what’s going on in the world – Too many PR people just read about their industry.  Be a news junkie.  Any reporter is going to want to fit their story into the hot topic of the day (e.g., security during a war, gifts and shopping or ecommerce during the holidays etc).  Be the first to suggest how a topic the reporter covers ties into a current trend, be prepared with data on the trend, and then be prepared for at thank you.

In the end knowledge and common sense rule.  In any profession, a combination of consideration (including people manners) and knowledge is a winning combination.  That may be more true in media relations even if it at times does not seem more common.

And by the way, my team has a great set of media contacts.  But a good portion of the time (perhaps most), we’ve gotten the best results by matching up our best pitches with the best reporter and not the one we know the best.  It’s often a huge difference.

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. 

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. 

As I noted in a recent comment, the best public relations comes from a combination of solid business practices – strong business model, quality products or services, treating key internal and external audiences well – with the ability to clearly communicate the strength of these practices.  Does this require a blog?  Not necessarily. 

As Jeremy Pepper points out today, AT&T (sorry, at&t) might not get blogs, but they are still going to be captains of industry and everyone will know what they are up to – rebuilding the old AT&T as the largest national and local telecommunications carrier.

This same issue came up in posts by Shel Isael, author (with Robert Scoble) of Naked Conversations wondering if Target Stores should be blogging.  Why?  They seem to have a communications model centered on letting the business to speak for itself.  Consumers come in, have an experience that reflects the public messaging (great products, great service) and then let their friends know (that’s where I hear most of Target’s reputation messages).  Maybe there will be a need for other communications strategies and tactics one day (such as blogging), but that does not seem to be today.   Not every business can do this, but when they can, it may be the best strategy of all.

The bottom line point to be made is that public relations professionals need to take a step back and learn what business is about and what it’s not about.  It’s about running a great operation for it’s key consituencies (community, investors, customers, employees etc).  The role public relations should be playing at the corporate reputation level is two pronged: 1) to help communicate this fact when it needs communicating (Target does not seem to need it, at&t does not seem to need it, Wal-Mart most definitely does need it); 2) to advise on what business steps may need to be taken to form a business model that would lead to a great reputation (this is not different that Karl Rove suggesting that certain legislation will shore up Bush’s reputation in a political base).  Both of these areas require a strong understanding of business and a public relations mentality that has the business driving the reputation and not vice versa.

Want corporate executives to take public relations more seriously?  Then understand that in the end, it’s all about business.