Click here for the press release.

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).

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.

So if 2009 is the year of doom and gloom, how does a business put on a positive, confident face without seeming out of touch with reality?

One fantastic, and fun, example comes from First Round Capital.  Their message is simple, effective and to the point – do your best to have a good year in 2009 and stay on your toes.  They are not saying have a good year or that they will do well.  They are saying you should focus your energy that way but be vigilant (it reminds me of a favorite Ronald Reagan phrase – Trust, But Verify).

Here’s their terrific holiday video, with their portfolio companies, that sums it up.  Watch to the end.

http://holiday.firstround.com/

Thank you to Fred Destin who’s blog brought this to my attention: http://www.freddestin.com/blog/2008/12/from-firstroundcapital—finally-a-2009-cheer-that-makes-we-want-to-post.html

Last week’s BusinessWeek had a column by Frank Lunch on what terms executives should use when communicating.  I think the same column should be read by PR executives to understand what language works with executives.  A few choice quotes from the article lay out some good general rules for effective language

Focusing on "impact" also makes a listener pay attention. This one word causes people to assume they will see a measurable difference.

Another word with increasing resonance is "reliability." Reliability is now even more important among customers than price.

The last two words to make a part of your business vocabulary are "mission" and "commitment." …Commitment means a speaker is willing to put his or her credibility on the line to achieve a successful outcome.

Mission, meanwhile, should not be confused with "mission statements,"…a mission explains in more compassionate terminology what you do, why you do it, and above all, why you care.

Beyond this, PR counsel needs to be communicated in technical business terms as opposed to PR terms.  For example, instead of reputation impact it might be about impacting audience opinion.  

Second, and of particular importance to agencies, is the need to understand a particular company’s culture and language.  A creative company may communicate using qualitative language while a financial firm may be more interested in hearing quantitative language.

I’ll post the full article from the PR Strategist shortly.

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).

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.

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.

That said, the only candidate I don’t think has a bitterness problem is McCain.  Clinton’s complaints about media and right wing conspiracies may show she has a similar bitterness problem.   McCain, on the other hand, has not given out such cues…or at least they haven’t been reported on as heavily (and if the media – including bloggers – are silent , it can be as if it hasn’t happened as far as the public is concerned).

Regardless, I’m still an Obama-Clinton-McCain supporter (in other words, I can live with all three of them) and  I still think the debate is a huge waste of air time as compared to less sexy but far more important issues to voters (how about a little more on the specifics of health care?). 

So why write about this?  Any senior executive that is consistently in the public eye should pay close attention.  Your words, attitude and stories give out cues on an ongoing basis.  Those cues can be as powerful, and sometimes more powerful, than the messages the communications team so carefully crafted.  So mind your Qs.

If Leno is will to cross the picket line then he should be willing to put a steak in the ground and offer a public deal that puts the negative focus on the WGA.

What if Leno went out there and declared that he would not cross the picket line as long as the WGA provided fair compensation to his non-writing staff and people that had paid vacations around seeing Leno shows (there are people who do this).   The core message is that the WGA is costing other individuals including staff and consumers who don’t have the writers big salaries a lot of money and there are a lot more of these people than there are writers. 

At the core of this position is the statement that "I can stand with one group that does well financially or I can stand with many groups that don’t do as well financially…I feel the responsibility to do the latter." (for those that say Leno can compensate out of his pocket he can commit that if he ever declares his own strike, he’ll do that).

Leno, why let yourself get all beaten up.  Take a stand for so many people for whom they are an innocent bystander getting hit by WGA stray bullets.

(note: I actually have no position on the strike at all but just am wondering aloud why Leno, as long as he’s crossing the WGA line, doesn’t take an aggressive stand to defend his position).