So it was a tough year: My mother died, I moved into a new house (a good thing, but stressful), and work was crazy. My blogging fell off, but nonetheless I cobbled together this list of my top posts last year in terms of page views:
1. What We Can Learn From America's Hat: Unlike the American version, the Canadian definition of public relations includes an emphasis on relationships. Damn socialists.
2. Frankly My Dear, We Don't Give a Damn: In which a once-adored but declining amusement park tells customers with food allergies to go pound sand.
3. And You Do What For A Living? Speaking of defining PR, in this post I reviewed the leading contenders in the PRSA's effort to eke out a new definition for our ever-evolving craft.
4. The Medium is Still the Message: It turns out people trust "owned media", like a brand's web site, over paid media like advertising even though the source of the information is ultimately the same: the brand itself.
5. What's in a Name? Faltering brands that think a new name and new logo will change their fortunes are sadly mistaken.
Happy New Year!
Showing posts with label public relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public relations. Show all posts
Monday, December 31, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Service with a smile
How many times have I said it? Public relations isn't just the responsibility of the people who have that term in their job title. Everyone in your organization plays a role in managing the organization's reputation.
Consider this guest post at the Rep Man's blog, written by a woman whose reflexively anti-Walmart views were softened by the company's steps toward sustainability and the pleasant appearance of its new store in her town. But then she encountered a friend who got a job at said store, and she ended up right back where she started:
We asked how it was going, and initially she raved about the quality and prices of the merchandise. Then, her smile faltered and she admitted that the store’s move from being open for 18 hours to 24 took her and her fellow employees by surprise. They had already accepted the fact that they wouldn’t be scheduled for more than 25 hours to avoid eligibility for health care under the current law. But when she and others signed on, they were told they would be working a daytime shift almost exclusively, and never later than 11. She showed us the schedule that she had just received, which included a shift for the next day that would run until 1:30 a.m. She was sad that she was being asked to work so late and nervous considering that her husband was out of town and her two children would be alone. She initially felt a little better that at least her pay would be higher during overnight hours, but then she learned that this increase only applied if the employee starts work at 10 pm or later. Guess how many employees do that?
Your employees may come to work with a great attitude. They may smile at customers and answer all their questions in a friendly manner. They may work hard, because they are conscientious and have a work ethic instilled in them long ago.
But what do they say about your company when they are chatting with a friend over coffee? When they bump into an acquaintance they haven't seen in a while, and are asked, So how do you like that job? Does their smile freeze in place, or do they tell the truth?
Walmart's treatment of its rank-and-file workers and its ruthless purchasing policies have earned it condemnation, but those practices are what allow it to offer the low prices that are at the heart of its brand. Millions of consumers are loyal, and Walmart no doubt decided long ago the rewards are worth the risks.
But not every organization may be so comfortable with that bargain. Their margin of error may be much smaller than that of the world's largest retailer. They may need to be well-regarded by the public. Have they considered that how they treat their employees may be nearly as important as how they treat their customers?
It may be one of the great tragedies of organizational life in America that public relations and human resources don't work more closely together. Folks who work in HR have a tough job and deal with headaches that I would not have the first clue how to cure. But I think they would be well served by taking our counsel on how the interests of the organization and the interests of the people who make it run often overlap, and that the former cannot be served at the expense of the latter.
Consider this guest post at the Rep Man's blog, written by a woman whose reflexively anti-Walmart views were softened by the company's steps toward sustainability and the pleasant appearance of its new store in her town. But then she encountered a friend who got a job at said store, and she ended up right back where she started:
We asked how it was going, and initially she raved about the quality and prices of the merchandise. Then, her smile faltered and she admitted that the store’s move from being open for 18 hours to 24 took her and her fellow employees by surprise. They had already accepted the fact that they wouldn’t be scheduled for more than 25 hours to avoid eligibility for health care under the current law. But when she and others signed on, they were told they would be working a daytime shift almost exclusively, and never later than 11. She showed us the schedule that she had just received, which included a shift for the next day that would run until 1:30 a.m. She was sad that she was being asked to work so late and nervous considering that her husband was out of town and her two children would be alone. She initially felt a little better that at least her pay would be higher during overnight hours, but then she learned that this increase only applied if the employee starts work at 10 pm or later. Guess how many employees do that?
Your employees may come to work with a great attitude. They may smile at customers and answer all their questions in a friendly manner. They may work hard, because they are conscientious and have a work ethic instilled in them long ago.
But what do they say about your company when they are chatting with a friend over coffee? When they bump into an acquaintance they haven't seen in a while, and are asked, So how do you like that job? Does their smile freeze in place, or do they tell the truth?
Walmart's treatment of its rank-and-file workers and its ruthless purchasing policies have earned it condemnation, but those practices are what allow it to offer the low prices that are at the heart of its brand. Millions of consumers are loyal, and Walmart no doubt decided long ago the rewards are worth the risks.
But not every organization may be so comfortable with that bargain. Their margin of error may be much smaller than that of the world's largest retailer. They may need to be well-regarded by the public. Have they considered that how they treat their employees may be nearly as important as how they treat their customers?
It may be one of the great tragedies of organizational life in America that public relations and human resources don't work more closely together. Folks who work in HR have a tough job and deal with headaches that I would not have the first clue how to cure. But I think they would be well served by taking our counsel on how the interests of the organization and the interests of the people who make it run often overlap, and that the former cannot be served at the expense of the latter.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Still alive
It's been an interesting couple of months. My mother died, I moved, and the job has been crazy. (Crazy good, though.) Before I make my full-fledged re-entry to blogging, let me share friend and former colleague Dave Copeland's thoughts on PR in a post about bad pitches:
I don’t complain about them – a good P.R. person is not the nemesis or evil entity a lot of hack journalists pretend they are (while cowering at their teet when they need to). But I will say it’s very rare for me to consider an unsolicited pitch from a P.R. person I haven’t previously worked with.
Two things: Who is enough of a tool to offer to send a journalist a gift through the mail? I don't want to work with a journalist who can be bought, because if they can be bought by me, they can be bought by the competition. (Of course, publications can be bought, and that's OK with most of us -- if I buy an ad and you offer me editorial, I'm damn well going to take it.)
Second, notice the emphasis on relationships. Dave has to know you if you want to dance. There is a reason it's called "public relations", people.
I don’t complain about them – a good P.R. person is not the nemesis or evil entity a lot of hack journalists pretend they are (while cowering at their teet when they need to). But I will say it’s very rare for me to consider an unsolicited pitch from a P.R. person I haven’t previously worked with.
Two things: Who is enough of a tool to offer to send a journalist a gift through the mail? I don't want to work with a journalist who can be bought, because if they can be bought by me, they can be bought by the competition. (Of course, publications can be bought, and that's OK with most of us -- if I buy an ad and you offer me editorial, I'm damn well going to take it.)
Second, notice the emphasis on relationships. Dave has to know you if you want to dance. There is a reason it's called "public relations", people.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
A good brand of PR
I've been meaning to sink my teeth in Michael Fineman's explanation of "brand PR", in two parts, which I think really gets at how those of us trained in traditional PR can apply what we know to advancing a company's strategic goals. What Fineman really gets at is bridging the divide between PR and marketing in a way that respects and stays true to the discipline of public relations:
So, in a nutshell, Brand PR as I originally defined it and continue to uphold today is about communicating meaning — what the brand stands for — with a focus on building emotional connections with shared values, creating a "persona," establishing a voice, and demonstrating clearly how the brand meets a demand, trend or issue. But the concept can only really be explained with an example.
The example he provides is a good one: A campaign on behalf of a California-based poultry company to educate local consumers about the habit of out-of-state competitors to use saltwater to keep their chicken fresh:
In the end, we earned 300 million media impressions, 50,000 signatures on petitions to the USDA to disallow the "fresh and natural" labeling on "plumped" chicken and these efforts were championed by a U.S. Senator from California (still under review by USDA.). The Los Angeles Times endorsed the Foster Farms campaign, possibly the first commercial campaign endorsed in a Times editorial. The campaign also earned Foster Farms, Goodby Silverstein & Partners, and Fineman PR an Effie, one of the most prestigious ad and marketing industry awards. Foster Farms won solid consumer positioning as a trusted brand, providing consumers what they wanted: optimal value at a time when many food producers were shrinking packages to leverage profit.
Consumers got it. Market share was maintained during this period, and that was especially notable compared to most industry producers' loss of market share to private label during the same period.
What more can I add? This is exactly the kind of public relations we should all be practicing.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
How about I interview you instead?
One of the drawbacks with being a professional communicator is that everyone thinks they can do your job. After all, everyone communicates right? The fact is, everyone in your organization does practice public relations, whether they know or it not. Every interaction the public has with an employee impacts the organization's reputation, and rarely is this more evident than when a company interviews candidates for a job.
I thought of this after hearing an out-of-work friend tell some rather amusing tales from his own job search. About driving back early from vacation for an interview only to discover the person he was supposed to meet wasn't there, and the person conducting the interview didn't even know what position the interview was for. About learning that a job advertised as a marketing position was actually for an administrative assistant. About being shuffled off into a messy conference room in which he spoke to the interviewer over a stack of folders.
What kind of impression are these organizations making? If a person is worthy of being called in for an interview -- and this is a guy with a lot of experience and a strong record of success -- than they are worth leaving with a favorable view of your organization regardless of whether you choose to hire them.
Last year I earned a master's degree in organizational leadership, and one of my classes was employment law. Call it HR 101; among the topics covered was what you can and cannot ask, under the law, when interviewing candidates for employment. Extremely useful, because common sense isn't always enough of a guide.
Perhaps all new managers should also take a course in PR 101. And it's worth remembering that someday, the person you are interviewing for a job may be sitting on the other side of that desk, and hopefully their memory of you will be a good one.
I thought of this after hearing an out-of-work friend tell some rather amusing tales from his own job search. About driving back early from vacation for an interview only to discover the person he was supposed to meet wasn't there, and the person conducting the interview didn't even know what position the interview was for. About learning that a job advertised as a marketing position was actually for an administrative assistant. About being shuffled off into a messy conference room in which he spoke to the interviewer over a stack of folders.
What kind of impression are these organizations making? If a person is worthy of being called in for an interview -- and this is a guy with a lot of experience and a strong record of success -- than they are worth leaving with a favorable view of your organization regardless of whether you choose to hire them.
Last year I earned a master's degree in organizational leadership, and one of my classes was employment law. Call it HR 101; among the topics covered was what you can and cannot ask, under the law, when interviewing candidates for employment. Extremely useful, because common sense isn't always enough of a guide.
Perhaps all new managers should also take a course in PR 101. And it's worth remembering that someday, the person you are interviewing for a job may be sitting on the other side of that desk, and hopefully their memory of you will be a good one.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Flacking for Jesus
Reuters reports that the U.S. Catholic bishops are planning a public relations campaign to counter all the negative press they've received lately. It's a tricky business, discussing religion on a blog like this, but I've done it before, so here goes: Certainly, to the extent that the Catholic Church's views are misunderstood, and their actions misinterpreted or misreported, a transparent communications strategy is a sound idea. But the source of conflict between the Church and many of its critics is not that the Church's doctrines are misunderstood or inaccurately portrayed; it is the beliefs themsevles. For example:
Outreach efforts also include a Spanish-language video, now in production, that will take the form of a tasteful soap opera, tracing one family's interactions over generations. The drama aims to promote traditional marriage and combat rhetoric that frames gay marriage as an issue of equality, civil rights or justice, said Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland.
OK, so the Catholic Church does not believe that gay people should be allowed to marry as a matter of equality -- but that is precisely why so many people vehemently disagree with its position. Yes, some people are ambivalent and might be less willing to support gay marriage if they are convinced it is not a matter of basic social justice. The Church is well within its rights to take up this debate. But no one misunderstands the bishops' stance. They understand all too well.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the Church changes its views. As a non-Catholic, that's not my place, though I am certainly free to disagree with the bishops and exercise my own rights in trying to counter the Church's attempt to craft public policy. But what is most important about an organization is not what it says, but what it does, and it is what the Church does, what it stands for, that rankles its critics.
A shadow still hangs over the Church when it takes up any issue related to sexual morality because of its role in systematically covering up decades of child sexual abuse. But as grave as that scandal was, and as many people as it brutalized, at least the Church could claim it was an aberation, a violation of its most basic teachings about love, compassion, and sexual decency. The Church could correct its behavior, make amends to whatever extent was possible, and reform itself to ensure nothing of the sort could happen again.
But when it comes to contraception, and abortion, and gay marriage, the Church will inevitably clash with those whose views are different no matter how clearly it communicates its positions. A good PR strategy might fortify the faithful -- which is no small thing -- but it won't win converts, so to speak, unless it compromises on those positions. And if the Church does that, as the bishops themselves might say, what's the point of religion at all?
Outreach efforts also include a Spanish-language video, now in production, that will take the form of a tasteful soap opera, tracing one family's interactions over generations. The drama aims to promote traditional marriage and combat rhetoric that frames gay marriage as an issue of equality, civil rights or justice, said Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland.
OK, so the Catholic Church does not believe that gay people should be allowed to marry as a matter of equality -- but that is precisely why so many people vehemently disagree with its position. Yes, some people are ambivalent and might be less willing to support gay marriage if they are convinced it is not a matter of basic social justice. The Church is well within its rights to take up this debate. But no one misunderstands the bishops' stance. They understand all too well.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the Church changes its views. As a non-Catholic, that's not my place, though I am certainly free to disagree with the bishops and exercise my own rights in trying to counter the Church's attempt to craft public policy. But what is most important about an organization is not what it says, but what it does, and it is what the Church does, what it stands for, that rankles its critics.
A shadow still hangs over the Church when it takes up any issue related to sexual morality because of its role in systematically covering up decades of child sexual abuse. But as grave as that scandal was, and as many people as it brutalized, at least the Church could claim it was an aberation, a violation of its most basic teachings about love, compassion, and sexual decency. The Church could correct its behavior, make amends to whatever extent was possible, and reform itself to ensure nothing of the sort could happen again.
But when it comes to contraception, and abortion, and gay marriage, the Church will inevitably clash with those whose views are different no matter how clearly it communicates its positions. A good PR strategy might fortify the faithful -- which is no small thing -- but it won't win converts, so to speak, unless it compromises on those positions. And if the Church does that, as the bishops themselves might say, what's the point of religion at all?
Monday, June 4, 2012
The Spin Cycle, 6/4
A round-up of recent happenings in the world of PR, marketing, and other
things I find interesting.
Quite a slow week for me blogging, because it was a busy week for everything else. Let's see if I can't do better this week. In the meantime, here's The Spin Cycle:
Infographics are your friend: Why don't PR people embrace infographics more readily, or am I only speaking for myself? Perhaps because many of us started out as writers and are overconfident in our ability to tell stories with words. But we are often surrounded by talented graphic artists. Think outside the paragraph, people.
Google + a minus? Bashing Google + is nearly as trendy as bashing the Facebook IPO, but what struck me about this post was how many Google + users never make a second post. How about Facebook and Twitter? How many dip their toes in the water and then decide not to go for a swim? I'm also perplexed by Google's refusal to share number it claims demonstrate a high degree of engagement among users. Transparency, transparency, transparency.
Goldman Sachs discovers Twitter: Speaking of transparency, Goldman Sachs is giving it a shot in the interest of repairing its battered image. Remember, guys, it's not pulling back the curtain that matters. It's what people see as the curtain falls away that matters. You don't communicate out of a problem you behaved your way into.
Quite a slow week for me blogging, because it was a busy week for everything else. Let's see if I can't do better this week. In the meantime, here's The Spin Cycle:
Infographics are your friend: Why don't PR people embrace infographics more readily, or am I only speaking for myself? Perhaps because many of us started out as writers and are overconfident in our ability to tell stories with words. But we are often surrounded by talented graphic artists. Think outside the paragraph, people.
Google + a minus? Bashing Google + is nearly as trendy as bashing the Facebook IPO, but what struck me about this post was how many Google + users never make a second post. How about Facebook and Twitter? How many dip their toes in the water and then decide not to go for a swim? I'm also perplexed by Google's refusal to share number it claims demonstrate a high degree of engagement among users. Transparency, transparency, transparency.
Goldman Sachs discovers Twitter: Speaking of transparency, Goldman Sachs is giving it a shot in the interest of repairing its battered image. Remember, guys, it's not pulling back the curtain that matters. It's what people see as the curtain falls away that matters. You don't communicate out of a problem you behaved your way into.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Silence is golden. Just ask Netflix
Dave Copeland explores Faceboo's less-is-more PR strategy, which seems to be shared by a lot of other tech companies who find that playing hard to get with the media yields dividends -- or at least, does no harm, which is often just as good. My gripe, as always, is that a lot of people seem to conflate public relations and media relations -- the latter is a tool of the former; they are not interchangable. The fact that you spurn traditional news media coverage is not evidence that you don't do public relations. My first boss always said one of the tough parts about being in public relations is that often your greatest achievements are the stories that don't run.
Besides, with almost 1 billion users and growing, how much has Facebook really needed the traditional media, which has been bleeding readers, viewers, and listeners for decades? The real question is whether Mr. Zuckerberg can continue to dodge the fourth estate now that he has taken his company public and tripped over a hurdle or two along the way. Dave's article notes the coy strategy employed by Apple's Steve Jobs, who could speak directly to Apple's cultish fans even before social media and other forms of audience-centric communications were so dominant. Can Facebook, which has engendered far less affection than Apple, pull this off?
For his sake, let's hope Zuckerberg has learned the lesson of Reed Hastings, and follows the advice of Bart Simpson: If you don't know what to say, keep your fool mouth shut, and at least you won't make things worse.
Besides, with almost 1 billion users and growing, how much has Facebook really needed the traditional media, which has been bleeding readers, viewers, and listeners for decades? The real question is whether Mr. Zuckerberg can continue to dodge the fourth estate now that he has taken his company public and tripped over a hurdle or two along the way. Dave's article notes the coy strategy employed by Apple's Steve Jobs, who could speak directly to Apple's cultish fans even before social media and other forms of audience-centric communications were so dominant. Can Facebook, which has engendered far less affection than Apple, pull this off?
For his sake, let's hope Zuckerberg has learned the lesson of Reed Hastings, and follows the advice of Bart Simpson: If you don't know what to say, keep your fool mouth shut, and at least you won't make things worse.
Friday, May 11, 2012
What do I have to do to get you to read this blog post today?
Sir James Dyson, the world's most eloquent vacuum cleaner salesman, apparently doesn't believe in "brand" despite having spent millions building one, as writer Patrick Hanlon puts it in a recent Forbes article.
Perhaps Sir Dyson is confused about what 'brand' or 'branding really means, the term being a dumping ground for so many things: corporate identity programs, tricky advertising, the nexus of corporate manipulation, and so on.
Hanlon expounds on what a brand really is, and why Dyson fits the bill. My guess, though, is that when Sir James hears "brand" he thinks "marketing" and when he hears "marketing" he thinks "selling" and, as a newly published book explains, people have a deeply ambigious relationship to sales, despite the fact that nothing is more crucial to the functioning of a free market economy:
Yet in American corporations today there is a "class division," ... Many people in business "are clueless about one of the most vital functions, the means by which you actually generate revenue." Salespeople are viewed as some sort of breed apart.
The way I see it, there are three types of people in this world: salespeople; people who are close friends with or related to salespeople; and people who hate salespeople. The majority of us probably fall into the third category, whether or not we care to admit it. (And some of us are glad to admit it.) We stiffen when a salesperson approaches us while we browse through a rack of clothes. We regard people who sell cars, insurance, and real estate as obnoxious con artists. We may desire a product, but when someone tries to sell it to us, suddenly the whole thing seems...a little dirty.
The relationship between marketing and sales is one reason that old-school PR types draw a bright line between their shop and marketing, even though this undermines an organization's effectiveness and alienates the public relations side from business goals. (No wonder the big kids never let us play with them.) But the same technology that has rendered salespeople in many fields obsolete -- allowing consumers to buy products directly and to acquire knowledge once brokered by salespeople -- is forcing the rest of us to take on the role that salespeople traditionally played.
For example, I've made sure that my contact information is easy to find at my university's web site, so that a reporter who needs to find me doesn't give up in frustration. But that means that anyone can find out how to reach me, so I find myself fielding calls from time to time about class registration, financial aid, sporting events, etc. After all, the word "public" is my title, so people expect me to be able to help them, or at least direct them where to go. Many organizations have become flatter and more transparent -- the smart ones have, anyway -- which means that it is harder for us to hide from the people who buy what we are selling.
As far as marketing goes, we've all spent a lot of time ruminating on the crumbling walls between PR, marketing, and other strategic communication fields. Again, technology, and in particular social media, is the driving force. In a way, we are all salespeople now, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to say so.
Perhaps Sir Dyson is confused about what 'brand' or 'branding really means, the term being a dumping ground for so many things: corporate identity programs, tricky advertising, the nexus of corporate manipulation, and so on.
Hanlon expounds on what a brand really is, and why Dyson fits the bill. My guess, though, is that when Sir James hears "brand" he thinks "marketing" and when he hears "marketing" he thinks "selling" and, as a newly published book explains, people have a deeply ambigious relationship to sales, despite the fact that nothing is more crucial to the functioning of a free market economy:
Yet in American corporations today there is a "class division," ... Many people in business "are clueless about one of the most vital functions, the means by which you actually generate revenue." Salespeople are viewed as some sort of breed apart.
The way I see it, there are three types of people in this world: salespeople; people who are close friends with or related to salespeople; and people who hate salespeople. The majority of us probably fall into the third category, whether or not we care to admit it. (And some of us are glad to admit it.) We stiffen when a salesperson approaches us while we browse through a rack of clothes. We regard people who sell cars, insurance, and real estate as obnoxious con artists. We may desire a product, but when someone tries to sell it to us, suddenly the whole thing seems...a little dirty.
The relationship between marketing and sales is one reason that old-school PR types draw a bright line between their shop and marketing, even though this undermines an organization's effectiveness and alienates the public relations side from business goals. (No wonder the big kids never let us play with them.) But the same technology that has rendered salespeople in many fields obsolete -- allowing consumers to buy products directly and to acquire knowledge once brokered by salespeople -- is forcing the rest of us to take on the role that salespeople traditionally played.
For example, I've made sure that my contact information is easy to find at my university's web site, so that a reporter who needs to find me doesn't give up in frustration. But that means that anyone can find out how to reach me, so I find myself fielding calls from time to time about class registration, financial aid, sporting events, etc. After all, the word "public" is my title, so people expect me to be able to help them, or at least direct them where to go. Many organizations have become flatter and more transparent -- the smart ones have, anyway -- which means that it is harder for us to hide from the people who buy what we are selling.
As far as marketing goes, we've all spent a lot of time ruminating on the crumbling walls between PR, marketing, and other strategic communication fields. Again, technology, and in particular social media, is the driving force. In a way, we are all salespeople now, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to say so.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
The Spin Cycle
A round-up of recent happenings in the world of PR, marketing, and other
things I find interesting.
Pepsi Sees Dead Pop Stars: Pepsi's decision to launch a marketing campaign employing the image of the late Michael Jackson provoked a visceral reaction in critics, who observed that you can draw a line from Pepsi to Jackson's demise, given that his dependence on painkillers apparently started with the burns he received while filming a Pepsi commercial in 1984. I doubt many consumers will take the connection that far, but certainly the incident in which Jackson's hair caught on fire remains the strongest association between Pepsi and the King of Pop. To me, it's unseemly because Jackson, despite how much he profited from his talents, and his own responsibility for his behavior, was a man exploited from a young age by people who should have taken care of him, something that continued all his life -- and now unto death.
Apple Pays Less in Taxes than Warren Buffett's Secretary: Well, not really, but the House that Jobs Built has found legal ways to avoid paying ton billions in taxes, and the Flack thinks their response has been rather tone deaf. But unless they plan to change their behavior, or lobby for changes in the tax code -- which the Flack suggests might be in order -- how else are they supposed to respond? It may be time for people to finally come to terms with the fact that Apple, whatever its cultural cachet, is just like any other large corporation, doing what it can to maximize profit. We need to treat them no better, nor any worse, than any other corporation that does the same.
Coke and Pepsi Want to be Your Friend: The cola wars are moving to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites, which to me raises a question: Do consumers really want to engage with every brand out there? I just want to drink soda. That's about where my desire for a relationship ends. I realize that if more and more live much of their lives on social media, a brand can't be invisible and survive for long. I find, however, that not long after I like a brand on Facebook, or follow it on Twitter, I end up regretting is soon after. Maybe it's just because no one has done it right yet.
The Purpose-Driven PR Agency: I'm wrapping up with this item about Edelman's new corporate responsibility practice as a follow-up to last week's item about Penn State hiring the PR giant to help it be more transparent in the wake of the Sandusky scandal. Maybe they hired the right guys after all. Time will tell.
Do you have an item for the Spin Cycle? Send me a reply or DM on Twitter to @jepotts.
Pepsi Sees Dead Pop Stars: Pepsi's decision to launch a marketing campaign employing the image of the late Michael Jackson provoked a visceral reaction in critics, who observed that you can draw a line from Pepsi to Jackson's demise, given that his dependence on painkillers apparently started with the burns he received while filming a Pepsi commercial in 1984. I doubt many consumers will take the connection that far, but certainly the incident in which Jackson's hair caught on fire remains the strongest association between Pepsi and the King of Pop. To me, it's unseemly because Jackson, despite how much he profited from his talents, and his own responsibility for his behavior, was a man exploited from a young age by people who should have taken care of him, something that continued all his life -- and now unto death.
Apple Pays Less in Taxes than Warren Buffett's Secretary: Well, not really, but the House that Jobs Built has found legal ways to avoid paying ton billions in taxes, and the Flack thinks their response has been rather tone deaf. But unless they plan to change their behavior, or lobby for changes in the tax code -- which the Flack suggests might be in order -- how else are they supposed to respond? It may be time for people to finally come to terms with the fact that Apple, whatever its cultural cachet, is just like any other large corporation, doing what it can to maximize profit. We need to treat them no better, nor any worse, than any other corporation that does the same.
Coke and Pepsi Want to be Your Friend: The cola wars are moving to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites, which to me raises a question: Do consumers really want to engage with every brand out there? I just want to drink soda. That's about where my desire for a relationship ends. I realize that if more and more live much of their lives on social media, a brand can't be invisible and survive for long. I find, however, that not long after I like a brand on Facebook, or follow it on Twitter, I end up regretting is soon after. Maybe it's just because no one has done it right yet.
The Purpose-Driven PR Agency: I'm wrapping up with this item about Edelman's new corporate responsibility practice as a follow-up to last week's item about Penn State hiring the PR giant to help it be more transparent in the wake of the Sandusky scandal. Maybe they hired the right guys after all. Time will tell.
Do you have an item for the Spin Cycle? Send me a reply or DM on Twitter to @jepotts.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
You still say hello!
The RepMan thinks AMC's new reality show "The Pitch" (which I have not seen) represents all that is wrong with advertising, and why "advertising is in decline and PR is ascending. Advertising talks at people; PR engages in conversations with them."
Fair enough, and far be it from me to argue with my favorite PR blogger when he insists that PR's more glamorous cousin is viewing its best days in the rearview mirror. It is certainly true that mass advertising has lost its captive audience with the fragmentation of said audience and the rise of on-demand media consumption. You can't talk at people; they'll change the channel, as RepMan so aptly notes.
Yet advertising, done well, is still a great way to kick-start the conversations that those of us in PR so deeply treasure. It's a way of saying "Hello." The great Pittsburgh ad man Ray Werner, in explaining Robert Morris University's Change A Life campaign, described the campaign and its web component as "hook and hang time." The advertising -- including print, TV, radio, and billboards -- lured people to the web site, where the conversation, and hopefuly a relationship, could begin.
The best advertising does that. Think the Old Spice Man commercials, which preceeded a spectacular social media campaign that not only started a conversation, but boosted sales to boot. (Which is kind of the whole idea.)
So yes, the lame kind of top-down, audience-ignorant ad campaigns that RepMan tells us are the grist of "The Pitch" are indeed dying, slow though their death may be. They're like the guy at the end of the bar, wearing too much cologne and spouting bad pick-up lines. But us PR types still a need good wingman once in a while to keep the conversation lively.
Fair enough, and far be it from me to argue with my favorite PR blogger when he insists that PR's more glamorous cousin is viewing its best days in the rearview mirror. It is certainly true that mass advertising has lost its captive audience with the fragmentation of said audience and the rise of on-demand media consumption. You can't talk at people; they'll change the channel, as RepMan so aptly notes.
Yet advertising, done well, is still a great way to kick-start the conversations that those of us in PR so deeply treasure. It's a way of saying "Hello." The great Pittsburgh ad man Ray Werner, in explaining Robert Morris University's Change A Life campaign, described the campaign and its web component as "hook and hang time." The advertising -- including print, TV, radio, and billboards -- lured people to the web site, where the conversation, and hopefuly a relationship, could begin.
The best advertising does that. Think the Old Spice Man commercials, which preceeded a spectacular social media campaign that not only started a conversation, but boosted sales to boot. (Which is kind of the whole idea.)
So yes, the lame kind of top-down, audience-ignorant ad campaigns that RepMan tells us are the grist of "The Pitch" are indeed dying, slow though their death may be. They're like the guy at the end of the bar, wearing too much cologne and spouting bad pick-up lines. But us PR types still a need good wingman once in a while to keep the conversation lively.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The myths we live by
I like what author Douglass Rushkoff is saying in this Q & A with Fast Company, and what's not to like if you are a PR guy?
What will marketing organizations look like in the future?
It will be companies that figure out how to communicate the non-fiction story of a company, so it’s going to look a lot more like a communications company than a creative branding agency. It’s going to look a little bit more like PR, in some sense. It’s going to be people who go and figure out what does your company do and how do we let the world know about that? There’s going to be a lot of psychology involved, except instead of it being psychologists turned against the consumer, it’s going to be psychologists going in and trying to convince companies that what they’re doing is worthy. It’s breaking down this false need in companies to hide from the public what they’re doing--except for the ones that do (need to hide).
What Rushkoff says dovetails nicely with what I and others have written about brand journalism (a.k.a. currated content) in which an organization tell its story without salesmanship and provides value to its audience in ways that do not merely serve its own needs. I like the hard question that Rushkoff asks of companies: “Well, are you proud of what’s going on inside your company? Are you proud enough to pull up the shades and let people see inside?”
I do take issue with Rushkoff's use of the word "mythology." Myths are not merely stories that are untrue. They are allegories, stories that may not be true at face value but which convey a deeper meaning, a deeper truth. Often myths convey our values -- as cultures, as nations, as organizations. As organizations we need to mine our myths for the values that lie beneath. These are the values upon which we build relationships, and they should endure, even if, in the age of transparency, the myths do not.
What will marketing organizations look like in the future?
It will be companies that figure out how to communicate the non-fiction story of a company, so it’s going to look a lot more like a communications company than a creative branding agency. It’s going to look a little bit more like PR, in some sense. It’s going to be people who go and figure out what does your company do and how do we let the world know about that? There’s going to be a lot of psychology involved, except instead of it being psychologists turned against the consumer, it’s going to be psychologists going in and trying to convince companies that what they’re doing is worthy. It’s breaking down this false need in companies to hide from the public what they’re doing--except for the ones that do (need to hide).
What Rushkoff says dovetails nicely with what I and others have written about brand journalism (a.k.a. currated content) in which an organization tell its story without salesmanship and provides value to its audience in ways that do not merely serve its own needs. I like the hard question that Rushkoff asks of companies: “Well, are you proud of what’s going on inside your company? Are you proud enough to pull up the shades and let people see inside?”
I do take issue with Rushkoff's use of the word "mythology." Myths are not merely stories that are untrue. They are allegories, stories that may not be true at face value but which convey a deeper meaning, a deeper truth. Often myths convey our values -- as cultures, as nations, as organizations. As organizations we need to mine our myths for the values that lie beneath. These are the values upon which we build relationships, and they should endure, even if, in the age of transparency, the myths do not.
Friday, March 30, 2012
I write press releases, therefore I am
Recently I was at a work-related function, and a woman from another organization asked me what I do.
"I'm the director of public relations."
"Oh, so you do press releases..."
As her voice trailed off, I tried hard to make sure my outward expression did not match my inward sigh of frustration. I quickly interjected, "And also our publications, and our web site, social media. And some speechwriting."
Her view of my job was limiting, but I didn't do much to help. I suspect that a lot of PR people -- particularly those of us who work in-house -- when asked what our job entails, tick off a list of the products we produce, without addressing what is supposed to be the underlying reason for our existence: to use the specific tools of our profession (those products I mentioned above, among others) to help our organizations achieve their strategic goals.
Perhaps that goes without saying. And maybe it's self-absorbed to assume that no other profession faces the same dilemma. When someone tells me they are an accountant, I don't ask any more questions, because I assume I understand what they do, but that may not always be the case. It may vary by organization and industry. Certainly, my role as director of public relations means different things at different places.
After all, how was I supposed to respond to that woman? Tick of the new, official, PRSA-sanctioned definition of public relations, or perhaps its superior Canadian cousin? I'd come off as vapid at worst, pretentious at best. So yes, ma'am, I do write press releases.
The problem is that many of us internalize this short-hand for what do, and we let it define us, both within our organizations and without. That's the reason for wrangling over how to correctly define what we do. Too many of us think our jobs are to create these products, this collateral, when in reality those are all means to an end. Yes, I know I've spent an awful lot of time going over this subject at this blog, but it's an awfully important subject.
And it's not just about how to describe ourselves on LinkedIn. It also speaks to how we measure our results. At the end of the year, do we tally the awards our magazines and newsletters won, do we count headlines and web hits? Or do we look at the organizational results, and say, "When we did X, the company got Y." Or at least, "The company got Z because of Y, and it got Y because we did X."
Otherwise, we are mere communicators. Not that there's anything wrong that. It's just that for me, it's not enough.
"I'm the director of public relations."
"Oh, so you do press releases..."
As her voice trailed off, I tried hard to make sure my outward expression did not match my inward sigh of frustration. I quickly interjected, "And also our publications, and our web site, social media. And some speechwriting."
Her view of my job was limiting, but I didn't do much to help. I suspect that a lot of PR people -- particularly those of us who work in-house -- when asked what our job entails, tick off a list of the products we produce, without addressing what is supposed to be the underlying reason for our existence: to use the specific tools of our profession (those products I mentioned above, among others) to help our organizations achieve their strategic goals.
Perhaps that goes without saying. And maybe it's self-absorbed to assume that no other profession faces the same dilemma. When someone tells me they are an accountant, I don't ask any more questions, because I assume I understand what they do, but that may not always be the case. It may vary by organization and industry. Certainly, my role as director of public relations means different things at different places.
After all, how was I supposed to respond to that woman? Tick of the new, official, PRSA-sanctioned definition of public relations, or perhaps its superior Canadian cousin? I'd come off as vapid at worst, pretentious at best. So yes, ma'am, I do write press releases.
The problem is that many of us internalize this short-hand for what do, and we let it define us, both within our organizations and without. That's the reason for wrangling over how to correctly define what we do. Too many of us think our jobs are to create these products, this collateral, when in reality those are all means to an end. Yes, I know I've spent an awful lot of time going over this subject at this blog, but it's an awfully important subject.
And it's not just about how to describe ourselves on LinkedIn. It also speaks to how we measure our results. At the end of the year, do we tally the awards our magazines and newsletters won, do we count headlines and web hits? Or do we look at the organizational results, and say, "When we did X, the company got Y." Or at least, "The company got Z because of Y, and it got Y because we did X."
Otherwise, we are mere communicators. Not that there's anything wrong that. It's just that for me, it's not enough.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Kill your children
As creative professionals, one of the worst things we can do is to fall in love with our own ideas. When you are in love, you don't think rationally. You overlook flaws that are apparent, or even glaring, to others.
In love, such blindness can be a virtue. In business, in the lives of our organizations and clients, it can be deadly. Our ideas have to serve a purpose other than satisfying our own creative desires. Our employers have to meet their strategic objectives, and it's our job to help them using our own particular tools and talents. Time and resources are too scarce to allow us to be sentimental in how we approach our jobs.
That's one of the lessons we have to learn and re-learn, and we shouldn't be afraid to admit when others help us see it. Recently I had an idea for a new event that my employer is planning for the summer. Without getting into the particulars, it was a good idea, and it might have even generated some good publicity and positive community feelings for the institution.
But one of my bosses, mulling over the idea for a couple of days, asked me whether it will help us meet two of our most important strategic objectives: driving enrollment and raising money. He concluded that it wouldn't, and I had to agree. But the discussion generated some other good ideas, some of which we can execute and which will move the needle on those strategic goals. And ultimately, that's how the creative process is supposed to work, even if means that we have to hurt the ones we love.
In love, such blindness can be a virtue. In business, in the lives of our organizations and clients, it can be deadly. Our ideas have to serve a purpose other than satisfying our own creative desires. Our employers have to meet their strategic objectives, and it's our job to help them using our own particular tools and talents. Time and resources are too scarce to allow us to be sentimental in how we approach our jobs.
That's one of the lessons we have to learn and re-learn, and we shouldn't be afraid to admit when others help us see it. Recently I had an idea for a new event that my employer is planning for the summer. Without getting into the particulars, it was a good idea, and it might have even generated some good publicity and positive community feelings for the institution.
But one of my bosses, mulling over the idea for a couple of days, asked me whether it will help us meet two of our most important strategic objectives: driving enrollment and raising money. He concluded that it wouldn't, and I had to agree. But the discussion generated some other good ideas, some of which we can execute and which will move the needle on those strategic goals. And ultimately, that's how the creative process is supposed to work, even if means that we have to hurt the ones we love.
Friday, March 23, 2012
What we can learn from America's hat
Canadian PR guy Victor Vrsnik weighs in on the public relations definition debate that has so vexed those of us south of the border. Turns out Canada has its own defition of PR, and it's better than ours:
"Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals and serve the public interest."
Compare that to the recently approved American definition:
"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics." (emphasis in both cases is from Vrsnik)
Why is Canada's conception of the dark art of PR better than that of the good old U S of A? As Vrsnik notes, it is explicit in recognizing that public relations is a means for achieving an organization's strategic objectives, i.e., its business goals. Hence he draws on Don Draper's famous line, "I don't sell advertising. I sell products."
Integral to achieving business goals are managing relationships, which Vrsnik notes is at the core of the Canadian definition. By contrast, we Americans place our emphasis on the communications aspect of public relations, which is merely a means to an end, not the end itself. Vrsnik is devastating but dead-on accurate in his conclusion:
Corporate outcomes make PR practitioners relevant and invaluable; moves us to the C-Suite; and puts us in a position to seize ownership of emerging technologies for communicating messages.
People who sell social media will always be hired to do social media. People who sell media relations will stay in the communications ghetto. People who talk in terms of corporate objectives get to do it all.
What a powerful declaration. It's a finger, poking us in the chest as PR professionals, demanding to know, 'Are you good enough? Do you know what it takes to succeed?'
I have my answer. What is yours?
"Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals and serve the public interest."
Compare that to the recently approved American definition:
"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics." (emphasis in both cases is from Vrsnik)
Why is Canada's conception of the dark art of PR better than that of the good old U S of A? As Vrsnik notes, it is explicit in recognizing that public relations is a means for achieving an organization's strategic objectives, i.e., its business goals. Hence he draws on Don Draper's famous line, "I don't sell advertising. I sell products."
Integral to achieving business goals are managing relationships, which Vrsnik notes is at the core of the Canadian definition. By contrast, we Americans place our emphasis on the communications aspect of public relations, which is merely a means to an end, not the end itself. Vrsnik is devastating but dead-on accurate in his conclusion:
Corporate outcomes make PR practitioners relevant and invaluable; moves us to the C-Suite; and puts us in a position to seize ownership of emerging technologies for communicating messages.
People who sell social media will always be hired to do social media. People who sell media relations will stay in the communications ghetto. People who talk in terms of corporate objectives get to do it all.
What a powerful declaration. It's a finger, poking us in the chest as PR professionals, demanding to know, 'Are you good enough? Do you know what it takes to succeed?'
I have my answer. What is yours?
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Out of the rubble
Netflix appears to have bounced back from last year's blunders, with membership and stock value rising again. You'll recall that Netflix's problems constituted what I regard as a true PR crisis, in which an organization response to a problem -- particularly its communications strategy -- makes things worse.
What conclusions can we draw from Netflix's bumbling and its subsequent revival? I think there are three important lessons:
1. When dealing with a crisis or unpopular decisions, communication is important -- but only honest, open, and transparent communication is effective. This is the lesson that people and organizations must learn and re-learn again and again. Netflix didn't dump chemicals into the ocean, or poison someone's drinking water, or give children cancer. It raised prices and separated its streaming and DVD-by-mail services. It angered customers, but few businesses can survive for long without making an unpopular decision, whether it is raising prices, cutting service, or even eliminating jobs. When an organization takes these kinds of steps, it is the duty of leadership to explain its actions as candidly as possible, without spin, which is where Netflix went wrong.
2. Understand your brand and what people expect of it. Netflix made a bad situation worse when it went on to announce it was rebranding its DVD service "Qwikster" and requiring people to subscribe to both services separately. Netflix built its brand on convenience. It spared people the hassle of having to drive to their local video store, hope it had the movie they wanted, and then wait in line to be served by some grumpy high school kid. Netflix didn't develop a cool new technology -- its service relied on the U.S. mail, for Pete's sake. So the worst thing it could have done was to make its new service as inconvenient as possible, which is what it did.
3. The quality of your product and service trumps everything -- most of the time. Netflix has quietly recovered no doubt people still want what the company sells: a decent selection of movies and TV shows that can be viewed whenever you want, virtually anywhere you want. As long as Netflix can provide that, and do it well, it should be fine, so long as its CEO keeps his big mouth shut.
You'll notice that this lesson carries a qualifier. Companies that have earned their customers trust can survive a crisis, but it's not guaranteed. Remember lesson number 1. How you respond to that crisis is important, and it gets more important the more severe the crisis turns out to be. Remember Chi-Chi's? The restuarant chain was already struggling when one of its Pittsburgh-area locations was hit by a hepatitis A outbreak, but the restuarant's poor response to the crisis was the nail in the coffin. Other restaurants and stores -- Jack in the Box, Sheetz -- survived similar crises, and even prospered in their wake, because they followed lesson number 1.
This being a blog about PR, by a PR guy, you won't be surprised to find that I think that's probably the most important lesson of all.
What conclusions can we draw from Netflix's bumbling and its subsequent revival? I think there are three important lessons:
1. When dealing with a crisis or unpopular decisions, communication is important -- but only honest, open, and transparent communication is effective. This is the lesson that people and organizations must learn and re-learn again and again. Netflix didn't dump chemicals into the ocean, or poison someone's drinking water, or give children cancer. It raised prices and separated its streaming and DVD-by-mail services. It angered customers, but few businesses can survive for long without making an unpopular decision, whether it is raising prices, cutting service, or even eliminating jobs. When an organization takes these kinds of steps, it is the duty of leadership to explain its actions as candidly as possible, without spin, which is where Netflix went wrong.
2. Understand your brand and what people expect of it. Netflix made a bad situation worse when it went on to announce it was rebranding its DVD service "Qwikster" and requiring people to subscribe to both services separately. Netflix built its brand on convenience. It spared people the hassle of having to drive to their local video store, hope it had the movie they wanted, and then wait in line to be served by some grumpy high school kid. Netflix didn't develop a cool new technology -- its service relied on the U.S. mail, for Pete's sake. So the worst thing it could have done was to make its new service as inconvenient as possible, which is what it did.
3. The quality of your product and service trumps everything -- most of the time. Netflix has quietly recovered no doubt people still want what the company sells: a decent selection of movies and TV shows that can be viewed whenever you want, virtually anywhere you want. As long as Netflix can provide that, and do it well, it should be fine, so long as its CEO keeps his big mouth shut.
You'll notice that this lesson carries a qualifier. Companies that have earned their customers trust can survive a crisis, but it's not guaranteed. Remember lesson number 1. How you respond to that crisis is important, and it gets more important the more severe the crisis turns out to be. Remember Chi-Chi's? The restuarant chain was already struggling when one of its Pittsburgh-area locations was hit by a hepatitis A outbreak, but the restuarant's poor response to the crisis was the nail in the coffin. Other restaurants and stores -- Jack in the Box, Sheetz -- survived similar crises, and even prospered in their wake, because they followed lesson number 1.
This being a blog about PR, by a PR guy, you won't be surprised to find that I think that's probably the most important lesson of all.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Where are all the men of your village?
Another ode to the RepMan in this post, but he deserves it for his willingness to tackle an uncomfortable issue: the dearth of men in public relations.
If leadership of The Arthur W. Page Society, the PRSA and The Council of PR Firms were less concerned about ‘earning a seat at the table’ today and more focused on building a balanced profession in the future, we’d see some meaningful education programs being put in place. These efforts would be widespread, aimed at high school boys and would shine the spotlight on the great careers being carved out by the few young men who do populate our ranks today.
Instead, as their forefathers did when race and gender discrimination ran amok in the 1960s and ‘70’s, today’s industry leaders are turning a blind eye on a trend that will one day soon result in an industry that is 90 percent female. And, what’s wrong with that you ask? Easy. If we don’t represent the increasingly diverse population our public and private sector clients are trying to reach, how can we possibly create a strategic communications solution?
You wouldn’t hire an old white man to publicize a fashion accessory for teenaged girls, would you? Well, marketers won’t hire all-female teams to market razor blades to blue-collar men either. In fact, I predict you’ll see more and more clients turn to more diverse professions such as advertising and branding in the future simply because they’re more balance from a race and gender standpoint. (link)
It's hard to get people fired up about the lack of men in a profession that has historically been open to them and when, as a group, men have traditionally been privileged by society. (And when men still hold many positions of leadership in the industry.) We're more likely to turn our efforts, and rightly so, to knocking down barriers that were erected because of bigotry to keep women and minorities out of certain fields -- or most fields, for that matter. (And it's worth noting that RepMan thinks PR is too white as well as too female.)
But it does matter that there aren't enough men in public relations, both for those of us individual males who work in the field as well as the industry, and our clients, as a whole.
For one, the more women come to dominate public relations, the more likely that people will assume, as many do now, that women are innately more qualified for public relations. That's bad for men who want to work in the field, but also a bit patronizing to women given that the field is often viewed as a "soft" discipline.
Second, I've enjoyed a rewarding career in public relations during the nine years since I left journalism, and I'd hate for other men to deny themselves that opportunity because they think it is a feminine occupation, or because others assume they aren't as talented as a woman. The same could be said of teaching and nursing, and other fields in which women, because they had so few other opportunities, came to dominate.
Finally, as the RepMan notes, we are doing ourselves a disservice as an industry, and on behalf of our clients, by alienating half the potential talent pool. Diversity after all is not just about being fair to all groups but it is also grounded in the belief that a variety of viewpoints are needed to solve problems and develop new ideas.
In short, the reasons to make men feel more welcome in PR are the same reasons we have opened to women all the fields that once were closed to them. There may be far, far greater injustices in the world, but that doesn't mean we need to turn a blind eye to it.
If leadership of The Arthur W. Page Society, the PRSA and The Council of PR Firms were less concerned about ‘earning a seat at the table’ today and more focused on building a balanced profession in the future, we’d see some meaningful education programs being put in place. These efforts would be widespread, aimed at high school boys and would shine the spotlight on the great careers being carved out by the few young men who do populate our ranks today.
Instead, as their forefathers did when race and gender discrimination ran amok in the 1960s and ‘70’s, today’s industry leaders are turning a blind eye on a trend that will one day soon result in an industry that is 90 percent female. And, what’s wrong with that you ask? Easy. If we don’t represent the increasingly diverse population our public and private sector clients are trying to reach, how can we possibly create a strategic communications solution?
You wouldn’t hire an old white man to publicize a fashion accessory for teenaged girls, would you? Well, marketers won’t hire all-female teams to market razor blades to blue-collar men either. In fact, I predict you’ll see more and more clients turn to more diverse professions such as advertising and branding in the future simply because they’re more balance from a race and gender standpoint. (link)
It's hard to get people fired up about the lack of men in a profession that has historically been open to them and when, as a group, men have traditionally been privileged by society. (And when men still hold many positions of leadership in the industry.) We're more likely to turn our efforts, and rightly so, to knocking down barriers that were erected because of bigotry to keep women and minorities out of certain fields -- or most fields, for that matter. (And it's worth noting that RepMan thinks PR is too white as well as too female.)
But it does matter that there aren't enough men in public relations, both for those of us individual males who work in the field as well as the industry, and our clients, as a whole.
For one, the more women come to dominate public relations, the more likely that people will assume, as many do now, that women are innately more qualified for public relations. That's bad for men who want to work in the field, but also a bit patronizing to women given that the field is often viewed as a "soft" discipline.
Second, I've enjoyed a rewarding career in public relations during the nine years since I left journalism, and I'd hate for other men to deny themselves that opportunity because they think it is a feminine occupation, or because others assume they aren't as talented as a woman. The same could be said of teaching and nursing, and other fields in which women, because they had so few other opportunities, came to dominate.
Finally, as the RepMan notes, we are doing ourselves a disservice as an industry, and on behalf of our clients, by alienating half the potential talent pool. Diversity after all is not just about being fair to all groups but it is also grounded in the belief that a variety of viewpoints are needed to solve problems and develop new ideas.
In short, the reasons to make men feel more welcome in PR are the same reasons we have opened to women all the fields that once were closed to them. There may be far, far greater injustices in the world, but that doesn't mean we need to turn a blind eye to it.
Friday, March 2, 2012
There are disasters, and then there are disasters
Here is a list of the top 7 "PR disasters of 2011." Regular readers know I have some issues with the term "PR disaster" as I noted here and here and here, the latter being in reference to the Netflix fiasco, which made the top 7 list.
Certainly, each of the examples listed created negative publicity for the organizations and people involved, though publicity and public relations are not one in the same. But to label them PR disasters in some ways trivializes the poor decisions and improper actions of these organizations and their leaders.
To me, a public relations crisis is when your response to a problem, and in particular your communications strategy, makes the situation worse. Netflix is an example of a company with a PR crisis and a genuine crisis -- which I define as the failure of an organization to carry out its basic mission or fulfill its responsibilities to its stakeholders.
Technically, Penn State's response to the allegations of child sex abuse against Jerry Sandusky, and the alleged cover-up by other university officials, was a PR crisis under my definition, because the university's response made things worse. Yet the worst of what the university and its leaders did was not harming the institution's image -- a byproduct of their actions -- but failing to intervene to keep more children from being victimized.
Remember, public relations is not merely about boosting the image of your organization. It is about counseling leadership to make decisions that are in the best interest of both the organization and the public, and figuring out how to reconcile these interests when they are in conflict. We all remember the foot-in-mouth disease suffered by BP CEO Tony Hayward during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. His insensitive comments made a bad situation worse. But the real problem was the millions of gallons of oil floating in the ocean, and all the kind words in the world weren't going to make that go away.
Certainly, each of the examples listed created negative publicity for the organizations and people involved, though publicity and public relations are not one in the same. But to label them PR disasters in some ways trivializes the poor decisions and improper actions of these organizations and their leaders.
To me, a public relations crisis is when your response to a problem, and in particular your communications strategy, makes the situation worse. Netflix is an example of a company with a PR crisis and a genuine crisis -- which I define as the failure of an organization to carry out its basic mission or fulfill its responsibilities to its stakeholders.
Technically, Penn State's response to the allegations of child sex abuse against Jerry Sandusky, and the alleged cover-up by other university officials, was a PR crisis under my definition, because the university's response made things worse. Yet the worst of what the university and its leaders did was not harming the institution's image -- a byproduct of their actions -- but failing to intervene to keep more children from being victimized.
Remember, public relations is not merely about boosting the image of your organization. It is about counseling leadership to make decisions that are in the best interest of both the organization and the public, and figuring out how to reconcile these interests when they are in conflict. We all remember the foot-in-mouth disease suffered by BP CEO Tony Hayward during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. His insensitive comments made a bad situation worse. But the real problem was the millions of gallons of oil floating in the ocean, and all the kind words in the world weren't going to make that go away.
And the winner is...
The PRSA has announced the winning definition of public relations:
"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics."
You'll recall my definition:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
And of course this simple, straightforward version by the PR Coach:
Public relations is: Stronger relationships, the best communication, in the best channels, at the right time, to the right people…
"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics."
You'll recall my definition:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
And of course this simple, straightforward version by the PR Coach:
Public relations is: Stronger relationships, the best communication, in the best channels, at the right time, to the right people…
Monday, February 20, 2012
A defining moment
The PR Coach has a better definition of public relations than I do:
Public relations is: Stronger relationships, the best communication, in the best channels, at the right time, to the right people…
As a reminder, here is mine:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
Funny how people whose job it is to communicate clearly and concisely with the public seem barely able to describe what it is we do, even amongst ourselves. Maybe we need to stop spending so much time analyzing it, and just do it.
Public relations is: Stronger relationships, the best communication, in the best channels, at the right time, to the right people…
As a reminder, here is mine:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
Funny how people whose job it is to communicate clearly and concisely with the public seem barely able to describe what it is we do, even amongst ourselves. Maybe we need to stop spending so much time analyzing it, and just do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)