It won’t be surprising if one of the biggest tasks many Australian in-house PR and communications professionals face on returning to work after the summer break will be having to convince their senior management that the recent bad media experiences of a few should cause them to take fright and go into their bunker.

This follows the shellacking that a few prominent CEO’s and Chairperson’s from the Australian business sector received over the summer months. In fact I must admit to having thrown a few brickbats myself – to both the banking and retail industries for their recent indifferent public relations and communication performances.

The irony is that most PR professionals desire and need their CEO to be a spokesperson or advocate. However, the reality is that the actual implementation often stumbles, resulting in negative, rather than positive, outcomes.

What I can’t tell from the outside (and obviously it differs by organisation or situation) is how much is attributable to head-strong, undisciplined CEO’s and how much is coming from poor communication or public relations strategy and advice (which can sometimes be driven by media savvy PR folk who may not practice public relations or communication in its fullest sense).

However, what I do know is that too many well reasoned and relevant communications are being wrecked by saying the wrong things to the wrong audiences.

Too many Chairmen and CEO’s seem to think that talking to the media is communication. In fact many give the impression of relishing the opportunity of being able to stand on a (media) soapbox.

They communicate as if with a machine gun – bullets (messages) are sprayed in all directions. Sure they hit some of the targets (audiences) they hoped for – but in the process more go down to friendly fire (i.e. audiences get messages that are not appropriate for them).

So if my CEO were a bit edgy about the fallout on some of his colleagues (or if I wanted to use the experiences of his colleagues to deliver a message about how we need to do better in 2011) this is what I would be saying:

1) ‘Media’ is not PR; and using the media is not an easy ‘catch-all’ way to communicate to those who are important to us. In fact the media is only one way by which we communicate. Most importantly we can’t control what the media may use, and because of its mass nature it’s very difficult to avoid wrong messages getting out to wrong audiences. So use it with caution.

2) Effective PR, designed to create understanding and support, should be built from the ground up involving specific audience or stakeholder communication and dialogue.  We should communicate with the precision (and discreetness) of a sniper. That’s where our prime PR and communication focus should be.

3) If and when we communicate via the media no key audience or stakeholder (unless in exceptional circumstances such as ASX related activities) should learn of anything specific to them that they haven’t alreeady learnt direct from us i.e. no surprises.

4) We need to be much more disciplined about our messaging. We need to develop a message matrix that is relevant to all our stakeholders. Anyone who is to speak to the media must be aware of, and trained in, abiding to this messaging platform. Ad hoc ‘thought bubbles’ are no longer acceptable.

5) As CEO you need to think of PR and communications differently. What you say publicly through media or other public forums should be the tip of the communications iceberg, built on a very solid foundation of planned and consistent communication to all of those groups, audiences and stakeholders who are important to us. In future you should not announce new policy or direction publicly and then expect we as communicators to feed it out!

6) If we agree that media is important to us we need to develop a media hierarchy of spokespersons centered around specific topics or areas of expertise. This will ensure that when you talk as CEO your comments are more focused and targeted.

7) Whoever talks to the media (and that includes you) has to undertake regular media training. Be aware of the brand and reputational damage that can result from doing it wrong, or not being the right person. Take Gerry Harvey of Harvey Norman and Mike Smith of ANZ . They are both arguably the best operators in their sectors, but they don’t come across well in the non-financial media (for different reasons).

8) Create and encourage this communication and public relations approach and you will have a much more solid and secure platform from which to engage with the media. Most importantly you will have reduced the risk of upsetting those whose opinions and support matter to us.

Finally, if I thought that that this session with my CEO was likely to provide an opportunity to reinforce some messages about the real contribution public relations and communication was capable of making to the organisation I would ensure that I took the opportunity to read two relevant articles beforehand-  1) on how PR, communications and corporate reputation all relate to the CEO  and 2) how to get recognition for PR in the C-suite.

No related posts.

Australian and New Zealand PR Directors and Managers and their PR agencies should be reviewing their roles, responsibilities and protection as legal proceedings on both sides of the Tasman put corporate public relations practices in the spotlight.

In Australia 10 former directors of James Hardie are arguing about a press release in the NSW Court of Appeal. They were found guilty last year of having breached their duties based principally on a contention by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) over what was said in the press release relating to the funding of Hardie’s asbestos compensation trust.

In New Zealand , where there has been a flurry of actions instigated by its Securities Commission, Lombard Finance is facing criminal prosecution, accused of misleading investors through its prospectus, road shows and other company communication efforts.

It’s ironic that in these two cases it’s been the Directors of the company that have faced the music. 

To date, as far as I am aware, no PR Director or Manager or a PR agency has been caught in the legal web, although James Hardie’s former head of public relations Greg Baxter (now with News Corp) was reportedly grilled intensively at the court hearings last year (but as a witness – not as a defendant).

And ironically one of Lombard’s Directors facing prosecution– Lawrence Bryant – ran a public relations agency in New Zealand for a number of years!

So if corporate PR practices are being put under the regulator’s blowtorch what does it mean for those in work in, and advise on, public relations and communication – from within the company and from external PR agencies?

There’s no need to panic. But there is a need to address the issue in a deliberate and formal manner so that protection is afforded to all.

I think that focusing on the following three actions will provide 90 percent protection for PR Directors and Managers and/or PR agencies:

1. All those who might draft or release corporate communication must have formal indemnity protection. In my previous PR agency life all contracts included this provision (although whether there was always a formal contract with the client is another matter!). PR Directors or Manager’s should insist on this as part of their terms of employment and this is especially important if they act as the organisation’s spokesperson.
2. At a policy level there should be a written, codified procedure for the approval and release of corporate public communication which the PR Department and/or PR agency formally agrees to. This should include appropriate levels of authority for the approval of all materials – and their release. The aim of this is to ensure that if the internal or external PR advisors follow this procedure they are automatically afforded a degree of protection (and if they don’t they only have themselves to blame if they find themselves in the gun).
3. At the implementation level ideally every piece of written corporate communication that is released (or any messaging or scripts that are to form the basis of answering questions) should be formally signed as approved by the responsible executive. In the old days a client had to sign everything produced by its ad agency.  PR people have, in my experience, been lax in this regard!

For the PR Director or Manager there’s a double challenge. On the one hand they have to act on behalf of their organisation if their PR agency decides they want to have greater indemnity protection. On the other hand they have to negotiate an appropriate indemnity for themselves.

There’s one other matter to consider. That’s when an organisation is clearly facing challenging times and the corporate communication is demonstrably risky. In such situations it is always wise for the PR or communications people to draw up specific agreements and procedural

Of course, all kinds of side issues arise. Merchant bankers, lawyers and every Tom, Dick and Harry like to get involved in press releases and public communication. Not to mention the Corporate Counsel!

That’s fine. What I’m proposing is unashamedly aimed at protecting the butt of the PR and communications people. If others get in the act and there’s a foul-up so be it.

My three actions sound simple. But from experience they can be difficult to implement. Over my career I’ve had many arguments with the legal counsel of clients about how communicators need to be, and should be, protected by indemnification. And in the rush of battle getting your Managing Director or CEO to actually countersign a simple press release can be seen as awfully pedantic and small minded.

Nonetheless times are changing for Australian and New Zealand public relations and communications’ professionals.  By taking a more professional and disciplined approach we might just help keep some of our masters out of Court. Then they would thank us!

No related posts.

Australian PR Directors and Managers who are determined to make a difference within their organisations may need to display more business acumen if PR is going to get increased recognition from the C-suite.

At least that’s the latest message coming from the US where PR News has conducted a roundtable discussion on C-suite access and influence with its Advisory Board.

There was some good stuff in the discussion. Regrettably, it was (for those who have read my previous blogs) another case where access to the findings is restricted to ‘subscribers only’. Sorry about that! However, if you are really interested you may need to consider becoming a subscriber to PR News.

But here are some of the comments made by participants:

The challenge:
• “…. in the first month of your (PR) job you realize it’s all about tactical. They want you to crank out product, and not spend any time on strategy”
•  “….many in upper management still consider PR to be a tactical bolt-on to other activities”
The way forward:
• “…. there’s a dearth of PR people out there who can talk knowledgeably about the value chain of the organization and how PR can build relationships – not just with the media, but within all business functions”
• …. “we now need to think of ourselves as change managers. It’s what we do in creating relationships”.

The observation that PR is just not as attuned to business needs as it should be is increasing in intensity – especially following the GFC.

So what does it mean in practical terms for the Australian PR Director or Manager?

Here’s my five ‘must do’ action points.

1. Undertake a formal planning process that is linked to the business goals of your organisation.  Demonstrate that PR is committed to adding value.
2. Actively reach out to, and involve, other departments in your planning and goal setting. Demonstrate that PR is capable of contributing across other sections of the organisation.
3. Focus on outcomes (how we will influence change as a result of our actions) rather than outputs (what we will produce). Demonstrate that PR is capable of effecting or supporting change.
4. Allocate budget for research and measurement that quantifies current and future positions and tracks implementation and changes. Demonstrate that PR can be measured.
5. Review your departmental structure and/or external agency arrangements. Demonstrate that you are as committed to efficiency and cost effective delivery as other departments within the organisation.

This may require a paradigm shift in thinking. It may challenge you to expose the PR Department to a level of scrutiny not previously experienced. It may make you genuinely apprehensive and concerned about the level of risk you as the PR Director or Manager are exposing yourself, and the PR Department, to.

However, the key to successful implementation is having the right support structures in place. A good general doesn’t go into battle without marshalling his forces, doing his homework and ensuring that his choice of the battle ground, supply lines and support will give him a good chance of success.

First you need the internal support of a key member of the management team – an individual whose influence is important, and whose support and understanding, can be relied upon. This person will help guide through the politics and the intricacies of the planning process and budget rounds.

Secondly you need the external support of someone who can be with you every step of the way as you embark on the journey of change. It might be the head of the PR agency you use. Or it could be an independent consultant with either strong PR or management consulting/change management skills.

If displaying business acumen is a large part of the problem facing PR then surely just embarking on this journey is going some way to winning the battle.

No related posts.

An article that suggests that PR and communications might be the glue that helps stick an organisation together to help it move forward in the post GFC environment put a new angle for me on the potential role of Australian PR Departments.

Written by Kevin O’Neill, president and COO of dna 13, a US maker of communications software, it argues that there is a larger need for all departments within organisations to synchronize their objectives with those of the overall business – a need that can be met by starting with the PR and communications function.

As the article was published on PR News Online and access is only by registration I can only provide an outline of what O’Neill had to say which included:

“PR Departments now have a greater need to:
• Communicate with other parts of the business because of social media, such as customer service and sales;
• Stay coordinated across multiple regions, issues and business units”.

O’Neill comments that the most successful PR professionals synchronize their communications with their organisation’s business plans.

He says there are no silos anymore, thanks to the ubiquity of social media and to ‘synch up’ relations with other departments PR professionals need to:

• “Learn the objectives and pain points of your counterparts in operations, sales, marketing, technology HR etc;
• “Keep an eye out for issues or problems that could have an impact on their day-to-day operations; and
• “Cultivate relationships beyond the C-suite. In fact hold meetings to deal with issues jointly”.

His bottom-line is “In PR and communications, every message must map back to your plan to ensure delivery to the right audience via the best channels and to guarantee it is consistent with other departments’ objectives and messages.”

He concludes by saying that by taking steps to synchronize their plans, relationships, tools and messages, PR execs can drive organisational success in 2010 – and beyond.

As I say it opened up some new angles and thoughts for me. Hopefully this synopsis does for you too.

 If you want to know more dna13 has a free White Paper for download entitled -  “Synchronize your organization and regain control of your brand and reputation”.   From it they claim you will get access to the top 4 tips from the experts, to ensure that your organisation is working in synch. It’s worth a read if you have ambitions for a greater role for PR and communications within your organisation.

No related posts.

For Australian Public Relations and Communication Managers the Christmas/New Year ‘quiet’ period provides a great opportunity to take stock on departmental progress.

If I were running a PR or Communications Department I would be assessing my performance under these three broad headings:

1) PR Department Management.

Overall I would be asking myself how my management of PR or Communication has measured up with what I set to achieve this financial year. Specifically I would be asking myself that at this time of the year:
• Have I done enough to improve my standing with the CEO and the other members of the Executive team?
• What criteria do I think my colleagues are applying to assess my performance and contribution to the team?  And how do I rate my own standing and performance against these criteria?
• What are the areas or actions which I think have strengthened my standing? Conversely where might I have not done so well?
• How do I think my performance compares with the best of my peers – those I know have the eye of the CEO?
2) Communication Delivery

Overall I would be asking myself as to whether the projects my Department undertook, or the initiatives I introduced, delivered the outcomes that I honestly had hoped for at the beginning of the year. Specifically I would be asking:
• Which projects/initiatives were successful?  What contributed to these successes? Were there common factors in those that were successful?
• Which projects/initiatives were not as successful as I had hoped? Why was that? Again, were there common factors that impacted on these projects?
• Are there structural or organisational matters that it is apparent are central to the way the Department is running? If they are good and positive how do I ensure these continue? If there are problems how do I best address them?

3) Agency Relationship

If, as most organizations do, I also employ a PR agency I would be asking myself whether I am getting the best out of my agency.  Specifically I would be asking:
• Am I setting an environment which encourages my agency to produce the best results and outcomes for me?
• What did the agency do in the first part of the year that was particularly good? What has the agency done that was not the best? And what factors contributed to each?
• Do I have in place mechanisms such as a formal review of the agency that will enable us to review, and if necessary, strengthen the relationship?

Having gone through this self analysis I would be setting myself goals and objectives for the second half of the year and for those areas that I think I (or others) need to improve I would putting in place forms of measurement that I can refer to six months from now.

No related posts.

If you’re a PR or Communciations Manager you can only be successful in your job if you win the respect and confidence of your CEO.

Therefore you might want to take a look at what a survey of US CEO’s said they wanted/expected/valued from those running their PR and communications.  Its a good indication of what it takes to head up a PR or Communications Department in a large organisation (at least from a US perspective).

It’s a further extract from ‘The Authentic Enterprise’ from the Arthur Page Society which I thoroughly recommend to all PR and Communication Managers.  These are just the ‘headlines’ – I suggest you go to the report and read the detail. I think you will get a lot from it.

1. A detailed knowledge of the business
2. Extensive communications background
3. A crystal ball
4. C-suite credibility
5. Extensive internal relationships
6. A team player
7. An educator

What’s interesting to me is that coming through the criteria is the need for the PR/Communications person to have credibility and standing as a ‘business person’.  In other words communication theory means little if you can’t hold you own with your other executives. You need to be as business focussed as the best of them!

That, I believe, is the difference between being seen as an instigator of policy and strategy around the table, as opposed to being outside the room and just entrusted with the delivery of what’s already been decided.

What it means is that in order to climb the ladder to get the opportunity to be a PR or Communications Director or Manager you have to show competency and expertise in areas such as conventional and social media engagement, research, communication theory etc.

But once you get there you need to overlay that with a strong business orientation.  You also need to win the confidence of those across the whole of the executive structure.

However, the balancing act that the real PR professional has to play is being sufficiently in touch with the business to win credibility within, but be sufficiently detached to be able to give objective ‘devil’s advocate’ advice when new initiatives are being introduced i.e. be able to look from an audience or stakeholder perspective.

I don’t believe there are many within the business environment who have to straddle that fine line. That’s what often makes the PR role so difficult for many.  At times you have to stand up to the CEO or the Marketing Director, whose combined support you need to get around the table in the first place, in order to tell them that what they are planning has some flaws in it from a communications perspective.

PS You might want to also read a previous comment on this report from the Arthur Page Society.

No related posts.

The advent of social media is both an opportunity and a threat for in-house PR departments in Australia.  An opportunity because it is (or should be) a natural extension of the PR already being done; plus it provides an opportunity to further consolidate the role that PR plays within the organisation. But it’s a threat because if the marketing department grabs social media there’s a real chance that the whole role it can play for the organisation in building stakeholder goodwill and dialogue may be undermined as it becomes simply another promotional tool.

This is because the PR v marketing appreciation of social media is often diametrically opposed. From a PR perspective social media is all about engagement, dialogue, two-way understanding and respecting the integrity of the audience. For the marketer its another way to create buzz and promote a product. PR is thinking about the corporate reputation and the long term. Marketing is thinking about next month’s launch.

I was one of the first PR operators in Australia to actually use social media as tool (well, not me personally – but the agency which I headed up). So I’ve been through the learning curve.

Here are some reasons why social media should come under the PR Deaprtment:

1. Social media is about connecting and having dialogue with audiences, where protocols and sensitivities abound. In that respect its no different from – in fact is just an extension of – dealing with those sensitive little souls – the media.
2. Social media is about the principles of third-party endorsement and reaching the influencers to influence others. That’s what PR is all about.
3. Social media exposes any organisation to things going horribly wrong and resulting crises and reputational damage. That’s why PR has a strong case for control.

But having said that here are some reasons why the marketing folk can be very nervious about giving control of social media to the PR Department.

1. Sometimes internal PR Departments are perceived as being taking a ’let’s look at the worst case scenario’ approach to life. If this perception prevails marketing departments can look askance at letting the PR people take control of social media.
2. The marketing people are being increasingly bombarded by interactive agencies who are trying to sell them clever,smart – and sometimes outlandish – ways the company/product. These people exude confidence, they are fun and exciting to work with – and because they are already in the digital area (albeit often only creating banner ads) they present themselves as social media experts.

Who controls social media shouldn’t become a beauty parade or personality contest. If PR wants to win social media those working within PR Departments need to make sure they become experts in social media.

They can’t afford to take a passive approach. They need to become ‘champions for the cause”. If its not on the agenda already they have to ensure that it is (after having done the necessary homework!). They need to take the lead in ‘educating’ Marketing as to what it can and can’t do. Above all they need to lead the debate as to whether social media is an extension of the long term corporate and brand positioning and values, or whether it is regarded as simply a tactical marketing tool along with direct mail and POS.   

The bottom line is that the two approaches are like oil and water – they don’t mix. One is communication. The other is promotion.

Grant

Go to the Social Media index of  PR Influences to see other articles I have written about online and social media.

No related posts.

One of the real issues PR Directors and PR Managers face internally is the sometimes skittish attitude towards PR at the CEO level or by their colleagues – particularly those in marketing.  PR can either be viewed with disdain making it a hard slog to get enough traction to show what PR can do; or conversely PR is seen as a ‘wonder cure’ or cheap substitute and all kinds of unrealistic expectations are foisted on it. Neither is particulary helpful – or rational.

Those of you in ‘PR land’ who relate to this situation might therefore get some comfort – and help – from a major initiative just launched by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) called the “Business Case for Public Relations”. It an ambitious and unashamably and typically American ‘pushy’ advocacy campaign launched by PRSA in the last day or so which is aimed to flow through to their PRSA International Conference: Delivering Value in San Diego from Nov 7-10 and beyond.

Some of the aims of the campaign quoted by PRSA include

• to foster more accurate and better-informed perceptions surrounding the value and roles of public relations,
• to educate key stakeholders about public relations’ functions and outcomes, demonstrate its strategic value and enhance its reputation
• (help) sell-in public relations services to your clients and management

We’ve all heard these words and claims before. However on this occasion the PRSA has put together a wide array of resources in the way of articles, papers, speeches and case studies. Included in the package are suggested “message points” to use to sell your management and colleagues on the role PR can play within the business environment.

It’s all good stuff, and it would be even better if one was going to the San Diego Conference to get involved in all the sessions around this theme.

If you struggle to get the strategic value of PR understood, you need some fresh insights into measurement and evaluation techniques or you just need some different perspectives it’s worth taking a peek at the PRSA website and looking at the ton of resources that’s been put together.  Regrettably a proportion of what’s there can’t be accessed unless you are a PRSA member (I’m fortunate having been a member of over 25 years); but I am sure you will find some nuggets of gold in what can be accessed.

I’m hoping for much more to come out of the San Diego conference which I’ll be logged into through my PRSA membership.  If there’s anything of interest I’ll do some posts.

Grant Common

No related posts.