Grant Common's PR Acumen » Corporate PR

Australian PR agencies seek payment for pitches

Grant — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:03:42 +0000

There’s a move by PR agencies and PR consultants in Australia, under the auspices of a group affiliated to the Public Relations Institute of Australia, to seek payment when they are pitching for new business.

Having spent my career on the PR agency side of fence, I know that PR selection processes is one of the main bugbears of PR agencies. So I appreciate the reasons behind the move by the Registered Consultants Group.

Nonetheless, I think they are embarking on a ‘mission impossible’ in an area that is really ‘wild west country’ in so far as practices, guidelines – and even ethics – are concerned.

The RCG conducted a survey around PR selection practices among its PR agency and PR consultant members during July. They’ve just released headline results this week and they intend to discuss the matter more widely at their national conference in Sydney in November.

PR agencies and consultants are canvassing the concept because they argue that they need to better protect their intellectual property during the PR pitch or selection process. And, of course, they see that their advertising cousins have been getting recompensed in various forms for many years.

This is a big subject, which I will write more about in the months to come, but here’s my feeling about why the PRIA and its PR consultant and agency members, will struggle to make substantive progress.

1. Unlike advertising, which is much more established, there are few accepted principles, guidelines or protocols when it comes to hiring PR consultants and PR agencies.
2. There are too many instances where potential clients blatantly shop for strategies and ideas from competing agencies so they can pick the best. It’s not uncommon for a potential client to decide not to go ahead with an agency appointment after a pitch process.
3. While there’s been an explosion in the use of PR and the number of PR agencies, most of the growth is coming from SME’s whose processes and approaches to hiring are often pretty primitive to say the least.
4. The level of understanding of PR is still pretty elementary in large areas of the market and it’s not easy to differentiate between PR agencies. So the client resorts to wanting ideas, concepts and strategies.
5. There’s a whole bunch of PR agency people out there who will do anything to win business, so if they decide to go that extra mile it forces their competitors into the same situation.
6. Too much of the PR focus these days is on the marketing end of the business, and within this context PR is often seen as a cheap(er) form of marketing.

So in short it’s a largely immature market – on both sides of the fence.

Regrettably many PR Managers, especially in SME’s, have little or no idea as to how a PR agency works and often they don’t know who to turn to for help. And many of the new PR agencies have little or no appreciation of what constitutes sound business practices.

But it’s also a two tier market.

As I’ve mentioned there’s been an explosion at the small end of the market among SME’s looking for marketing solutions and just raw publicity. This is where PR agencies are being increasingly burnt.

On the other hand at the top end of the marketplace – among professional service firms, public companies, government departments and multi-nationals – there’s a bit more circumspection – from both sides.

The RCG and PRIA move is certainly a bold one. As far as I am aware there’s no other international PR peak body that has succeeded in introducing a policy that members must adhere to. Some ‘recommend’ that potential clients should be encouraged to recompense a PR agency for strategy, plans and creative in certain circumstances. And others ‘encourage’ reimbursement of expenses incurred by agencies in pitching.

One development that will bring a degree of order and sanity to the PR pitching business is the intervention of Procurement people and processes and /or the use of outside facilitators to achieve greater transparency. It’s a trend that is gradually taking effect in PR internationally, not surprisingly following in the footsteps of our advertising cousins.

One report I read stated that around 40 percent of all advertising pitches in Australia are now facilitated externally and Vale International, a global advertising consulting company, reported in March 2010 that in 2009 procurement officers took over 77% of the decision relating to advertising agency revenue (although there are though some aspects of this trend that are also of concern which I’ll cover at some later stage).

This whole topic of PR pitches is a topic close to my heart. I’ve written several articles on and around this topic in PR Influences and even on this blog. And acting as an intermediary or facilitator in the pitch process or in the agency-client relationship is a role I set for myself when I embarked on my second career in late 2009.

I wish the PR agencies and consultants luck, but it’s difficult to see an easy solution – for either the buyer or seller of PR services – in the immediate future.

Don’t blame the PR agency. It’s up to you to manage them!

Grant — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:05:08 +0000

Kudos for the best PR or communications work or award-winning PR campaigns done by PR agencies often falls on the wrong shoulders. In many cases it shouldn’t be the PR agency that gets the accolades; more often than not the praise belongs with the in-house PR Director or PR Manager.

Likewise, if the PR or communications effort isn’t working its often wrong to simply point the finger at the PR agency. Instead look at who is meant to be managing the agency.

I was reminded of this a couple of weeks back when a long time acquaintance, a senior in-house PR pro (let’s call her Sue) who has employed PR agencies for as long as I can remember, confessed that she was having trouble getting the best out of her combined resource – her in house team and the external PR agency.

That someone with so much experience should be having this issue surprised me – especially when as we discussed the detail it was clear to me that the fundamental problem was a lack of proper management of the agency. Sue was essentially to blame for the problems as she wasn’t effectively managing her PR agency!

But then again perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. During my 30 years running a PR agency the number of really good PR Directors or Managers my agency worked with who were getting the best out of the PR agency was limited.

Mostly, there was limited direction and management from the client – which if the agency was not conscientious could lead to sloppy practices and work on our side. In this situation everyone in the agency knew that we were probably only doing a 70% job and that if we were going to do better the initiative had to come from us.

Occasionally, there was a micro manager from the client side. That often led to excessive and duplicated work, wasted hours on process, a focus on outputs instead of outcomes and inevitable cost overruns (which the agency had to wear!). In this situation those working on the account saw themselves as just the equivalent of factory workers. No break-through work was likely to emerge in this environment!

Then there were the PR Directors and PR Managers who knew what they wanted – and sought to manage the agency in a way to maximise outcomes. These were the clients that attracted the best people in the agency and achieved the best work. The relationship was based on mutual respect and professionalism – but always knowing who was boss (and paying the bills!).

So what are some of the key attributes of a good PR Director or Manager when it comes to managing a PR agency:
1. Accepts that it is his/her role to direct or manage the PR agency – not be dictated to by the agency.
2. Sets clear parameters, and boundaries, regarding the relationship – not leaving any room for misinterpretation or misunderstandings
3. Takes responsibility for delivering the strategic brief or direction that the PR agency is to follow – not leaving the agency in a vacuum.
4. Puts in place clear processes and procedures (e.g. reviews) throughout the relationship period – so that routine mechanisms exist for issues to be addressed.
5. Sets clear budgetary parameters while exhibiting a flexible and open approach to dealing with issues relating to budgets – thus providing a pressure valve for a topic that is one of the biggest causes of agency frustration.
6. Is a conduit to other members of the management team – recognising that it is to their mutual benefit for a PR agency to have access to, and be respected by, others within the client organisation.
7. Shares in the PR and communication success and the failures – not someone who takes the credit when things go well, but blames the agency when there’s a glitch.

The discussion with my in-house friend Sue which sparked this blog bought home to me that in-house and agency PR people are a bit like Mars and Venus (with apologies to Dr John Gray who wrote a great book some years back about the male-female relationship).

While Sue’s very experienced, and has worked a lot with PR agencies (albeit small agencies), she, like many other in-house PR professionals, has never worked on the agency side.

Therefore despite her on-the-ground experience Sue doesn’t really understand what drives PR agencies – and more importantly how to get the best out of them.

But perhaps most importantly Sue philosophically hadn’t, in her mind, accepted that it was her responsibility to actually manage the PR agency as she manages her own internal staff – rather than regarding them as some kind of external resource simply there to ‘do stuff’.

My experience tells me that the really best work that PR agencies do often results directly from the direction and management of the client. Conversely some of the rubbish work that is done is often (but not always) a direct consequence of poor or inadequate input from the client at the start of the process.

I’ve never worked in-house. But I’ve worked with enough clients over many years to know what PR Directors and PR Managers need to do better of they want to make relationships with their PR agencies more productive, and get better PR and communications outcomes.

It’s called managing. You abdicate this at your peril when you work with a PR agency.

Don’t rush to automatically blame the PR agency when something is not working. Look at yourself first. It’s up to you to manage them!

Note: If you are interested in reading other articles I have wsritten about hiring or managing PR agencies go to PR Influences

New tool gives reason for PR Manager’s to revisit corporate reputation management

Grant — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:20:24 +0000

Convincing the CEO of the role that PR and communication plays in establishing and maintaining a good corporate reputation is a challenge most Australian PR Directors and Managers will be familiar with.

That’s why I thought I would bring to your attention a new Corporate Reputation Management tool that I’ve just come across.

It’s not unique – there are other similar tools around to help PR and communications professionals who want to be able to quantify the importance of corporate reputation and the role that PR and communication plays in creating and maintaining this.

However, I thought it might provide some more ammunition for those internal public relations and communications professionals out there struggling with the perennial challenge of how to convince their superiors of the value of pursuing deliberate corporate reputation strategies and tactics.

The new tool is provided by consulting firm APCO Worldwide (which ironically is represented most places in the world apart from Australia!).

Unfortunately the bottom-line is that the tool is unlikely to be able to be of practical use of local internal Australian PR professionals. However, the model and methodology they use will be a useful starting point for anyone wanting to re-open the debate within their organisation. Or anyone just beginning to grapple with the challenge!

In introducing this new tool Bryan Dumont, president of APCO Insight, gives a good reminder as to why reputation management should be a key priority for Australian PR Directors and Managers, especially at our larger organisations.

“Marketers have long understood the value and importance of building the brand equity of products and services, but brand equity only drives outcomes among one stakeholder audience – consumers,” says Dumont.

“Reputation equity drives outcomes across all audiences, and as companies confront challenges that affect public confidence and trust and the ability to remain competitive in the marketplace, business leaders are looking for ways to influence not just consumer behavior but the expectations and perceptions of a variety of important stakeholder groups.”

APCO’s Return on Reputation Indicator analyses reputation across all key stakeholder groups, including consumers, community activists, policy-makers, investors and employees. The tool uncovers those drivers that are assets to a reputation as well as the opportunities that can improve a reputation most significantly.

If you happen to be in the retail sector, there’s even better news. That’s because APCO has produced a sample survey of the retail sector which shows which levers to pull to build a better corporate reputation. Even if you are not in retail it’s worth a read.

I stress that the APCO material is largely of theoretical interest to those of us ‘down-under’. It is also a very outcomes-based tool. But just reading their approach should get those of you interested in corporate reputation management enthused about having another crack at it. Especially as it’s the beginning of a new financial year.

If the APCO approach does whet your appetite you may also get some value from viewing a series of articles on reputation management I’ve written over the years at my sister website – PR Influences.

They not only explain processes and benefits from using PR and communication strategies to achieve strong corporate reputation; there are also some tips on how to sell corporate reputation to the CEO.

What these stress is that reputation management is a process, which like most other PR and communications activities requires a deliberate and sustained approach.

If you are new to the topic the article – ‘Reputation Management- an Overview’ is probably a good starting point.

An important role for the PR professional in managing risk

Grant — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:33:27 +0000

I’ve always subscribed to the view that a large part of corporate PR, and a prime role of the internal PR Director or Manager, or the external specialist PR consultant, revolves around first identifying, and then mitigating against, risk – reputational risk.

This often means that in the serious end of the corporate world the internal PR professional, or the external specialist PR consultant, has to often come across looking more like the mature corporate lawyer than the young gung-ho PR spin doctor.

In the Australian operation of one multi-national I’ve done some work with over recent years the PR people are, as a matter of course, bought into every significant project just before its ready to be announced or unveiled.

Not only are they older rather than younger – and they’ve been ‘around the block a few times’. Their specific role is to act as the devils advocate. Their task is to look at things from the perspective of: “What is the worse case scenario?” “What might possibly go wrong?” “How could this initiative or announcement backfire on us?” They try to second-guess and test every aspect of a project from the perspective of those who will be impacted by it.

It’s surprising how often those sponsoring or developing projects get so close to them that they simply fail to see the wood for the trees. Bringing an external, and unbiased, perspective to bear, while sometimes seen negatively as ‘running interference’, is simply just part of good risk management.

The fact that PR might have a role to play in risk management might surprise many, especially given that the perception that the media, and others, often have of PR professionals is of them as ‘spinners’; always wanting to package something and be as aggressive and outgoing as possible.

I also think that within the PR industry there’s a generational dimension around this issue. PR and communications professionals such as me, who have been working in the corporate sector for decades, just naturally take this devil’s advocate approach to every project.

I take the view that you have to know the possible negatives before you can build the positives. And that any communications program needs to identify, and mitigate, the risks.

From my observation those much younger often don’t come from the same perspective. They are often great on the positives, but sometimes without any comprehension of what might go wrong. As a consequence their messaging can often come back to bite them.

What got me onto this topic was an article in the long-established US PR publication ‘O’Dwyer’s Magazine’ on the BP disaster from Fraser P Seitel, a PR author and seasoned communications consultant.

He makes two key points around crisis communications, and the BP situation specifically, both of which relate to risk in a situation where everyone should be aware of the risks.

First, says Seitel, never predict what might be the consequences (and BP early on in the crisis said they thought the Gulf of Mexico spill would result in a “very, very, modest environmental impact”).

Second, downplay expectations. As Seitel says, throughout the crisis BP constantly thought they were close to solving the problem – when they were not. As Seitel says, “it is better to “low ball” potential outcomes, i.e. anticipate the worst than it is to get everyone’s hopes up and risk having them dashed”.

To me Seitel’s practical example demonstrates the point I am trying to make i.e. that a substantive role of responsible corporate PR or communication is about advising our corporate masters to be cautious about the consequences, rather than (over) confident about their own abilities. And thinking too much about sound bites on the evening news!

Talking about sound bits the Rudd demise, which I’ve already given a perspective on (an abbreviation of which was judged the BRW ‘Letter of the Week’ in their July 8-14 edition) is not unconnected to this theme. He seemed to surround himself with a bunch of 30 year-old advisors, who appeared to be pre-occupied with the 24 hour news cycle. They seemed to have no conception as to how to mitigate against risk.

It would be interesting to know how many internal PR professionals in Australia, play the role of the inqusitor. It’s often not a popular role. But it can be worth its weight in gold.

Rudd’s demise; the implications for Australian corporate PR and communications

Grant — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:08:03 +0000

Some of the reputed factors behind the demise of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd provide plenty of food-for-thought about the PR and communications implications it might have for corporate and business Australia and for those who manage a corporate PR function or a PR Department.

Obviously political PR or communications is very different from the corporate or business environment.

However, as a professional communications advisor or over 30 years here’s what I would be saying to my boss if I was asked “are there any PR or communications learning’s we should take from the Rudd failure?”

1. Beware when ego takes over.

It’s an easy trap for PR Managers – and their leaders – to fall into, and getting the balance right is always a challenge. However, excessive focus around an individual is dangerous. In many cases you want a CEO or Chairperson to be a thought leader and an advocate, but in the corporate world there are a number of individuals whom I am sure we can all think of who have, over the years, actually done their organisation harm by taking on too much of the spotlight. So don’t let your leader fall into the trap of believing his or her own PR!!

2. Get the focus on the long term – not tomorrow’s headlines.

Corporations, unlike political parties, are seldom drivers of daily – or even weekly- news cycles. Nonetheless the task of the responsible PR or communications professional is to focus those who lead, and publicly front the organisation, on the journey and the horizon, not tomorrow’s opportunity or reacting to what the competition is doing or saying today.

3. Good PR and communication is about ‘building blocks’ with stakeholders and those whose opinions they value.

Communication theory is about identifying stakeholders, understanding their needs and building consensus and goodwill progressively. Any new directions or policies have to be go through a ‘building blocks’ process. And part of that involves recognition that any stakeholder group will always have advocates, opinion formers or influencers who perspective they value. Ignore them at your peril!

4. Language and tone create the expectation.

It’s not just what you say, but how you say it. Inappropriate choice of language and tone can be dangerous and create wrong expectations. Be careful- and sparing- with your use of superlatives (if you choose to use them at all!). Pick those initiatives that you need to excite people about and those that you want to simply make them feel comforted about. Remember that more often that not people prefer to be pleasantly surprised when something exceeds their expectations.

5. PR is as much about what to avoid and what not to do!

PR is meant to be about two-way communication – which means understanding what key audiences and stakeholders are feeling or thinking. Therefore the best PR or communications professionals have the uncanny knack of acting as the devils advocate. Conversely the best leaders have the capacity to seek, listen and take on board matters that few others in the team might be prepared to say. And act accordingly!

6. It starts with the internal communication.

No external communication from any organisation is believable in the long-term unless the thoughts, beliefs and aspirations are understood and endorsed by the whole management team. A talented leader can create the momentum, but he or she, supported or lead by the PR and communications professionals, has to start the process internally. And keep the internal audiences ‘in touch’ all the time!

7. Don’t confuse image with reputation.

Don’t let your leader get caught with the image disease. Image is about today – being seen in the right places, looking the part, using the right tools and using the right jargon. It’s also often talking about what you intend to do and if necessary buying advertising to show how different you are. Reputation is about tomorrow – actually having going out there doing ‘stuff’, building relationships and being judged by what you have done. Image is easy and superficial. Reputation building takes character, commitment and time.

8. The best PR is when others say it!

Smart leaders – and PR people – recognise that simply talking with a megaphone won’t necessarily convince people to your way of thinking. That’s why some leaders achieve more by saying less. They recognize it is often more effective to be the conductor in the orchestral pit than the singer on the stage. That’s achieved working quietly behind-the-scenes convincing, and empowering, others to act as advocates or influencers. In the PR industry it’s called the power of third party opinion.

My purpose has not been to analyse and comment on the specific communication-related failings of Rudd as Prime Minister – I’m just not close enough to the political process.

I’ve simply tried to take what I’ve seen and read and relate that to a business environment.

I’m sure others may have plenty of other twists on these – and other very valid thoughts, opinions and observations. Comments are welcome.

Change Management, PR and communication – what a potpurri!

Grant — Wed, 26 May 2010 06:45:56 +0000

What’s the connection between Change Management and PR and communication and what challenges does it bring to PR Directors and Managers and those who specialise in corporate public relations?

That’s what I wanted more insight into when I took myself off to a one day forum in Sydney this week (May 25) called ‘Change Management – achieving organisational development during times of transition’, run by Ark Group.

I’ve had quite a bit of exposure to corporate PR and communications around change in organisations and as this has involved working cooperatively with HR and various operational people, who invariably have ‘ownership’ of the project, I wanted to understand better their perspective.

In particular I wanted to see how where they saw the fit with PR and communication. I also wanted to better appreciate their motivations and understand the issues and challenges they faced. And, because I am sometimes called in by PR Directors and Managers, to provide an external perspective (and an additional pair of hands!) when a large project involving change is happening, I wantged to better understand the internal dynamics bvetwen Change Managers, HR Managers and internal PR and communication professionals.

Why? Because, in my experience during the corporate PR and communication to stakeholders and audiences that I’ve done – around mergers and acquisitions, factory closures, introduction of new systems, processes and technology, and redundancies (to name a few)– too often communications is seen simply as the delivery mechanism.

In fact, often there are flaws – or gaps- in the communication strategy around change and its impact on stakeholders and audiences – both internal and external. Usually these would have been overcome simply by including the PR or communications professional in the early stages of the project.

But I was pleasantly surprised – and reassured – that the Change Management experts are well aware – sometimes as result of bitter experience – not only of the role of PR and communication, but how critical it can often be to the success of any change management program.

In theory at least there seemed to be a realisation from those who presented that communication was an integral part of the process. And in setting up Steering Committees or Project teams the need for a PR or communications representative was recognised – and valued!

Good practical working examples of Change Management programs at the forum included ING (soon to change its name) introducing new work practices for its front line telephone staff, Fonterra Australia introducing a new SAP system across four separate business units in two countries, Medibank Australia changing its whole modus operandi and eBay managing its business through the GFC.

One piece of interesting research which showed why communication must be geographically audience centric came from Rich Atkinson, eBay Human Resources Director for Australia and New Zealand.

Rich produced research from Kouzes Posner (The Leadership Challenge 2002) which showed that Australians expected/valued honesty (93%) rather than inspiration (73%) from their organisation and their leaders. Contrast that with Singaporeans who expected/valued inspiration (94%) over honesty (65%). That says something about different cultural values!

As well the Fonterra example showed very different attitudes between Australians and New Zealanders!

Bridget Sebire, Communication and Change Management Consultant at Mercer, produced research to demonstrate the critical role communication plays during major change.

This showed that 87% of employees felt a strong sense of commitment to their organisation when senior management took the time to explain the reasons behind change. That fell to 41% when management failed to give an explanation.

And my overall take from the forum?

That organisational development, culture, Change Management and communication are all intertwined. Like a good potpourri the amount of each ingredient depends very much on the type of organisation and the nature of the change that is taking place.

Also that the role of communication, and the contribution PR and communications professionals, whether internal or external, is well respected and valued.

WIth these fresh insights, and a better appreciation of the whole Change Management process, I’m looking forward to my next Change Management consulting assignment!

Sydney forum brings new insights into the role of PR within professional services firms

Grant — Fri, 21 May 2010 05:57:52 +0000

The two-day forum ‘Strategic Communication for Professional Services’ that I attended in Sydney this week (May 19/20) provided a lot of food for thought for those PR Directors and Managers who could afford the time to get there. Above all it showed that this specialised area of PR and corporate communication, long regarded as not that interesting, is growing in its sophistication.

Run by Ark Group the forum had a dozen formal presentations from leading professional service firms and groups such as Allens Arthur Robinson, Deloitte, CPA Australia, Maddocks, Mercer, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Henry Davis York.

As well there were fascinating insights into how other professional service firms are handling their corporate PR and communications with two firms – Woods Bagot a global architectural firm based out of Adelaide and Cardno a Brisbane-based firm with 100 offices worldwide delivering a diverse range of infrastructure services – giving excellent case studies as to how they re-organised (and re-energised!) their internal communications.

I took three major themes from the forum:

1. PR and communication, while growing as a management or corporate support function within professional service firms, is still struggling to the recognition it deserves for the contribution its makes to the businesses.

2. A big focus for the PR and communication expert inside professional service firms is still internal communications. It’s the foundation from which everything else flows. It’s a ‘must get right’ proposition.

3. Professional service firms are more progressive in their adoption of new media channels that many might think. Some are doing some innovative work in the use of technology and social media channels to communicate both internally and externally.

On the social media front it was clear from Louise Denver, Director Corporate Affairs and Communciation at Deloitte that this firm is pushing the social media boundaries as far, if not further, than most in the professional service firms in Australia.

Importantly they are using social media as much for listening as for communicating!

Katie Reid, National Communications Manager for PricewaterhouseCoopers, as part of her presentation gave her guidelines for getting buy-in for PR and communication projects.

Her fundamentals to influencing partners were:
1) Don’t forget the numbers
2) Acknowledge the true issues
3) Include input from other leaders
4) Demonstrate understanding of the market
5) Always align with the firm’s strategy
6) Provide a practical solution

Not surprisingly considerable insight was given to how some of Australia’s largest professional service firms coped through the GFC and how they handled their corporate PR and communication during those challenging times.

So what was the most courageous PR or communication effort that came out during the two days?

It went to Deloitte. They ran an online internal program encouraging their 4000+ Australian staff to tell management “the dumbest things we do”. Run over just two weeks it resulted in 390 blogs, 500 comments and over 41,000 hits. And contrary to initial management fears of its being seen as negative because of the way it was handled it ended up being positive. Most importantly it led to some real streamlining of systems and procedures and better client service.

PricewaterhouseCoopers also deserve credit for producing an Annual Review that is more outward looking and transparent than many would expect from the country’s largest accounting firm. It even goes so far as to publish internal PWC employee morale statistics for the world to see!

What I found really interesting was the really great stuff being done by these professionals in internal communications. That’s not my area of expertise . I’m strictly an external communicator, so it was enlightening to see the other side of the fence.

As I said in previous blog those who work in PR and communication within this sector have a tough job. But if the Ark Group conference did anything it surely gave those present confidence that the corporate PR and communications function within Australian professional service firms is coming of age. The challenge for those working within it is to promote themselves, and their work, a little better to their bosses!

Why professional services’ PR and communication is different

Grant — Mon, 17 May 2010 02:49:07 +0000

Given that this week I’m spending a couple of days at “Strategic Communication for Professional Services”, a forum run by the Ark Group in Sydney it got me thinking about the special corporate public relations challenges faced by PR Directors and Managers who work for Australian accounting, law, real estate and other service firms.

Over my years in the PR consulting business I’ve been exposed to my share of professional service firm clients. As a consequence I’ve seen a few PR Directors and Managers close up.

My over-riding conclusion from this exposure is that PR and communication in this environment is ‘different’ to other in-house corporate public relations positions. I think those who take up these roles often need a different personality and a different skill set.

Above all I’ve always felt that to hold down a senior PR or communication position (especially in a law, accounting or consulting firm) one of the strongest attributes required is intellectual robustness. This is because you are working with people who often consider themselves as experts – in everything! It’s certainly not an environment for the shrinking violet!

So what do I think are the four ways management of PR and communication in a professional services firm is different from other in-house corporate public relations roles?

1. Winning internal senior support for PR and communication is so much more crucial.

Most professional firms are partnerships – or think like partners. That means the task is more than winning the support of the CEO because there’s often not just the one decision-maker. It’s absolutely vital to win internal senior support for the role of PR and communication across a broader group. Some have told me they can spend 50% of their time on this alone! Some thrive on the challenge- others find it a distraction from what they see as their real job.

2. There is more pressure for the PR and communication function to be more accountable.

In my experience there is pressure for the PR and communication function to more accountable. Firstly, because expenditure within a professional services firm is more directly connected to the wallets of the decision-makers than it is in a conventional organisation. Secondly, because the firm lives in an environment where accountability to its clients is demanded internal PR and communication is pressured to meet this same criteria. That means more formal planning, more research and more measurement.

3. To get multiple messages to a diverse range of stakeholders and audiences the PR Director or Manager needs to employ communication techniques and tactics that are both subtle and varied.

Planning and implementation is more complex than for many other in-house corporate public relations and communication specialists. That’s because the outputs are definitely more than media coverage – although that’s not to say that the firm doesn’t still have this expectation and that it’s not a constant battle to educate partners! Yes, media is in the mix, but a broad-based program of what I would call ‘meaningful’ communication – using research, seminars, studies, white papers, speeches, conferences and a myriad of other techniques has to lead the way.

4. Getting internal alignment and ‘buy-in’ is absolutely vital.

For professional service firms the whole PR and communications effort is undermined unless staff ‘buy-in’ and are aligned to the over-arching messaging. In many other organisations such an outcome is desirable; for professional firms its essential. That means that the PR Director or manager needs to devote considerable resources, time and effort to internal stakeholder communication. This is to an audience that is often both intelligent and skeptical. Winning them over is often no easy task!

While all of this means that those who hold down senior PR and communication roles in Australian professional services firm do need what I’ve called superior “intellectual robustness”, I’ve felt that sometimes this can result in professionals in this role becoming so involved that they lose their objectivity and the ‘devils advocate’ perspective that I’ve always believed is an essential attribute of any PR or communications advisor.

But that’s a small criticism about a group who in my view face, and in the main surmount, some of the most difficult challenges in corporate public relations.

I’m looking forward to a couple of days mixing with them, and learning about what is current best practice in professional services public relations and communications.

PS: If you are interested in further articles of this nature take a look at PR Influences, which I also write.

PR and Crisis Management: Reduce the risk by planning and training

Grant — Thu, 06 May 2010 02:59:25 +0000

First it was Toyota with a major crisis that hit the world headlines. Now its BP. PR professionals and crisis management experts are having a field day critiquing how each organisation has performed in the heat of battle. So, what does this mean for Australian PR Directors and Managers?

Ensuring that your organisation is ‘crisis-ready’ should be a key responsibility for any Australian PR Director or Manager. You can reduce the risks by planning and training for the crises that you think are most likely to hit your organisation.

During 30 years in the PR business, I’ve had quite a bit to do with crisis management. I’ve helped clients cope with a few – but to be honest in the scheme of things they’ve been pretty minor (one in this category was a Christmas cake with stones in it – but not so minor to those who broke their teeth on Christmas Day!). I’ve also written quite a few articles on crisis management in PR Influences during the last decade.

But I’m a great believer in ‘horses for courses’. My forte is not handling the hurly-burly of a full-blown crisis that is a number one news story. There are plenty of PR and so-called crisis management experts out there who get their kicks from being at the centre of the storm. They are good at it – especially handling the media aspect.

Rather my skill, and experience, is more at the strategy and ‘thinking’ end – putting the systems in place to handle a crisis. I’ve introduced crisis management structures, protocols and processes to a range of organisations, including some multinationals, across Australia and New Zealand. It’s my experience that there’s not many PR people who work at this end of the crisis spectrum.

The role of the PR Director or Manager in crisis management is like a football coach. You need to select a team, choose a captain, work out what’s likely to be thrown at them, develop a game plan to counter it and then practice. The game won’t pan out exactly as you might expect, but you have a better chance of winning if you’ve done the preparation.

Look over my checklist to see how your crisis-ready your organisation is:

1. A formal crisis management plan, protocol or process. If you are controlled from off-shore the plan needs to be workable in Australia. (Don’t scoff - some I’ve seen in multinationals aren’t!).
2. A senior member of the management team (or ideally the CEO) to have ownership.
3. Written procedures, guidelines protocols that are accessible to those with crisis responsibilities.
4. An analysis of likely risks, with scenarios, positions and outcomes for each.
5. Delegated executives throughout the organisation with specific crisis responsibilities relevant to the crises that might impact on them.
6. Prepared documents, statements etc (in some cases even a dummy website set up).
7. Prepared media and stakeholder lists.
8. To regularly train and practice the team against your most likely scenarios.
9. Media training for your key spokespeople – again specifically around chosen scenarios
10. Communication protocols that link all the key people in the crisis management team in the event of an alert.

Most crises that hit companies are not of the magnitude that impacted Toyota and BP. However, most still have the ability to do reputational damage if they are allowed to fester and get out of control.

Whether large or small, studies show that for most crises it’s how they are managed in the first 24 hours which is the most important. As a PR Director or Manager you can reduce the risks of a crisis doing reputational damage to your organisation by planning and training.

I know it’s not exciting or sexy. But I can assure that it’s an investment well worth making. And it’s another way to demonstrate the role of PR to the C-suite.

See my blog: Toyota – Oh what a shambles!

PR and the Web: How much influence do you have over content on your web site?

Grant — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:16:40 +0000

If you’re an Australian PR Director or Manager how central is your web site in your communication PR strategy and how much control and influence do you and your team have over its content?

Two matters in the last couple of days cause me to pose this question.

One was an article in the Australian Financial Review on Thursday (29 April) claiming that the Australian arm of international research firm Forrester had branded the web sites of Australia’s big four banks as a “uniform failure” under a new usability scorecard it is using.

This article (which unfortunately is only accessible if you are an AFR subscriber) says that Forrester believes that despite the banks spending millions of dollars to revamp their websites they are “scattered”, “inefficient”, “jumbled” and that the sites contain “flawed search systems and inefficient tasks flows”.

The second was an article by the prolific Australian blogger Craig Pearce. His thrust was more PR and communication specific. Paraphrasing him he asked:
• Are the communications people getting thought leadership and other strategic messaging into the content of corporate websites?
• Where does PR fits as a provider of content to corporate websites?

Forget about the Forrester research for now. It’s a good bookmark regarding websites – and is interesting – but it’s more about the tech side of things. Craig Pearce’s questions are more relevant to PR Directors and Managers.

I’ve been writing on this topic in PR Influences for nearly a decade. And I’ve posted a response to some other issues raised in Craig’s blog. Here’s my takeout on some of the issues and challenges – but I’m on the outside looking in. Other’s with the practical in-house PR and communications experience may have more to contribute – and may disagree with me.

Here are 10 factors that I believe are relevant when considering the role of PR or communication professionals in corporate web sites.

Why PR & Communications should be involved:

1. A website is the central over-arching communications face of the organisation.
2. Communication strategy and messaging should be reflected in the web site.
3. Research shows that many stakeholders – including media and investors and those who advise them – regularly access an organisation’s web site.
4. Search engines are a key deliverer of visitors to web sites and if yours is a competitive business, then a key to getting more visitors to regularly post relevant content, which is search optimised, on your site.

Reasons why PR has difficulty getting involved:

5. If you are part of an international organisation then its odds on your site will be controlled offshore and the ability for the PR department to post content, let-alone have a say in strategy, will be limited or non-existent.
6. The IT departmental battle! In many organisations’ IT rules the roost and technical considerations over-ride everything else. PR can’t get a look in!
7. The marketing departmental battle. In some organisations’ sites are completely sales and marketing driven with offers and deals the key priority. Again it’s hard for PR to get a look in.
8. If your organisation is ASX listed. This means that the site may be dominated by obtuse statements and a host of other regulatory and legal documents that restrict the ability for the PR Department to post coherent content on the site.

How PR can get a foothold?

9. Do your research to demonstrate that key stakeholders or audiences which the PR Department is responsible for reaching are online savvy and access the web site. Then show the gap that exists through excluding PR (or conversely the added value that the involvement of PR can bring).
10. Try to get onside with IT, marketing or your overseas principles and create the opportunity for PR input.

Finally, a word about Forrester. What qualifications do they bring to the table to critique, and condemn, web sites? Their web site breaks just about every rule in the book. Try and access their Australian operation!

These specific articles which I’ve previously written are relevant to this blog:

• Is your website communicating what you want?
• PR and the Web: New strategies achieve higher rankings on search engines.

Further related articles I have written on online media, web, search and social media can be accessed at PR Influences.

Australian online newsroom survey – food for thought for PR Directors