The NAB’s brilliantly coordinated and executed marketing, advertising and PR ‘ambush’ on its sister Australian banks a couple of weeks back rightly got a lot of favourable comment at the time.

As a campaign it was bold, brazen, well timed and very different for a bank. As an ‘attention-grabbing’ exercise it must have been seen and commented on by the majority of adult Australian consumers. 

What impressed me most in the campaign which NAB is still proudly showing on its web site,was the integration of a whole range of communication tools – advertising, public relations, social media, billboards and stunts. So, it deserves a 9 or 10 out of 10 for execution. 

But did I think it was a game breaker in the bank marketing war? No – definitely not.

Let’s put this NAB initiative in perspective. To use a war analogy this was only the pre-emptive first strike (albeit brilliantly created and executed) in what will be a long, bloody and protracted marketing and public relations war with the other banks (perhaps a parallel with Iraq).

Yes, NAB might have won the initial battle –and temporarily back-footed its competitors. However, many other battles will be fought and already we are seeing the other banks beginning to respond – also creatively and aggressively.

As a communicator what interests me, and I suspect other thinking PR and communication professionals, is whether what we saw in mid-February was just a one-off ‘big bang’ (albeit done very well) to create noise with the aim of addressing the obvious lack of penetration that previous announcements about reducing and eliminating fees achieved.

Or was it the start of a long-term advertising, marketing and PR campaign or program that is really different for the banking industry. One that strives to connect in meaningful ways with all NAB’s stakeholders to bring about change. One that has the layers and depth and sophistication that is really capable of being a game-breaker.

If NAB is really serious – and committed – to achieving a substantive change in attitudes and behaviour it needs to embrace communication theory. This says that to ultimately change behaviour target audiences need to be subjected to a staged and progressive communication program. And that such changes can only be achieved through campaigns and programs that often evolve over an extended period – sometimes years!

This would suggest that there are four phases NAB needs to work through.

1. Awareness – what do we want the target to see, hear or be exposed to that they weren’t before?

2. Comprehension – what do we want the target to understand or comprehend that they didn’t before?

3. Attitude – what do we want the target to believe and feel now that they didn’t before?

4. Behaviour – what do we want the target to actually do that is different to what they did previously?

NAB has clearly ‘nailed’ the awareness phase. So they are off to a great start. But there’s an awful lot more to be done.

As I’ve written previously there’s a big difference between image and reputation.

This initiative was focused at the image end of the telescope. If NAB really wants to win the banking wars most of the future work has to be done on building reputation. And that takes time (and hard work!).

I’ve written previously about my concerns about the banking industry’s approach to PR and communication. My perception is that too much  seems to be so focused around short-term thinking. From a communications perspective it seems that most banks struggle to think or see beyond the next interest rate rise.

So congratulations to NAB for a brilliant diversion. Yes, it created a lot of noise. Yes we all noticed it. Yes, those of us in the marketing and pr community generally applauded it. Yes, it was one of the best examples there’s been in Australia of how to coordinate and integrate advertising, public relations, social media etc.

 But will this 2-3 day burst change how Australians view their banks? Will it encourage many to run into the arms the NAB because it we see NAB as being so different to the other banks?

I doubt it.  (And so do others )

But regardless of the ultimate success of the NAB’s campaign I bet there are some envious PR and Communications Managers out there.

I’m sure many PR professionals would like to be in the shoes of Andrew Hagger, NAB’s head of corporate affairs and marketing. I’m sure he’s still bathing in the reflected glory. I’m sure the hierarchy in the bank loved it. And what a great campaign to have on your CV!

No related posts.

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.

Two words – crisis and reputation – must surely strike a chord with Australian public relations and communications professionals in the corporate world as they gear up for the 2011 year.

While what’s happened in the past is not necessarily a predictor of what may happen in the future, if I were an in-house corporate PR or communications professional going into this New Year I would feel inclined to do a quiet bit of ‘brushing up’ on the latest thinking on managing crises and reputations.

If you think that’s a good idea here are three articles that have come out in late 2010/early 2011 which I believe are a useful starting point.

PR Lessons from 2010–The Year of the Mega Crisis offers some sage advice -

o It is more important to solve a problem than chase tweets.
o Knowing how to solve a problem is not enough.
o The person in charge is not always the best spokesperson.
o Look for the positive in moments of crisis.
o Recognise chaos and complexity in crisis planning and management.

The 11 Unwritten Laws of Reputation, by Any Beal in ‘Forbes’ include gems such as “Every reputation has an Achilles heal” and “Your reputation will come under attack” and “Being stubborn is more expensive than saying you’re sorry”.  Plus 8 more that are worth a read.

WikiLeaks and the new Corporate Disclosure Crisis, also from ‘Forbes’, claims to be the most thorough article available on the issues of security of corporate documents and crisis management in the event of leaks. It’s must reading for all corporate PR and marketing professionals.

Finally, if you have a little extra time on your hands you might also find it interesting – and a tad entertaining – to read Rise of the Image men – PR Man has conquered the world. He still isn’t satisfied.  It’s a ‘warts and all’ look at PR from the ‘Economist’ (published in mid-December) but its underlying theme is around the role PR plays in reputation management.

PS:  If Crisis Management and Reputation Management interests you I have written several previous articles on these topics in PR Influences.

No related posts.

If you are the typical Australian PR, public affairs or communication director or manager you probably face a multiplicity of challenges.

Not only do you need to be top-notch PR professional; there’s a multitude of management tasks to juggle, not the least of which is to manage both an internal PR department, as well as an external PR agency.

And while not all organisations operating in Australia work on the same financial year, the peak summer vacation time does mean that for a period from just prior to Christmas until mid/late January there is often a window when business is less frantic and there’s the chance to sit down and reflect. Even if only briefly (and perhaps only at the beach!).

So if I were a PR Director as 2010 comes to an end the overall question I would be asking myself is:

Did I really get myself as an executive, and PR as a discipline, better accepted within our organisation during 2010?

Then as an exercise in self-analysis here’s 10 questions I would be asking myself about the PR performance of myself and my PR Department  during the 2010 year:

1) What were the three top contributions I believe the PR team made to the organisation? Were they adequately recognised by those we worked for and with?

2) What was the key breakthrough I personally, or PR as a communications discipline, achieved in our organisation during the year? While I recognise it, did my peers equally recognise it?

3) Did we as a PR team have some failures during the year? If so what were the key reasons for these?  Were there common threads to them?  What did I learn from them, am I really on top of the problems and will they be avoided or overcome in 2011 and beyond?

4) What was the key success achieved by my internal PR team? Did I adequately recognise it and make my team aware of my pleasure at their success? Did we celebrate our successes as a team?

5) Did I do enough to individually develop, encourage – and reward – the key members of my PR team?  Did I do enough mentoring? Do they all have clear guidelines as to their roles, responsibilities and career paths?  Do they all know the areas I believe they contribute best in, and those where they need to work harder at?

6) What was the key success achieved by my PR agency? Did I adequately recognise it, and make the members of the PR agency team aware of my pleasure at their contribution and success? Likewise, if there were some areas for concern was I ‘up front’ and transparent about these?

7) How have I related to, and worked with, my executive peers within the organisation? Which relationships are strong and why is that so? Which relationships are not as robust as they could be? Why is that so and what do I need to do to make them better?

8) Is there a particular element of the way we as a PR Department work, and provide services, to other departments that I know is not as good as it should be? What can/should I do to address this in the months ahead? Is the structure of the PR Department right for what the organisation expects us to deliver?

9) How is my relationship/reputation with the key executive whom I report to? Has it progressed/matured during 2010? If there are areas where there are still misunderstandings about PR and its contribution, what do I need to do to address these?

10) What are the 5 things I need to concentrate in 2011 – either in my personal style and the way I work, or because I recognise that these are what the organisation will be looking for public relations and communications to deliver?

This is the last of my blogs for 2010. If you’ve been reading what I’ve had to say (and numbers have been steadily increasing month-on-month) I hope that you’ve got something out of it. If you are a new reader then I invite you to have a look through some of my comments – and then click the RSS feed so you can read what I have to say in 2011 (I normally blog two – and sometimes three –times a month.

Compliments of the season.

No related posts.

Oh to be a fly on the wall of the PR and Corporate Heads of major banks as the Australian banking industry faces a major corporate reputation, public relations and communications challenge.

Ironically, the current perceived ‘crisis of confidence’ and “PR problem’ facing the Australian Banking industry is based on criticisms against the banks that are largely ill-founded and mis-informed.

But that’s the real PR and communication issue. If large sections of the community have got the wrong-end-of-the-stick, after it was largely our strong banking sector got us through the GFC relatively unscathed, then what does that say about how well banks are understood?

The bottom line is it’s awfully difficult for banks to be liked. Let’s face it – they will never completely be.

But they need to be at least understood, and hopefully respected. Clearly they are some way away from the ideal.

So how do Australian banking industry leaders (one of whom – Cameron Clyne from NAB- has been saying for some months that the banks have to change and work harder to earn a good reputation) think they are going to turn this situation around? 

And what advice are their PR and corporate communications people giving? Are they still sitting in their own corporate silos, wearing their own colours, still subservient to their bosses (and fighting a losing battle with their internal marketing and brand people)?

Or are they getting together as a group of PR and communications professionals, and combining their undoubted talents into addressing and solving the issue with the greater good of the industry in mind?

Having worked extensively over many years for a variety of industry groups, associations, peak bodies – call them what you will – it seems that the banking industry is facing a structural issue in its PR and communications that is far from uncommon within industries.

Simply stated it is struggling over the issue of brand v generic communication.

The heart of its problem is a real conflict and tension between the egos and individual brand ambitions of the individual banks who are busily trying to ‘get one over’ each other in the marketplace and the needs of the banking industry overall, and the stakeholders who shape its reputation, who want basic generic information and communication.

It’s not new. I’ve seen this brand versus industry argument play out at almost every industry group I’ve ever worked for.

It seems to me that the banking industry is, to use a cricket term, ‘playing down the wrong line’. 

• It’s not about telling consumers and stakeholders how good the banks are; it’s about increasing understanding about what banks do and how they contribute.
• It won’t be solved by the combined might of the individual brands throwing more at advertising. The power of the brand is great for selling products. But when it comes winning hearts and minds in the community too much of it coming from brands can arguably create the opposite impression to that sought.
• This is not a media or political issue that will be addressed by becoming more active through the issuing of media releases (as suggested in article by The Australian). It’s about getting out and actually doing things that force people to look at the banking industry differently.
• The politicians may be the symptom but it’s the community that is the underlying cause. It’s consumer and community disquiet that is fuelling the pollies. Quell the fire with the consumers and the pollies won’t have enough oxygen to keep going! 
• An industry under siege and attack needs to speak with one voice. However, the Australian Bankers Association, which has historically been more of a lobbying organisation, seems to be neither equipped nor mandated to carry out a wider and more generic stakeholder communication function.

In fact I can’t help but feel for Steven Muchenberg, who as head of the ABA has been handed a poison challis.

Effectively the banks are saying – “we’ll keep all the good stuff to the brands, thanks very much. But when the going get’s tough, and we want to keep our heads down, we want you to go out and defend us”.

Go to the ABA website and it appears more like a repository of facts and information about the banking industry – great as a defensive mechanism aimed at blunting the attacks from pollies, consumer groups and the like. But it does little to proactively promote the banks.

Individually, the banks are doing a lot to be good community citizens. However, the only way to find this out is by delving into the ‘about’ tabs of the web sites of the majors – CBA, Westpac, ANZ and NAB. Nowhere can I see is the totally of that effort being communicated.

Putting it crudely it seems as if the banks control the proactive PR and marketing stuff and the ABA is there as a backstop and to be the fall guy.  Sorry – but that approach is ‘old style’.

To achieve a better corporate reputation the banking industry as a whole needs to be developing and implementing long-term outreach PR and communication programs that ‘connect’ and ultimately add-value to the Australian community.
 
However, in order to do this the industry would need to collectively agree – and if necessary self-regulate themselves – as to what PR and communication initiatives should be undertaken by brands, and at what point this devolves to the industry.

To do this it seems as if the banking industry has to rethink the purpose and role of the ABA.

It seems the ABA needs to become more than a lobby, research and industry data collection organisation.  Rather it needs to become a more reputation management, PR and communications-driven industry association and given the necessary budgets to fulfill this function.

The RBA needs to create an umbrella for the banking industry. Under this let the brands do what they do best – sell products and services

Do this and maybe- just maybe – 10 years from now the banking industry might just find itself in a better place!

But as always the issue is whether those giving the PR and communications advice are thinking of the industry rather than the brand they represent. And whether the CEO’s are listening!

No related posts.

As a PR Manager are you finding the explosion in social media is making PR unfashionable – and unsexy – to your marketing and brand folks?

Is this because your marketing and brand manager’s are having a love affair with social media – egged on by the advertising and digital agencies who have squeezed public relations out of the picture?

I was one of those who pioneered the fusion of PR and social media in Australia and I’ve written extensively about it. I saw a bright future for it. And I still do.

But just a few years later it seems the social media tsunami has just swept everything in its path. It has arrived more quickly, and is much bigger, than I ever envisaged.

Led by the persuasive advertising lads and lasses, who have jumped on this bandwagon to make up for the decline in the effective of traditional advertising, most marketers are becoming converts to using social media.

The trouble is that social media is increasingly being used as a promotional tool to bombard the consumer with. The result is that in many brand marketing organisations PR is being pushed to the sidelines as a serious brand building tool as social media becomes the favourite, new and exciting marketing tool.

But we PR folk shouldn’t get discouraged. Hasn’t this been the history of advertising; they over extend themselves and over indulge! They bombard rather than coerce. They shout, rather than whisper. They don’t call advertising “interruption communication” for nothing.

I believe that the use of social media for hard marketing and promotional purposes will inevitably cause a huge backlash as consumers react to their private space being invaded.

While we wait for that to happen what we as PR people need to do is to define, and then capture, a position that in the new marketing paradigm will work for PR – and those in the marketing and brand arena who use it.

As sure as the sun rises every morning there will come a day when your marketing and brand people will come back to you because they are disillusioned with the way consumers are reacting to what the brand has been doing to them – and asking how PR can help rebuild relationships and reputation.

If you are looking to reposition PR within your organisation for that day I think there are two key phrases to focus on, and build capability around, – influencers, and earned media.

Influencers are key. Influencing those who influence others has always been at the core of what PR is all about.

Now it seems the Head of Global Marketing and Brand Building at one of the world’s largest, and best, marketers – Proctor and Gamble – may have done PR a favour by saying at a recent US conference that PR should ‘stake its claim’ and own real-time marketing that targets communities (as opposed to paid media that continues to reach the masses).

He was apparently backed up by other senior marketers who espoused that there was a real role for PR in generating word of mouth and peer-to-peer recommendations. An outcome of all this is an elegant article about PR’s path to providing unique value for brand marketers, including a quadrant analysis to show where PR might/should fit for marketers, by a senior US PR executive. It’s well worth a read.

However to me, all this is really just about PR to its roots! Knowing who to influence, and using the power of word-of-mouth in communication is where PR excels, and where it is capable of delivering what no other corporate or marketing discipline can. And the role of PR is even more powerful in the era of social media.

Also at the core of PR is the concept of earned media i.e. the belief, which has been proven in research studies, that editorial (in whatever form this may take) is perceived to be more trustworthy, credible and believable than paid space which is clearly recognised as carrying an advertising message.

In this regard Melbourne-based Trevor Young recently wrote a good piece for ‘Marketing’ called “Owned and earned versus paid media”. Proctor and Gamble’s CMO reportedly differentiated between the role of paid media in what I thought was a telling way i.e. “Paid media creates an emotional connection and provides the air cover so that PR can move in to win the ground war”.

I believe social media provides one of the greatest opportunities ever for PR – so long as we engage in conversation, and encourage two-way communication.

The worst thing we as PR people can do is try and compete with our advertising cousins on their turf. It’s much better to stick to our knitting – do what PR has historically done well. The key for the future is to focus on the two areas where PR can deliver what no other marketing or corporate discipline can – identifying, reaching and engaging in conversation with influencers and generating earned media (traditional and social).

Of course it’s all very well pontificating this from the sidelines. I guess it’s a tad more challenging and difficult being a PR Manager and seeing marketing and brand people within your organisation, along with their advertising and digital partners, having all the fun using social media.

No wonder some PR Manager’s I know, facing this situation, feel like wallflowers!

No related posts.

Many of the issues that Australian corporate PR Departments and their Manager’s face come back to a lack of clarity regarding the PR organisational model they, and their organisation, are pursuing.

In fact to me it’s the prime reason why many Australian PR Manager’s struggle to get recognition within the Executive Suite for the strategic contribution corporate public relations can bring to the business.

In simple terms a lot of corporate PR Department’s are stuck.

Whether because of history or the organisational culture PR is simply not delivering what it could, and should, be. And I suspect many corporate PR Manager’s lay awake at night knowing there is a problem, but not knowing exactly what it is, or how to even start to address it.

I came across such a situation just a few weeks ago. A bunch of bright qualified PR people manning an internal PR Department, but getting run off their feet simply getting because their whole focus was on ‘doing stuff’. Because the emphasis was on delivery they could make no real headway. And given they were all PR graduates from the various Australian universities they were finding the reality of corporate life a lot different from the theory they had learnt.

No wonder there was a lot of dissatisfaction!

From my experience one of the root causes is that the wrong corporate PR organisational model is  being applied.

In simplistic terms there are three basic corporate PR organisational models:

1. The PR Delivery model – “Let’s get in front of as many people as possible”

2. The PR Positioning model –“It’s what we say to whom, that’s important”

3. The PR Strategic Model -“It’s what we decide to do – or not do – that’s important”.

I wrote a detailed article about PR organisational models in PR Influences some years back. This explains in more detail how PR has evolved and the three models above (plus there’s a nice diagram that you might find useful).

Of course in the ideal world a corporate PR Department wants to be able to fulfill all of the outputs and outcomes detailed above. But it’s also often awfully difficult to be good at everything. A team that is great at the strategic stuff is often not good at delivery – which is often why PR agencies are used to complement the work of the PR Department.

But really it’s also an issue regarding perception – how management views the role of PR within the organisation. The challenge for corporate PR Manager’s is how to solve the situation – and if they are positioned wrongly (either by perception or in reality) the challenge is how to get out of one of model and shift to another.

Without wanting to “talk my own book”, it’s something that’s virtually impossible to change solely from within. External facilitation, often involving a PR audit of how PR is practiced within the organisation, is often highly desirable.

To change the role that PR plays within an organisation requires attitudes and expectations of both the PR Manager and the executives to be reviedwed and realigned. Executives need to be convinced that a different way of doing things is both desirable and achievable – and will bring tangible results. On the other hand, often the PR Manager has to face changing the skill set within the Department in order to be able to deliver against the new model.

If I were an Australian corporate PR Manager I would not want to be stuck running a delivery model. As my experience a few weeks back showed it’s not easy or rewarding.

To me one of the PR Manager’s tasks should be to get PR as far up the decision-making tree as possible so it is recognised and accepted in the c-suite as an essential business tool. Unfortunately there’s no way of really knowing how many of our Australian corporate PR Manager’s are really practicing at the PR Strategic Model level.

No related posts.

While US PR practice when it comes to hiring, and working with, PR consultants or PR agencies can be perceived as rather legalistic Australian organisations are probably at the other end of the spectrum – just a tad too loose with their paperwork.

In my experience across Australia and New Zealand too few senior internal PR professionals, or those they report to, are mindful of some of the key business issues that can arise during a relationship between an organisation and a PR consultant or PR agency!

This came to mind this last week while viewing some US PR blog exchanges.

Ironically the questions, exchanges and discussions were about two of the perennial issues that I found arose most frequently during my PR agency tenure i.e.

1) Who owns the media lists and contacts that the PR agency uses?
2) What are the rules around the client hiring a PR agency staffer?

In my experience uncertainty around these two issues is often a consequence of there being no written contract between the client and PR agency, or one that simply doesn’t address key business relationship issues – a topic I have written about previously.

With regard to media lists the issue normally arose either when the client wanted, for whatever reason, to do some media contact that was normally handled by the PR agency. Or alternatively it became an issue when the client was changing PR agencies, or deciding to go completely in-house.

Both scenarios are almost certain to raise the suspicions or hackles of the PR agency. But that’s another topic for another time.

When it comes to protocols , and the legalities, my perspective is that:

1) Normally PR agencies subscribe to media information (most often electronic data bases that are continuously updated). In addition they establish their own media contacts and build media relationships as part of their business which becomes a key part of their ‘tools of trade’.
2) Media lists therefore become the proprietary intellectual property of the agency, with the cost of these services being part of the overhead structure of the PR agency which is recovered as part of the hourly billing structure.

Therefore in my view the client has no right, and the PR agency no obligation, to hand over media lists. However, I believe that it is not unreasonable for a client to ask for, and be supplied with by the PR agency, a list of media with generic contact details (i.e. general email, phone numbers etc).

When it comes to the hiring of PR agency staff by a client the issues are potentially more difficult – for both parties.  However, it’s a fact of life and with a bit of forethought it can easily be navigated to the satisfaction of both parties (or without spilling too much blood!).

 My standard agency contract always had a clause that prevented either party hiring a staffer from the other (yes, occasionally a PR agency does want to hire someone from a client!).

This stipulated that during the period of the contract and for a period after the contract ended (most commonly six months or a year) neither party was able, without the consent of the other, to engage as an employee or consultant (either directly or indirectly in whatever capacity) any person previously employed by the other.

From the PR agency perspective this clause had the additional purpose of ensuring a key staffer (and our client!) was not poached by another PR agency.

I found that covering this up front in a transparent manner ensured that both client and PR agency knew what the protocols and rules were should this situation arise.

Of course, the real issue is the wording “without the consent of the other”. Clearly where the relationship between client and agency is a strong one both parties will wish to negotiate so that a mutually satisfactory arrangement can be achieved.

To me the fairest way of handling this is for the employing party to pay the other as a minimum the standard commission they would have to pay if they were hiring through an executive recruitment firm.

That at least provides the party losing the staffer (in my experience usually the PR agency) some recompense. And it’s no more than an organisation would have to pay to recruit a PR professional from the marketplace.

In the US they are often even more prescriptive in their contracts. Because the practice is probably more prevalent in the US many of their contracts state that should a client wish to hire a PR agency staffer that they must pay a recruiting fee equal to a percentage (I have seen amounts ranging from 25% to 50%) of the employee’s current annual compensation.

Taking the time at the start of a client-supplier public relations relationship to think through issues that can arise is a worthwhile investment. It’s a shame too few Australian organisations – or PR agencies for that matter – practice it.

No related posts.

The aftermath of the BP Gulf of Mexico crisis creates a great opportunity for PR Managers or corporate communicators to sell top Australian management within their organisations on the need to think more seriously about corporate reputation management.

The importance of PR and crisis management, and the corporate reputation problems BP faced as a result of what started out as routine operational matter, have been well documented.

Most of the PR commentary has focused around the detail of how BP handled the crisis with an emphasis on what they could or should have better, how they handled the media and, in particular, the perceived shortcomings of BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward.

Of course it’s a wake-up call for all in-house PR professionals to make sure that not only do they have a crisis management plan in place; also to ensure that key executives are thoroughly media trained. It’s an area that I’ve not only written extensively about for a number of years; I’ve helped organisations put in crisis management structures and processes. And helped them test them!

But to me the lessons of the BP crisis go much deeper for in-house PR professionals (and those advising from the outside).

I believe it really provides an opportunity for those in-house PR professionals who think strategically, and who want to be seen as part of the senior management team, and to show how important reputation management is, and the role that PR and communications can play.

In my experience of working with in-house PR Managers for over 25 years, they face a number of challenges to make an impact in this area of reputation management.  This is because:

1. The PR or communications function has often grown with an implementation rather than a strategic bias to it. That makes it difficult to change internal mindsets and get a foot under the top table where strategy is decided.
2. Management, if it thinks of reputation at all, fails to understand or appreciate that there are both tangible and intangible contributors to reputation and that in many instances it is those that are intangible that can potentially have the biggest impact (good or bad) on reputation.
3. Getting serious about reputation involves looking hard within the organisation to uncover faults and issues and many in top management prefer to leave those stones unturned. In particular they often fear it will bring an element of negativity to the table, when the CEO, and in particular the Marketing Director, just want to look forward and think positive.
4. Public companies equate reputation with their share price and they think that investor sentiment is what matters. Blindfolded by their financial advisors, and in fear of transgressing ASX rules on disclosure, public communication becomes narrowly defined as ‘market communication’.
5. The PR or Corporate Affairs Manager, while recognising the need and opportunity, often lacks the in-depth knowledge to argue the case not only for reputation management but for him or her to manage and implement it. It’s a lonely task being the sole advocate!

Articles I’ve written on crisis management and the role of corporate PR  in recent months and on the general topic of corporate reputation over the years at PR Influences all provide further insights.

However, in the last few weeks a great white paper entitled ‘Reputational Risk Management: A Framework for Safeguarding Your Organization’s Primary Tangible Asset’  by Jeffrey Resnick of Opinion Research Co has been published.

If you have a serious interest in reputation management, it’s a ‘must read’ as it makes the case for better reputation management and provides examples of companies that have analysed their reputational risk profile. Furthermore it advocates the institution of corporate reputation audits and offers a blueprint for their implementation.

Another resource in this area which is one of my favourites is a PowerPoint presentation on Reputation Management from the London School of Public Relations. It’s about 15 years old, but it’s got some good stuff in it for anyone who wants to build a case for why their organisation should take corporate reputation management more seriously.

If anyone else has other sources that will help shed light on what is a complex subject please share them.

PS. On a lighter note it’s now possible to hire help from an external ‘Cyber Reputation Manager’ who will eradicate all adverse comments about your organisation on the Internet.

No related posts.

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.

No related posts.