Grant Common's PR Acumen » Internal PR management

Could advertisers teach us about PR agency relationships & pitching?

Grant — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:44:23 +0000

Australian PR Managers – if you are committed to running your PR agency relationship to the highest standard then take note from your counterparts who manage advertising agency relationships.

Often comments emanating from the advertising world can be taken with a grain of salt. But I thought that those reported (albeit only briefly) from the latest Australian Association of National Advertisers (ANNA) ‘HotHouse’ forum on the future of client-agency relationships were worth repeating and commenting on.

Significantly, they came from the client, rather than the agency, side of the business. And from some of the biggest advertisers around e.g.- Nestle and Toyota.

Some of the comments reported from the “HotHouse’ in AdNews were:

“most traditional pitch processes are a form of speed dating. They really tell you very little about the chemistry of working together,” – Suncorp Group marketing head, Mark Reinke.
“we will do almost anything to preserve the agency relationship. Frankly, if the relationship fails, our management structure tends to believe it can’t be all their fault. It must partially be our fault, so what are we going to do to fix the relationship?” Toyota divisional manager for national marketing, Peter Webster.
“it (agency relationship problems) is usually always a people problem. You also need to examine yourself because sometimes it’s on our side,” Nestle director of group marketing and communications, Ian Alwill.

The area of client-PR agency relationships is one where I’ve always held the view that the PR industry has a lot to learn from our advertising cousins.

Advertising has been around for lot longer than PR. Many protocols and processes exist – on both the client and agency sides.

From the agency side being a ‘suit’ is a role in itself – dedicated to managing the relationship, whereas in PR generally managing the relationship is just part of the team that does the ‘doing’.

In my experience there’s often not been the robustness – and might I say the professionalism – in the PR relationship as one sees down the corridor in the marketing-advertising aegis.

Both sides are to blame, but as I’ve written recently, I believe that the client has the ultimate responsibility to set the guidelines, tone and processes. That’s because they are paying the bill and they should be running the relationship.

However, with that comes the responsibility for having the ability, if problems arise, to look at both sides to pinpoint issues – something that the major advertisers reported from the ‘HotHouse’ forum appear to be willing (somewhat surprisingly to me ) to do.

As for pitching, that’s more fraught with difficulty on the PR side than it is for the advertisers. Because PR is so much more intangible than advertising there’s so much more room for subjective judgments to come into play (“making a decision between choosing another blonde or another brunette” as Ian Alwill is quoted as having said at the “HotHouse”).

As a consequence the PR industry in Australian is a long way behind our advertising cousins in having transparent processes that meet the standards that Procurement Departments internationally are demanding.

This is evidenced by estimates I have seen that suggest that as much as 40% of Australian advertising pitching is being handled by third-party facilitators who run the process to ensure there is robustness and transparency.

While the key objective from involving an independent party is obviously to make the best choice, another of the key objectives of this is to ensure that the losing agencies at least exit the process having felt that the process has been fair, that’s there’s been a level playing field and as result there are no (or few) grounds for them to have any ‘sour grapes’.

In my experience ‘sour grapes’ is still too prevalent on the PR side when pitches are lost. I think that given the subjective nature of PR it’s much more difficult to avoid this. However, being more professional in preparing PR briefs, and running competitive PR pitches would help alleviate some of this (but I suppose you might argue that I would say that given that helping run pitch and tender processes is part of my business!).

It’s a shame that AANA keeps what’s discussed at its forum’s strictly for members. Perhaps the PRIA , the IABC or the Registered Consultants Group within the PRIA could consider tapping into the experience AANA members have in managing agencies. Based on the limited reporting from the AANA HotHouse I’m sure PR Managers – and PR agencies – would get great value from their experience and insights.

Are PR Audits about to come back into favour?

Grant — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:34:07 +0000

Judging by what I’ve been reading lately there seems to be a resurgence internationally in the PR audit – a tool that I used quite a lot in my early days of public relations, but which little has been heard of in recent years.

A US blog PR Audit: A Critical Path to Measuring Success sums up quite nicely the parameters around a PR Audit and if the concept is entirely foreign to you then this is probably a great way to bring yourself up to date.

As I see it most Australian PR professionals are on top of messaging these days – which wasn’t the case a decade ago.

Where a PR Audit adds value is that it looks beyond day-to-day messaging and delivery of communication. Rather it focuses on more fundamental questions that range from the structure of the PR function within the organisation to the effectiveness of the communication that is taking place.

In my experience some PR Directors and Managers can get quite defensive about PR Audits, thinking that they are going to find holes in what they are doing.

I think that’s short-sighted. In fact I think PR Audits are a great way to demonstrate to management what PR is already achieving and what more could be achieved.

They are particularly useful in better aligning PR and communication strategies with business objectives. And if a PR Director or PR Manager ever wanted to make a case for an expansion of the PR Department, or a change in reporting lines then there’s nothing better than a PR Audit (with the right terms of reference) to provide the ammunition.

Frankly I’m surprised that management doesn’t insist on PR Audits being done on a more regular basis given the size of some PR Departments. However, I guess few in management even know that the PR Audit tool and other techniques are available.

The bottom line is that a PR Audit can be as narrow or broad as you wish it to be.

Based on what I’m reading from overseas perhaps we will see an upsurge in PR audits in the next year or so.

BRW article highlights PR agency relationship challenges

Grant — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 05:33:32 +0000

This week’s BRW (June 3-9) focuses on what I believe is the tip of an iceberg in Australia – a quite widespread ‘disconnect’ between organisations and their PR agencies and PR consultants.

Quite simply I believe that most organisations are simply are not getting the most from their PR agencies or consultants; largely because they don’t know how-to!

Too often they are only getting half of the benefit they should expect from using a PR agency or consultant. And they often know it!

BRW touches on the topic in its article on public relations – but mainly from an SME perspective.

Their front cover sets the scene by proclaiming ‘Using Spin Doctors – get the most from PR firms’.

Inside in its ‘The business end section’ Leo D’Angelo Fisher examines how small to mid sized companies such as business software company Attache, accounting firm William Buck and management consultant Vantage have struggled to find the right public relations relationship – and deliverables.

Leo D’Angelo Fisher sought my views, and quotes me in his article on public relations, because to the best of my knowledge I am the only person in Australia who specialises in helping internal PR Directors and Managers in a range of areas including how to better manage their relationship with PR agencies and consultants.

As well I’ve written several previous articles on managing client and PR agency relationships in PR Influences including articles about making internal and external PR work, how to get the most out of external PR resources as well as providing tips for first time users of public relations.

Of course the temptation is to confine the issue BRW highlights mainly to the SME market.

Not only does that sector often attract PR agencies who know little more than publicity. SME companies seeking PR are often first time users who have unrealistic perspectives, and expectations, of what PR might do for them – – and especially how quickly they can expect to see results. Not to mention limited budgets to achieve it!

But in my experience the ‘disconnect’ extends right up the corporate tree to some of the biggest users of external PR services.

While there are some very capable PR agencies around that have the ability to really add value to their clients’ businesses, having spent 30 years on the agency side of the fence it’s my belief that I know that many PR Directors and PR Managers often don’t know how to get the best out of their PR agency.

There are many reasons – indirect and direct- that can contribute to this. They include:

People issues:
• A lack of senior management commitment to PR which inhibits the whole relationship with the PR agency, and especially attempts to make the PR agency more accountable.
• A lack of knowledge by the PR Director or Manager as to how PR agencies work and what is ‘best practice’ in client-agency relationships.
• International management from people with the organisation who don’t understand the Australian environment.

Structural issues:
• Functional reporting line issues around marketing, HR, PR etc.
• International reporting line issues.
• A lack of clear definition of the role of internal v external PR and communication, resulting in ambiguity re the PR agency role and contribution.

Deliverable issues:
• Not having a clearly enough defined view of the role PR and communication can play in helping achieve business outcomes.
• Too much focus on ‘outputs’ rather than ‘outcomes’ from PR agency.

PR agency management issues:
• Ambiguity in reporting and responsibility.
• A lack of clear process and procedure in the day-to-day PR relationship.
• No regular or annual review process.
• No dispute procedures or mechanisms for addressing relationship issues
• No formal contract.

The role of a PR Director or PR Manager can be lonely and challenging. On the one hand dealing with the internal challenges and politics; on the other hand having to manage an external resource, often without the necessary first-hand knowledge and experience.

In my experience most PR Directors and Managers value and respect their PR agency. However, they often know in their heart that the results could be better and that both parties would be happier if some issues could be addressed and solved.

Most PR Directors and Managers also know that it is their responsibility to solve these issues. Regrettably few seem prepared to take the steps necessary to achieve this, which is a shame.

PS You might be interested in other recent blogs I have posted on this topic under PR Agency Relationships

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.

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

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!

An important role for the PR professional in managing risk

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.

No related posts.

Australian PR Managers and agencies put in spotlight by court cases

Grant — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:04:28 +0000

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!

5 actions to get PR recognised in the C-suite

Grant — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:08:31 +0000

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.

Nestlé Facebook controversy: another reason why PR should control social media

Grant — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:02:32 +0000

Australian PR Directors and Managers looking at the Nestlé Facebook controversy that is reverberating around the marketing world should be looking behind the conversations that are taking place about the power of the consumer and what Nestlé is judged or perceived to have done wrong in the way it handled consumers.

The real questions for those responsible for public relations and communication revolve around the principles that govern the use of social media within your organisation.

The fundamental question is whether companies really understand the ramifications of getting into social media.

In all the commentary that has flowed over recent days by far the best I have seen is ‘7 social media lessons from Nestlé’s Facebook missteps’ from Andy Beaupre on ragan.com.

But in an otherwise excellent overview piece Andy doesn’t touch on who should control social media.

To me it’s a fundamental issue that all organisations who embark on the social media journey need to get right.

It’s about the purpose and authority of public relations within an organisation and the role of PR versus marketing.

I posed this question last November when I wrote that social media should be under the control of PR.

Among other things I pontificated that “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”.

What I didn’t comment about in that article, but which the Nestlé example shows, is that any social media gaffe has the real potential to break-out into mainstream traditional media. And who is expected to deal with it then? The PR Director or Manager of course!

Most Australian organisations of any size have strict policies, rules, protocols and processes around dealing with the media. For large organisations only executives who have undertaken media training are allowed anywhere near the media – and often even senior executives do this having their hand held by the professionals.

Yet with the advent of social media we increasingly find that the gung ho people in marketing, often working with a bunch of people from ad land or interactive agencies, are increasingly being allowed to set up direct communication channels with consumers. There’s little control over them, and in the main they have no knowledge, or experience, let alone training, about how to engage or converse with critics.

What’s also overlooked is that increasingly consumer and environmental advocates, who for a long time have had to try and get their message to the consumer through the media gatekeepers, now find it much more productive to use social media channels.

While an organisation may effectively block or barricade the front door (i.e. through traditional media) these people can now come in an unlocked back door (i.e. social media), knowing that it’s a soft target protected by a bunch of product and brand people who have no idea about issues. They can easily be brushed aside and/or used. It just another version of guerilla tactics!

If I was an Australian PR Director or Manager and part of my KPI’s were based on maintaining levels of corporate reputation I would want to ensure that I had control over all the touch points that impact on that reputation.

The Nestlé Facebook controversy should be a wake-up call to ensure that social media becomes a PR responsibility.

Read an article I have previously written in PR Influences which covers:

How does the advent of Online change communication strategy and tactics?
How do you cope with rumour, innuendo and falsehoods online?
Why pr is the tool to use in online communities?
Five tips for engaging with the online community

Australian online newsroom survey – food for thought for PR Directors

Grant — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:33:13 +0000

A survey about the adoption of online newsrooms by some of Australia’s leading brand companies, released in the last few days by PR agency Burson-Marsteller, should provide food for thought for Australian PR Directors and Managers.

The basic conclusion of the survey is that online newsrooms are poor because they are either not providing a comprehensive enough range of content, or using the latest technology tools to raise the level of functionality of the sites.

It’s a superficially interesting survey and while it purports to survey Australia’s 20 leading brands as defined by Interbrand, it doesn’t actually list what these organisations are (you have to go and search for yourself).

It also means that because the survey is about brands it misses some of other large organisations whose inclusion in the survey may have added further useful data.

Most importantly (to me) it doesn’t make any of the observations, findings or conclusions specific to the Australian brands/newsrooms it surveyed – apart from nominating Telstra’s as best practice. I can’t help but suspect that client sensitivities got in the way.

For these reasons, while I think the survey is useful and interesting, and B&M should be congratulated for doing it, in my view it only deserves a rating of 6/10 when it could have been 9/10.

But to me the real interest is not what information and tools the companies surveyed are using or not using. To me the issue is why? How come intelligent and online savvy PR Directors and Managers who in the main understand the needs of the media are failing to come up to scratch (in B&M’s view)?

Online newsrooms are not new. Some years ago I did extensive research into them with the intention of launching a local Australian service – which for various reasons I decided not to proceed with.

However I’ve written about them over the years in PR Influences and one article I wrote in 2005 gives some simple advice which is still relevant (although of course the technology has moved a long way since then).

In my view there are three principal issues and challenges that PR Directors and Managers face in getting Online Newsrooms up and running in their organisations:

1. They don’t always have control. PR Directors and Manager’s battle internally over the question of ownership of web based communication and social media. Even though it’s called an Online Newsroom Marketing often wants to take ownership and control. Regardless, unless there’s cooperation between the two, and agreement on the reasons for having an Online Newsroom, the result can fail to satisfy any of the external audiences.
2. There’s the philosophical argument as to whether an Online Newsroom should be passive or interactive and what elements it should contain. Perspectives vary from it being seen as simply a repository of information – like an electronic media kit – to it as an inter-active tool based around social media principles. Sometimes this is determined corporately as a matter of policy. But some is determined by the vision (or lack of it) coming from the PR Director or Manager.
3. Regardless of all this the issue often comes back to the turf war with the IT Department and/or their external technical providers. IT Department’s are notoriously uncooperative and often they simply cannot provide the functionality that many in PR and marketing take for granted.

But the biggest problem is that too many efforts to build Online Newsroom’s become production driven and internally focused. The real challenge is put the tensions and rivalry between PR, marketing and IT to one side and focus on who the end audience is and what they are looking for.

There’s plenty of survey’s around (albeit international) on online newsrooms that provide a real insight into what media want, and don’t want, and what works for them and doesn’t.

This 2009 Online Newsroom Survey from TEKgroup International is a good starting point – along with Burson-Marsteller’s Australian perspective.