A couple of recent matters that caught my eye demonstrate how important it is for Australian public relations and communication managers to make as one of their 2011 priorities a more proactive approach as to how social media is managed and practiced within their organisation.

What sparked this was the recent controversy over Commonwealth Bank’s rather ham-fisted efforts to introduce a social media policy for its staff.

How could a major organisation (and by implication the senior PR, communication and HR people within CBA) seemingly do this so badly?

Immediately CBA released its policy the Financial Services Union got into the act with a scathing expose of CBA’s perceived inadequacies. If the media is to believed the FSU forced CBA to back down and revise and/or rewrite its social media staff policy. How embarrassing!

These days, given the amount of information on the internet, there’s no excuse for organisations making these kinds of gaffes. If you are a PR or communications manager there are so many ways to find out how to approach these issues.

One search on Google uncovered for me a great article which included access to six social media policies for employees – including from organisations such as Kodak, Coca-Cola, Kaiser Permanete and General Motors. All great stuff!

However, I’ve also been noticing several articles in marketing and media publications about how 2011 has reportedly been declared (I’m not sure by whom) as the Year of Social Media.

These articles, and the accompanying blogs, mainly focus on the marketing and promotional aspects of social media – seeing it as a promotional and ‘below-the-line’ marketing tool.

I’ve written previously on the need for the PR or communication department to take control of social media; also on how the Nestle controversy reinforced the need.

But here’s an interesting US article, which backs up and is complementary to my earlier article, and gives a number of reasons why social media strategy shouldn’t be owned by either a PR agency or an advertising agency.

Finally while on Google looking into social media policies I came across an interesting piece that examines how the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) in the US is putting the onus on organisations, and their employees, to act when engaging online.

It opens up new trains of thought (and implications for individual employees engaging in social media on behalf of their organisations) that I hadn’t considered before. And, I’m not aware whether Australian regulatory authorities are following the same path as the FTC.

However it’s just one of many elements that any PR or communications manager who seeks to better manage (and control) social media within their organisation needs to come to grips with.

Making better managementof social media as a 2011 priority should not be a grab for power and control. It’s about ensuring that social media is integrated into the public relations and communications values and strategy. But most importantly its about empowering employees and making use of the power they possess to favourably represent the company, organisation or brand.

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.

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.

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.

There’s a huge amount of very good PR and communications work being done in-house in Australia in both the corporate and Government sectors. Why then are PR Directors and PR Managers not more active in trying to submit their corporate internal and external work for critical acclaim? 

That’s what comes to my mind when I read the 2010 award winners from the  PRIA (Public Relations Institute of Australia).

That’s not to decry any of the latest winners. As usual there’s some great work that has – quite rightly – been acclaimed.

However, I can’t help but think that the PRIA awards are not really judging the best of all the PR and communications work done in Australia over the past twelve months.

Tim Burrowes’, editor of the media and marketing website MUmBRELLA, has done a bit of stirring by asking why none of the multinational PR agencies are among this years winners.  The reactions to his blog are worth a read.

Burrowes’ does have a point. However I think he’s asking the wrong question.

To me the issue is not really whether it’s local or multinational PR agencies that are winning.  I think the real question to be asked is why more in-house PR Departments for both corporates and Government are not submitting.

My perception (which I’ve held for a number of years – even when working on the agency side) is that the PRIA awards are mainly a showcase for PR agencies. It seems the majority of entries – even when campaigns by large organisations are entered – are being made by PR agencies on behalf of clients.

While I don’t have access to the numbers of entries being made, superficially it appears that because of the bias towards entries from PR agencies the PRIA is only evaluating or judging a proportion of the PR campaigns and programs being undertaken in Australia.

Are they evaluating only 40% or 60%?  I have a sneaking suspicion they might be!

I’m not sure whether this situation is a result of the PRIA deliberately angling towards it’s predominately PR agency membership or whether there something restrictive about the structure of the awards and the classifications under which award entries can be made.

Or is it just apathy coming from the senior in-house corporate and Government PR and communications professionals?

Clearly PR agencies use the winning of awards as a way of showcasing their expertise and marketing themselves. And why not?

And the not-for-profits rightfully compete for their fair share of the spoils.

However, there are equal benefits to be gained from PR Directors and PR Managers also winning awards. The work involved in preparing a submission including all the necessary measurement benchmark can:

o Help to demonstrate to senior management the contribution PR makes to the business,
o Help to informally benchmark the PR effort compared to other like organisations,
o Recognise and reward internal PR department staff and assist in the recruitment of new staff,
o Help boost the credentials and standing of the PR Director or PR Manager – which can have immediate personal benefits for them within the organisation, and potentially longer term career benefits.

Dare I also say that organisations that deliberately seek to enter, and win, PR awards even have the potential to be recognised as premier clients for PR agencies to vie for!

Above all the standards of the whole PR industry would arguably be raised if more of the work being done in-house were to be showcased through participation in an award system.

It seems to me that in Australia there is a gap in our PR award system. The PRIA awards seem skewed towards PR agencies while the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) is skewed towards recognition of internal communication.

Does anyone out there who is closer to either PRINZ or IABC have any viewpoints or insights that might either support or challenge my premise?

Footnote: As an aside MUmBRELLA ran a story on the awards, and published the full list of winners, last Tuesday (October 26) after the announcement was made at the PRIA conference in Darwin the night before. Yet a week after the awards were made (Monday October 25) PRIA still has no list of the 2010 winners on its ‘new’ website – just the list of winners in previous years! PRIA has to be careful that it doesn’t get carried away with the look of its new website and forget about the content.

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.

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.

No related posts.

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.

No related posts.

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

No related posts.