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

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

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

But here are some of the comments made by participants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No related posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No related posts.

How does one distinguish between the role played by persons with the title Public Relations, Corporate Affairs and Corporate Relations in Australia’s largest companies?

These questions are sparked by an article ‘‘Corporate Affairs Calls in Big Guns’ in The Australian on Friday the 13th of November by Geoff Allen, the eminent and well-respected Founder of the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs.

His article, written on the back of the appointment of former WA premier, and ex journalist, Alan Carpenter to a ‘corporate affairs’ role at Wesfarmers argues that this is evidence of a raise in ‘public’ or ‘corporate affairs’ as a high-level strategic function within companies.

He claims corporate affairs executives are the “acknowledged authority on social and political environments” and that these executives now manage a number of functions that have hitherto been managed at a “lower level” including government relations and public policy, media and communications and internal communications.

And those who are best equipped to fulfill these roles, claims Allen, are principally those with a high-profile political experience.

There should be no questioning of Allen’s central argument that it’s becoming critically important for major companies that they begin to understand, and deal more effectively, with their social and political environment; also his arguments for this to be integrated into strategic planning. And yes, people who understand the political process are a vital part of this.

However, as a ‘pr veteran’ it seems to me that Allen (and others) bend over backwards to avoid using the term ‘public relations’ despite the fact that in its purest form it is designed to  incorporate most of the very principles that Allen espouses.

In fact in Wikipedia many of the functions Allen mentions are seen as a sub-set of public relations!  Furthermore, the practice of public relations is ethically controlled through bodies such as PRIA and PRSA and hundreds of universities worldwide which teach public relations.

In the US there is even a trend towards the creation of a new function of Chief Communications Officer – which is incorporates a strong public relations bias.

Where then do Public Affairs, Corporate Affairs and Corporate Relations sit as functions, roles or titles?

A couple of decades back Public Affairswas an alternative term that was in vogue. However, that terminology is now deemed dated and too restrictive as illustrated by the role of the  Institute of Public Affairs.

Allen’s use of the term Corporate Affairs raises many questions.  Is it a discipline or a function?  Is there a body of knowledge around it?  Is it taught in University? How does one set out to develop a career in Corporate Affairs?  What knowledge does one need about communication? Who does one look up to as ultimate practitioners of the craft?

Corporate Affairs is not in Wikipedia. Google it and you end up with a whole lot of mentions related to the Australian Corporate Affairs Commission.  Corporate Relations does have references in some relative context, but they pale in significance compared to public relations.

It’s not just an Australian issue. – similar questions are being asked in the US.  However as a previous  blog outlines the PRSA is embarking on a major exercise to change perceptions about, and revive the reputation of, PR called the Business Case for Public Relations. I suspect that will help.

However, the most important question out of all this is not about what Corporate Affairs means. It’s what does this all mean for public relations. More specifically what does this mean for the graduates in public relations trying to climb up the ladder within companies?

Allen’s article is evidence that more debate is required with respect to the roles, titles, positions and responsibilities of those working internally within Australia’s largest organisations in what might loosely be referred to as ‘communications’.

Comments, clarification – and opposing points-of-view – are welcome.

No related posts.

Today I’m going public with my ‘second pr career’. My ‘announcement’ in the News section explains what I’m on about. Also take a peek at the e-brochure to the right.

A variety of friends and colleagues have known exactly what I’ve been on about since before I closed the Sydney office of Network PR at the end of August.

However, old habits die hard I suppose. As the good PR professional would tell you the key is preparation. You don’t ‘announce’ or ‘launch’ until you’ve done your homework – and got your collateral ready.  Until then you keep your powder dry!

Therefore I’ve used the last couple of months to do my homework. This has involved considerable research to make sure I have a suite of products, services and solutions. I also needed the time to work up this site and produce a brochure.

Some have asked – “are you ready to ‘dump’ on the PR agency business? Are there lots of secrets you want to tell about PR agencies?” The answer is No, and No – well only a little bit!  I guess over coming months a little will seep out. So watch this space.

Rather, my focus is on bringing my experience and insights to the client side of the business – and to act as an advisor, coach, mentor to the PR Director and PR Manager. Over the years I’ve come to appreciate what a tough job they have; and how often, because PR is almost an island in many organisations, they simply don’t have people to lean on for advice and perspective.

PR is maturing – but we need to do better. Our advertising cousins are much more sophisticated in how they manage agency-client relations, and are much more deliberate in how they go about the agency selection process.

Advertising is also better understood within the organisation.  PR often struggles to be understood – often because PR Directors and Managers who are newer in their positions just don’t have the experience and knowledge about how to win the arguments with those that matter.

I don’t have all the answers. But after 30 years I have some – and because of how I think and approach PR and issues surrounding it and sheer volume of experience I have accumulated- more than many.

I’m not looking to build another organisation. In fact quite the reverse; my aim is to never employ another staff member. I’m about imparting my personal knowledge to, and working one-on-one with, a few up-and-coming and receptive professionals, preferably discreetly behind-the-scenes.

After all, I’ve always subscribed to the view that the client is the hero!

No related posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grant

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

Related posts:

1. PR has been slow to get on to the social media bus.
2. Nestlé Facebook controversy: another reason why PR should control social media