Grant Common's PR Acumen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An important role for the PR professional in managing risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial media coverage: Discredited AVE’s on the PR agenda again

Grant — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:40:30 +0000

Here we go again. The old hoary topic of AVE’s (advertising value equivalents) as a way of measuring the value of editorial media coverage seems to be getting another airing within the Australian PR industry. Surely there are not many PR Manager’s around who subscribe to this approach!

To be fair it’s not a debate that has been started by PR professionals. In fact it has been sparked by a new service launched by Media Monitors, which in its announcement claims the tool will “provide the region’s most comprehensive quantitative analysis tool for editorial content across all media types”.

It calls it “a measurement methodology that incorporates data on page impressions, unique visitors, content style, advertising rates, size, language scaling and placement to provide instantly comparable advertising space rates (ASR) across internet monitoring content.”

The announcement has led to an encouraging debate on Mumbrella, the media and marketing portal. Encouraging in that the majority view seems to be strongly against the whole initiative!

On Mumbrella Brendan Swale, Product Director at Media Monitors, rushes out in defence to say “that’s not what we really mean”. As he appears to backtrack at great speed he even goes so far as to say “Media Monitors does not believe that ASRs or AVEs are in any way a measurement of the value of public relations or communications, nor do they inform future strategy, which is what good outcome based measurement provides (which Media Monitors also provides)”.

It must be the time of the year for the reincarnation of discredited concepts. I was in New Zealand recently and I was told that the PR subsidiary of an ad agency had made a presentation arguing for the use of AVE’s. I’m told they were pretty much howled down by the PR pros in the room. Good on them.

This is a topic I’ve written on for a long time. I see that in PR Influences I wrote as long ago as 2001 about how the PRIA had joined other PR organisations around the world in rejecting AVE’s as a legitimate form of measuring the value of editorial coverage in media.

Back in March when I blogged on a US PR measurement survey I used the opportunity to canvass the whole topic again so I won’t go over it again.

If you are interested in the topic of PR and editorial measurement I’ve written more than a dozen articles previous articles on, and around, this topic.

The PRIA has even produced a White Paper – Advertising Values to Measure PR – Why They Are Invalid.

I am sure that the debate on Mumbrella is just warming up. Certainly it’s worth taking a look at what’s being said, and especially the comments of Brendan Swale from Media Monitors.

As is the norm these days Media Monitors says that it welcomes the open debate on the topic. So much so that they’ve decided to invite anyone interested to join them for free drinks on July 22. Details are yet to be advised – which makes it sound a tad like a bit of a last minute crisis control exercise!

Interestingly Media Monitors has new owners – one of those private equity investors. One wonders what they think (or understand) about these issues.

PR has been slow to get on to the social media bus.

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

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

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

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

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

1. Beware when ego takes over.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Language and tone create the expectation.

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

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

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

6. It starts with the internal communication.

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

7. Don’t confuse image with reputation.

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

8. The best PR is when others say it!

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

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

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

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

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

PR has been slow to get on to the social media bus.

Grant — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:51:37 +0000

Two of my pet PR discussion topics of recent times – web sites and social media – are both getting attention this week.

I’ve argued for well over five years that web sites are just another media channel and that the PR industry had been negligent in not understanding how to galvanise the power of web sites through using search engine optimization (SEO) techniques.

I’ve also argued that social media was principally a PR tool and that, yet again it was an example of the PR industry being slow to ‘catch on’, abdicating to interactive and digital agencies, and the perennial bottom feeders – advertising agencies.

In fact, recently in a blog, as a consequence of the Nestle controversy, I argued that it was time for PR Departments to take the bull by the horns and take control of the social media function. I’ve also recently asked the question as to how much control PR manager’s have over their organisation’s web site.

On this second topic there has been an interesting blog by TalentZoo this week arguing exactly the same proposition, with some good responses and discussions which I would recommend to any PR director or manager.

On the more general issue of web sites and social media a study this week by web analytics company Webtrends claims that web sites were overtaken by social media at the end of 2009, that we are about to move to Web 3.0 and and social media itself is forecast to peak (at least in the US) by 2012.

While a number of PR agencies in Australia have now jumped onto the social media bandwagon, I take some pride in the fact that the agency that I ran until last September – Network PR – was the first in Australia to seriously get into both search optimization and social media.

Alas I/we were ahead of our time. As was proven by the experience of The Population, a specialist social media agency, set-up by Photon Group with great fanfare and then closed just a few months ago, the market was just not there.

Why?

First, as I said both Network PR and The Population were ahead of the curve as companies generally did not understand the significance of social media and therefore weren’t prepared to devote budgets, or take the risk, associated with particular medium.

Second, when the marketing departments of companies did begin to wake up, they turned not to PR agencies, but to those they already had a relationship with, and trusted to a degree – the interactive and digital agencies and advertising agencies.

Third, these marketing departments and the product and brand managers within them don’t understand engagement. But they do understand promotion and that’s what the digital, interactive and advertising agencies offered them. It was seen as being less risky, and more just an extension of the marketing techniques that they were already using.

The result is that, in my view, too much of social media work in Australia is promotionally driven; involving gimmicks and competitions, and not enough is about genuine engagement and dialogue which is where PR comes in.

Who can forget the charade that Toyota went through last year, inviting several parties to come up with promotional concepts as their first venture into social media. In my view this showed a complete lack of understanding about the medium and how it can and should be used!

However, to return to my central point the PR industry has only itself to blame for being out maneuvered in the web and social media space. While some PR agencies are starting to do some good work, I still fear it is – in the main – too little and too late. Historically PR has been a very slow adopter of new ideas and technology. We’ve been slow to get on to the web and social media bus!

If anyone has an interest in how PR fits into the web and social media space I’ve previously written about a dozen articles on the subject .

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

Addressing dysfunctional PR agency relationships

Change Management, PR and communication – what a potpurri!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And my overall take from the forum?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I took three major themes from the forum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why professional services’ PR and communication is different

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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