Why is it that a PR agency can be ‘let go’ by one client for allegedly not performing, yet can win accolades by another client – more often than not a competitor to its original client?

What set me thinking about this were a couple of excellent – but different – commentaries I came across in recent weeks – a US perspective and an Australian perspective by Jocelyn Hunter, of Bench PR.

One of the points in both these – from an agency perspective – is the impact that the client giving recognition and praise to the agency can have on the performance of the PR agency and how it motivates them to go that extra mile.

It’s a bit sad in some ways that PR agencies need to have their egos stroked. However, PR agency life can be pretty demanding and sometimes the team working on the business don’t get the thanks they deserve from their own management, so client recognition can often be leveraged a long way. 

I’ve written several articles on the topic of client and PR agency relationships of which one on dysfunctional PR agency relationships which talks about what I believe is at the axis of every ‘dodgy’ client-agency relationship – issues of power and a failure of process.

In some ways the client-PR agency relationship is a bit like an iceberg. There’s the part you see on top, but underneath it there’s a whole lot more happening that’s not visible. 

In my experience the relationship at the top between the PR Director or Manager and the PR agency head or account director can be fine. But there can be real frictions among staff on both sides underneath these two that can undermine the whole relationship.

Without wanting to sound too much like an ‘old codger’ I think part of the problem is the lack of real business and life appreciation on both sides of the fence.

When I started out PR Directors were, in the main, professionals who had come into PR from journalism or had other corporate skills. They knew their way around the traps and understood how business worked. Likewise on the PR agency side where there wasn’t much room for juniors. 

Today, with much more professionalism around PR and communication (which is a good thing), most of those in PR in both the client and agency know nothing else apart from what they have been doing –public relations or communication.

That’s because they’ve graduated with a PR or communications degree and gone straight into an in-house or agency role.

I think that too often PR agency people don’t have a clue as to how business works, the pressures, protocols and processes that internal corporate public relations and communications people have to go through. That makes them unnecessarily intolerant about how their clients act and behave.

Likewise I think that the public relations and communications folk in corporate life often don’t really understand how a PR agency operates and pressures and obligations they have to meet. That makes them oblivious as to what they need to do to get the best performance from their agency.

I think there’s probably an opportunity for a lot more education to, from and about both sides – corporate and PR agencies. But would the egos and self-pride on both sides allow them to admit that perhaps there are some things they need to learn?

No related posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I doubt it.  (And so do others )

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

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

No related posts.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No related posts.

What a PR disaster to start the New Year! Hard on the heals of the public relations challenges the Australian banking industry struggled against late last year a group of retailers from the Australian retail industry has scored a spectacular ‘own goal’ with its advertising campaign against the evils of online trading.

One of the basic principles of PR is to avoid giving potential ‘bad news’ stories or issues more ‘air’ by commenting on, or highlighting, them. Often it just gives the ‘other side’ more credibility.

However, through their advertising and the predicted publicity it generated, retailers have just given the online industry the arguably the biggest publicity boost they have ever had. Talk about ‘own goals’ and ‘shooting oneself in the foot’.

This has to be one of the classics ‘how-not-to-do it’ PR exercises of recent times.

If, as has been reported, only about 3 percent of all Australian retail sales are made online, then it’s reasonable to assume that probably less than 10 percent Australian consumers may be active online.

As a result of the wall-to-wall publicity on television, radio and in our papers what’s the betting that a large number of consumers have already, or will soon, be looking online to see what the fuss is all about and to really compare prices.

The big retailers have, through their ill-judged (in my opinion) actions, not only publicised online retailing and bought it to the forefront of consumer’s minds. They have legitimised the online industry and the products they are selling.

What muddled thinking could have possibly led the Australian retail industry down this track?

Why would they take out paid advertisements aimed at the 150 or so Members of Parliament when they would also be read by the 10/12 million Australian adult consumers?

Why did they ever think there was a parallel with the 2010 campaign by the mining industry? That industry was entirely different. It touched comparatively few Australians. There were a whole lot of other political factors connected with this issue.

Did they ever consider what the ‘opinion formers’ and ‘influencers’ (media, Choice etc) might think, and say, about such a campaign and what influence this would have on ordinary consumers?

Did they ever consider what their customers might think, or how they might react, to a campaign that was inherently critcising them and accusing them of not being loyal to Australian retailers?

Did they not realise that their action was like throwing a match into a patch of dry grass? That it would encourage the media to investigate the whole issue of online versus retail prices? And that it would likely encourage Australian consumers (their customers) to actually try this alternative method of buying goods?

In my pre-Christmas blog about the Australian banking industry I commented/inferred that in my considerable experience in working in PR for industry groups that there seemed to be a disconnect between what executives/management did when promoting their own brands compared to what they did when looking at the world from an industry perspective.

Little did I think that in such a short time there would be such a vivid example!

Interestingly, one of the side issues is that this campaign not come from the Australian Retailers Association. Rather it is the action of an alliance of 21 key retailers- including Harvey Norman, Myer and David Jones - who are ‘doing their own thing’ . One can only imagine the splits this campaign, and the aftermath to it, are likely to cause within the wider Australian retail industry.

In fact, the Australian retailing industry has its share of issues over unity and direction as there are several different bodies representing various sectors, including the Alliance of Australian Retailers, whose own public campaign around the display of cigarettes was not without considerable controversy.

However from my perspective the sad thing is that this debacle reflects on the PR industry. One assumes that somewhere in the undergrowth there was PR input. One can only wonder whether this was as considered as it might have been? Or did the retailers simply go on their own?

PS Since writing this blog I have become aware (through the Sydney Morning Herald) that a PR agency was behind the Australian retailers campaign. It is not my desire to openly criticise fellow PR practitioners, or PR agencies, and I did consider not posting this blog. But on reflection, given that I am an independent consultant and commentator with no PR agency affiliations or vested interests, I decided to proceed with what I believe is fair comment.

No related posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compliments of the season.

No related posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No related posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No related posts.

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.