Catching up accounts keeps me quiet

I’ve been a bit quiet blogwise for a few days – busy doing my personal tax return and also the accounts and VAT return for MIPAA Limited. I don’t dislike accounts, but find you really need to dedicate time and I am fitting these in around multi-tasking a million and one other things (let’s not talk about the marking mountain for example). I really do try not to work just to deadlines, but all too often find myself in the wrong quarter of Covey’s time management grid – urgent and important. Anyway, Wednesday is another busy day out of the office – with a committee meeting for MIPAA and then the CIPR qualifications graduation ceremony in London. I’m also collecting my Accredited Practitioner certificate at the event. It will be good to catch up with both committee members earlier in the day and successful graduates in the evening. I’m also looking forward to playing with my new SmartNav system which Phil Hale, new Head of PR at TrafficMaster has arranged to be fitted to my Mercedes. I am sure with the ever increasing traffic on the major roads this will be helpful. I’ll blog more after my first aided journey.

Canadian radio spins spin…

Boyd Neil highlights a new six part Canadian radio series on Spin.  As he indicates, there seems to be the usual lack of understanding of public relations here (in favour of puns such as Spindustrial Revolution).  Read the interviewer’s transcripts and listen to the programme yourself - CBC Spin Cycles.  Only two episodes so far – but this looks like building into an interesting resource.

Does blogging offer a real return?

Charlene Li reports some interesting work from Forrester Research into the return on investment of corporate blogging.  She also includes reference to a case study on General Motors Fastlane blog.  Here is a graphic which shows some useful metrics.

Are you trying too hard?

Seth Godin has an interesting work in progress called Levels of Effort in relation to marketing.  The four levels are:

• no effort: hobbyists or wannabes who never really get anything done,  
• right effort: effective because exactly what is required has been done,
• too much effort: the hard-seller who spams and over-uses any and every technique,
• no (apparent) effort: those who don’t appear to try, but just get it right 

This last category is the one that interests Godin – as he feels it is confident and attracts others from the “power it projects”.   This isn’t about success because it is in the right place, reflecting best practice, or getting the 1% return on a mass mailing.

Rather it is about hitting a zeitgeist – having a reputation that speaks for itself.  The same thinking could be applied to public relations.

I also think it applies to PR students.  At a meeting of the assessment working group for the CIPR qualifications this week, we were discussing how successful PR submissions are more than the sum of the parts of, for example, when assessing a press release task. 

Of course there are some students who put in no effort – they might be lucky and pass, but probably won’t.  Others put in the right effort, follow the exact rules and do just what is required – gaining a strong pass, maybe a merit.  Some, put in too much effort – every bell and whistle – and often end up missing the pass mark.  The real stars are those who don’t appear to try but deliver really interesting work – sometimes it doesn’t even tick the boxes, but every marker agrees it is an excellent assignment.

What I’m left wondering is can this “it” factor be taught or learned or is it like “cool”, just something you know when you see it?

To infinity and beyond…

My grandmother’s hallway used to contain two mirrors on opposing walls – as a child I remember the odd feeling of seeing images of images of images into infinity.  I had a similar thought when reading the story of how speed cameras in Scotland may be monitored by CCTV cameras.   

What’s the point of Wikipedia?

Lots of online discussion about Microsoft and Wikipedia relating to whether companies, and their public relations people, should be able to amend the official entries – and in this case, pay an “independent” author to do so. 

Stuart Bruce feels the resource should be open to input from all sources, provided an entry is accurate.   I tend to agree – and that references to show the origins of information are essential so they can be checked and any bias determined.

Again this is an ethical issue – something Web 2.0 seems good at throwing up as everyone finds their way around this new world.  It would be good if there wasn’t so much wheedling to find questionable ways around the open and transparent nature of social media, but similarly, there is a lot of virtuous over-reacting too.

Wikipedia is a really useful resource – particularly as a starting point for students.  It shouldn’t be taken as some great authority on everything and anything – but as an accessible viewpoint, it has great merit.  The ability to follow links and check further is its greatest virtue – as that encourages independent investigation and a skeptical mind. 

Provided others who disagree with an entry can verify their position in making amendments,  then Wikipedia entries can dynamically evolve.  It shouldn’t be about propaganda or sanitised entries, but we shouldn’t discount input from those who are the subject of an entry.

When bad news is big news

Global headlines shout that Ford made its biggest ever loss - $12.7 BILLION in 2006 - the detail shows a few rays of sunlight, particularly with profit in Europe, although British brands, LandRover and Jaguar, don’t fare too well.

Financial results need to be presented accurately – but big bad news can affect morale and confidence all round.  Thousands of online news reports, hundreds of blog posts and the attention of mainstream media across the world presents a huge challenge to the PR team managing this announcement.

What is vital is to create positive momentum from bad news – Marks & Spencer is now generating great headlines and good news stories.  It is hard when bad news is big news, but brands like M&S and Ford have goodwill behind them – let’s hope the mighty blue oval can equally turn things around.

To err is human – except in business

Looking through the list of 101 dumbest moments in business on CNN Money – there is definitely a lot that public relations practitioners can learn.  But which of us has never made a mistake?  A quick look through famous quotations shows us, most great minds feel to err is a good thing:

• “A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.” - George Bernard Shaw
• “An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.” – Danish physicist, Niels Bohr
• “Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.” – Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere’s Fan, 1892, Act III
• “Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.” – Confucius 

Of course companies should not deliberately make errors – and some particularly dumb examples could easily be avoided.  But perhaps it is time to debunk the myth of rational management and recognise that things will go pear-shaped sometimes.  Only that way can businesses be allowed to try new things and learn from their mistakes.

Should BMW care about looted bikes?

Stuart Wragg asks whether companies such as BMW, (whose products have been looted from beaches following the grounding of cargo ship MSC Napoli) have any public responsibility – especially if their goods are consequently sold on via Ebay or otherwise.

I’m sure the corporate legal guys have been on the case, since there are issues over registration and warranties (not least because the bikes and car parts were bound for South Africa).  

But no response yet via public relations?  Motorcyclist reports the story – but no quotes or reflection on the legal and other implications.  Guido Alexander near Stuttgart states BMW “has appointed a recovery agency to track down missing goods” and cites a spokeswoman (presumably at Munich HQ):  “we will have to wait until we can start salvaging to see what has gone overboard.”

I presume a decision was made not to make a public statement – although “nicking” a BMW motorbike has become the iconic meme of the story.  As Stuart says, maybe publicly supporting the police on this occasion would have been useful.

Do I know you?

News bureau chief, Adam Reuter has interviewed Richard Edelman, CEO of the world’s biggest independent public relations firm, in SecondLife (well really at the World Economic Forum in Davos). 

Presenting this in a virtual world is rather peculiar since Edelman’s latest Trust Barometer research highlights the importance of “people like you” as the most trusted.  I’m bemused to see an interview of an avatar rather than a straight video post – isn’t this impersonal and less trustworthy?

The Trust Barometer results have been covered from a number of angles in blogosphere – owing to the attendance of many big hitters at the launch of the survey.  But I haven’t seen anyone noting the irony in the methodology.  The FT reports the 3,000 opinion leaders surveyed are college (University) educated, have an annual income of $75-100,000 and have a significant interest in economics and politics; reading or viewing several media each day.  Does this make them like most people – or are respondents saying they trust others with these “above average” characteristics?

Ian Delaney presents an interesting table from the research that reveals declining credibility for most types of spokespeople (in UK, France and Germany).  Academics in particular have fallen in credibility – which could be the consequence of their participation in pseudo-surveys.  Similarly celebrities (entertainer/athlete) are seen as a credible source of information by only one in ten respondents (from 12% last year).

This is mirrored by low ranking – and a slump in credibility – for PR executives – down to 9% of respondents (from 16% a year earlier) reporting information from this source as credible.  What the general categories don’t necessarily draw out is whether a personal connection with a PR person, for example, makes them more credible.  I feel such studies rely more on stereotypes than drawing on anyone’s real life experience.  Reinforcing the negative reputation over the professional reality for many in PR.

Trust also depends on the context, which can get lost in a broad survey.  The Oxford English Dictionary provides many perspectives on trust – from belief in reliability and reliance on truth without examination, to confident expectation and obligations of responsibility.

So if public relations practitioners want to be more trusted – and likewise their spokespersons – a greater focus on the reliability and truthfulness of communications, delivery on the expectations we create and fulfilling our obligations to be responsible must be key.

Tech Tags: trust public_relations credibility responsibility trust_barometer edelman reuter ian_delaney